And really I’m talking about our higher limit roadways and highways.

Why can’t we just pick a realistic speed limit and stick to it. The current system is total bullshit. It’s like, yeah, the speed limit is 55, but we’ll give you roughly 10 for free. But that’s just it, it’s rough…it’s an invitation to gamble (I realize I was just in Vegas, but it’s true). You might be OK at ten over with the state patrol, but come Evendale they’re looking for $$$.

The problem is an extension of the way we drive, and our need to get places as fast as possible. Yes, we could take our time, be respectful of other drivers, and only move left to pass…instead we pretend like our lives will be that much more fulfilled if we can save a few precious minutes by zipping past one another, weaving back and forth on the highway.

Plus we have to deal with the one guy wants who wants to go 67, and the guy behind him who decides he’s more comfortable at 68, so they have this sick twisted cruise control battle that I get stuck behind. And I’m part of the problem, I want to go faster than both those jerks, not because I have to, but because I think I can do it without a ticket.

We need to pick realistic limits ~5-10 mph faster on most every road. And instead of one number, you need a range of, let’s say, 5 mph. So cruising down I-75 would read Speed Limits 70-75 (or 75-80 as I would have it). If everyone aims to stay in the middle (and doesn’t fall into the 1 mph battle above), we should all cruise with much less angst. And the numbers on the speed limits sign–yeah, they’re LIMITS. Which means there is no more guess work. If you’re going over or under that, you’re likely to get pulled over. No more slamming on the brakes and slowing down because you see a speed trap and you’re doing five over.

We can leave a slow lane in the far right for the elderly/people that love driving 10 mph below the speed limit for no reason (I hate you!).

I understand we could simply raise the speed limit and actually enforce it, but I think there should be an enforceable minimum as well–if you really want to drive THAT slow, I’m begging you, please move over to the right. Frankly it’s for your safety as much as it’s for my convenience.

Maybe all we need is a higher speed limit/a minimum speed for the left lane or two.

No matter what you do to the speed limit people will still go faster than one another, and there will always be jackasses on the road. I think, however,  the overall pace of traffic would move better if we took out a lot of the wiggle room. At the least I could drive the speed I want without worrying about a ticket. And really, this is all about self-preservation.

If this were on twitter I’d throw in #nevergonnahappen and #inmydreams hashtags….I’m not crazy, just ranting.

As we (hopefully) approach an era of multiple, viable transportation options, we have seen the need for parking increase beyond that of a typical car spot. As the number of bicycle commuters grows, so does the need for more bicycle racks. The same is true of motorcycles and scooters. As gas prices rise, people look for more fuel efficient ways to travel, and a motorcycle or scooter getting between 50-100 mpg fits the bill. The city’s pilot program for 2 wheeled parking has been a great success in giving people the ability to choose a different form of transportation besides the automobile.

Just think about the increase in goofy bastards who don’t walk segway ridership that has people buzzing about town. Eventually those folks might want a better parking option for their personal mover than the current one: lug that thing with you inside your destination.

But today I saw something that I hadn’t thought about before, and that is horse parking. After seeing the scene depicted in the image below, I think it is fair to say the city needs to start a new Pilot Parking Program for Horses. The CPD horse in question was not only tied up in what has to be an illegal horse spot, but it was actually blocking the entrance to a parking lot. Thus, it was taking up about 30 parking spots….

Also included in the updated document is the reiteration that “material connections” between advertisers and endorsers must be made clear. Now, we all know that Peyton Manning isn’t advertising double stuffed oreos because he believes in double cream filling that much. But in cases where a compensated connection isn’t so clear–let’s say a blogger writing a “review” of a certain product that was actually given to them and/or they were compensated for–the FTC says you must now tell us that. From the FTC press release:

Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims.

That extends to a celebrity mentioning a product in non-traditional advertising, such as a talk-show or other interview.

Lastly, the FTC made it clear that both advertisers AND ENDORSERS can be held liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an advertisement. So before you (get paid to) endorse something, make sure it’s the real deal. Which most of us (not that I’m ever paid to endorse anything) do…..and I’m not taking pot shots at anyone specific here.

Please note that these are guidelines, not law:

The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act.

Sorry for the wordy and not-generally-what-this-blog-is-about post, but it caught my attention and figured it was worth writing about.