So is this an actual problem with actual examples? Which states have been trying to unfairly impose their will on the rest of the country? (Bills passed by Congress in the normal way don’t count)
Or is this more of a faith-based, gut feeling that people get, as expressed in songs like this?
OP here.
My point is this. Vermont is not terribly different from say New Hampshire. The northeast is often pretty close to one another with their individual idiocyncracies.
On the other hand, Texas might as well be a totally different country. Alaska is a totally different creature than any other US state.
While New Mexico might not be that much different from Texas, it is not close to Vermont.
What I hate is the Federal Government dictating laws for the entire country that might make great sense in the Pacific Northwest or California that will be received as anathema in Texas.
Some things make perfect sense on a national basis, but a lot of things simply don’t.
LC,
Let’s take Vermont as an example of why federalized traffic laws don’t work.
As you say, Vermont has small cities and not a lot of traffic. Fine, but have you ever driven in west Texas? The fact is that the 55mph speed limit made sense in a lot of the country, but it is absolutely agonizing to have to drive that speed in much of the west.
This is not an issue of population. This is an issue of conditions. You can look at population figures all day long, but until you have to drive in the west, it is hard to comprehend the vast empty spaces. Creating laws in Washington DC based on the conditions common in the NE makes no sense. The fact is that even the highways in the NE bear little resemblance to TX. The highways in the NE are going to be twistier, more congested and in higher population concentrations than Texas. Trust me, pop on the highway from LA to Houston and you will understand. You might go 200 miles where the road veers not at all and there is nothing in the way of buildings.
I see this here in Florida. Florida has an east coast mentality; they simply have no concept of wide, wide open spaces like Arizona, Nevada, Texas, etc. They are common, but also very different. How do you make laws that make sense for Chicago that equally apply to Amarillo, TX? Two different worlds.
As a commercial trucker, who drove 5,000 miles on his vacation, from Ohio to Texas to western Montana, because it was fun, I know exactly what it is like driving those long stretches out west. And the mountain and city driving in the NE.And through the idiot tourists and old folks in Florida. Both in an 18 wheeler and a Honda Civic. In my truck, my speed is governed at 60 MPH by the company to save fuel. On my own time in my car, I top out at 65 MPH, and I only go that fast when the speed limit is 75 or more, to save fuel.
You are missing the point. They didn’t make the speed limit 55 because that is the best speed for driving in the northeast. They did it to save fuel over the entire country. Because doing so made sense for the entire country. And again, any state that really didn’t like it could opt out and set their speed limit to whatever they wanted.
This has been repeated several times already, but I’m not sure you’ve fully grasped that the 55 mph speed limit was about fuel economy, not safety or “making good time” reasons. No matter what state you’re driving in, high speeds waste more gas. So, the 55 mph speed limit, which was imposed during a gas crisis, actually does work equally well in Vermont or Texas. It’s just physics, plain and simple.
Now, I’m not worried at all about the demise of the national speed limit, but if you’re going to criticize it, at least attack the actual premise of why the 55 mph speed limit was imposed.
And you’ll never get 100% of the country to agree on which things fall on which side of the line.
I concede the point that the 55mph speed limit was a fuel saving measure, however, my basic point stands. We have 50 states precisely for the reason that at its core, this is a sectionalized country. All 50 states are not completely different, but the SE, NE, NW and SW are different enough that it makes sense to have more power given to the state. In my lifetime, I have seen so much power being concentrated at the Federal level and worse, Congress has essentially given power over to the Executive branch. The power of the President and the executive level of Government as expressed by the NSA spying is simply frightening.
Clearly guaranteeing the rights of the people is best kept at the Federal level (voting, reproductive rights, etc) to check states that would undermine those rights. It is at the regulatory level that needs to be closer to the State.
Let’s look at NY, NJ and PA, states that all border one another, in rather close proximity. In one state you can get beer at a supermarket, another state 3/4 of restaurants are Bring Your Own because liquor licenses are very restricted, and the other state has beer stores where you can only buy by the case, and they don’t sell liquor at all. Are these states so different that they need such different laws?
My parents live in a PA border town, the place is littered with smoke shops and fireworks stores. Fireworks stores that, mind you, cannot legally sell their wares to PA residents, idiocy.
We don’t really need 50 different liquor laws, 50 different drivers license requirements, 50 different cigarette and gas taxes, etc.