merryb wrote:
> I'm so disgusted by the treatment by Kelloggs towards Michael Phelps.
> He made a mistake by letting someone take a picture of him while he
> was taking a bong hit, but this is ridiculous! It didn't enhance his
> performance, and it had nothing to do with his swimming abilities. I
> guess it's the image thing, but still, I'm boycotting Kelloggs.
> Kelloggs is a food manufacturing company, so I didn't label this as
> OT...Do any of you agree with me?

No.
Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or demote,
anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into their
market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing support of a
"pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to offend someone no
matter what.

On Feb 6, 1:53*pm, Goomba > wrote:
> merryb wrote:
> > I'm so disgusted by the treatment by Kelloggs towards Michael Phelps.
> > He made a mistake by letting someone take a picture of him while he
> > was taking a bong hit, but this is ridiculous! It didn't enhance his
> > performance, and it had nothing to do with his swimming abilities. I
> > guess it's the image thing, but still, I'm boycotting Kelloggs.
> > Kelloggs is a food manufacturing company, so I didn't label this as
> > OT...Do any of you agree with me?
>
> No.
> Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or demote,
> anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into their
> market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing support of a
> "pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to offend someone no
> matter what.

I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...

merryb wrote:

>> Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or demote,
>> anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into their
>> market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing support of a
>> "pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to offend someone no
>> matter what.
>
> I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...

Sure, why wouldn't they be? Stupid comparison, IMO. Buying cereal is
legal everywhere. Buying and smoking pot isn't legal everywhere.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Goomba > :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
>> merryb wrote:
>>
>>>> Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or
>>>> demote, anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into
>>>> their market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing
>>>> support of a "pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to
>>>> offend someone no matter what.
>>> I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...
>> Sure, why wouldn't they be? Stupid comparison, IMO. Buying cereal is
>> legal everywhere. Buying and smoking pot isn't legal everywhere.
>
> And you've never done anything Illegal, right?
>
> Michael
>
Sure I have. But I wasn't being paid to represent an "image" that I
agreed beforehand to do.

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
..
>
> And you've never done anything Illegal, right?
>
> Michael

Being a public figure is not so much fun after a while. I break the law
every day when I drive to work. I'm not on a cereal box either. If someone
paid me a $1 million a year not to go over the speed limit, I'd slow down
and not exceed 64.9 mph

Kelloggs just has to maintain their image. If a pot smoker is OK, why not
crack whores or gas station robber? Do we draw the line at bank robbers?

They had a contract. He screwed up. He sees the consequences. Pretty
simple, I'd say. If they did nothing they'd get crap from the moral
majority or MADD. I guess they'd rather get crap from the pot smokers.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I break the
> law every day when I drive to work. I'm not on a cereal box either.
> If someone paid me a $1 million a year not to go over the speed
> limit, I'd slow down and not exceed 64.9 mph

Thing is, he probably broke his contract, but they aren't
using that to get their money back or anything. They just
aren't renewing him in May or whatever it is. He did
something foolish, got called on it, and he's probably learned
a lot from it. In the meantime, he's made a lot of money.

He seems okay with it.

nancy

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> Goomba > : in

>>> And you've never done anything Illegal, right?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>> Sure I have. But I wasn't being paid to represent an "image" that I
>> agreed beforehand to do.
>
> Then perhaps some legislation to yank someone's nursing credentials if
> they are caught speeding is necessary.
>
> Michael
>
<eye roll> No where in my practice acts does it say "You will not speed
while driving"

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Kelloggs lost their "image" ages ago. No one said anything about pot
> smokers being "OK". My view on it is that they could have spread a lot
> more good will and sent a better message if they had forgiven him, gave
> him a second chance and watched what he did with it. I'm certainly not
> condoning breaking the law.
>
Maybe they considered his previous DUI his first chance, and this was
his second strike? <shrug>

On 07 Feb 2009 14:56:48 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>Goomba > :
>in rec.food.cooking
>
>> merryb wrote:

>And you've never done anything Illegal, right?

Straw man argument. Let only him who is perfect
criticize. Nobody's perfect, therefore criticism is
forbidden. QED.

What Bullshit!

Alex

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:59:17 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>If someone
>paid me a $1 million a year not to go over the speed limit, I'd slow down
>and not exceed 64.9 mph

Errr, the speed limit here is 25! LOL

--
Zilbandy

On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:14:53 -0800 (PST), merryb wrote:

> On Feb 6, 1:53*pm, Goomba > wrote:
>> merryb wrote:
>>> I'm so disgusted by the treatment by Kelloggs towards Michael Phelps.
>>> He made a mistake by letting someone take a picture of him while he
>>> was taking a bong hit, but this is ridiculous! It didn't enhance his
>>> performance, and it had nothing to do with his swimming abilities. I
>>> guess it's the image thing, but still, I'm boycotting Kelloggs.
>>> Kelloggs is a food manufacturing company, so I didn't label this as
>>> OT...Do any of you agree with me?
>>
>> No.
>> Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or demote,
>> anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into their
>> market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing support of a
>> "pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to offend someone no
>> matter what.
>
> I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...

i think they're missing out on a marketing angle here. 'when i get ripped
to the tits, there's nothing like a bowl of shredded wheat with kellogg's
all-natural honey...'

your pal,
blake

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> Goomba > : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >> Goomba > :
> >> in rec.food.cooking
> >>
> >>> merryb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or
> >>>>> demote, anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit
> into
> >>>>> their market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing
> >>>>> support of a "pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to
> >>>>> offend someone no matter what.
> >>>> I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...
> >>> Sure, why wouldn't they be? Stupid comparison, IMO. Buying cereal is
> >>> legal everywhere. Buying and smoking pot isn't legal everywhere.
> >>
> >> And you've never done anything Illegal, right?
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> > Sure I have. But I wasn't being paid to represent an "image" that I
> > agreed beforehand to do.
>
> Then perhaps some legislation to yank someone's nursing credentials if
> they are caught speeding is necessary.
>
> Michael

?? I'd never consider a speeding ticket to be harmful to a nurse's
image or to the nurse's employer's image. Do you?

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100041
-- a woman my age shouldn't
have this much fun!

In article >,
"Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:

> Goomba > :
> in rec.food.cooking
>
> > Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> >> Goomba >
> >> : in
> >
> >>>> And you've never done anything Illegal, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> Michael
> >>>>
> >>> Sure I have. But I wasn't being paid to represent an "image" that I
> >>> agreed beforehand to do.
> >>
> >> Then perhaps some legislation to yank someone's nursing credentials
> >> if they are caught speeding is necessary.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> > <eye roll> No where in my practice acts does it say "You will not
> > speed while driving"
> >
>
> No one said it did and you've missed the point, as usual. Do you even
> understand the point I was trying to make? Yes, he probably broke his
> contract. Yes, he made a mistake. I feel Kelloggs should have given him
> a second chance. You do not. Being inflexible does not necessarily always
> make a person right.
>
> Michael

Ever hear of the Golden Rule? The one that goes, "He who has the gold
makes the rules." It's not talking about gold medals, though. Maybe
Mr. Phelps misunderstood. If he broke the terms of the contract he had
with Kellogg's, I would imagine that is cause for them to terminate the
contract. And whether they should or should not really isn't any of our
business. A deal's a deal and it sounds like he didn't uphold his piece
of it. He loses that particular pot of gold. EOS.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100072

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> Ever hear of the Golden Rule? The one that goes, "He who has the gold
> makes the rules." It's not talking about gold medals, though. Maybe
> Mr. Phelps misunderstood. If he broke the terms of the contract he had
> with Kellogg's, I would imagine that is cause for them to terminate the
> contract. And whether they should or should not really isn't any of our
> business. A deal's a deal and it sounds like he didn't uphold his piece
> of it. He loses that particular pot of gold. EOS.

Maybe it was Acapulco Gold? ;-)

--Lin

Michael wrote about another Michael:

> Yes, he probably broke his contract. Yes, he made a mistake. I feel
> Kelloggs should have given him a second chance.

I think the REAL reasons Kelloggs dumped Phelps was something along these
lines: "Look at all the money we don't have to pay him now!"

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Michael wrote about another Michael:
>
>> Yes, he probably broke his contract. Yes, he made a mistake. I feel
>> Kelloggs should have given him a second chance.
>
> I think the REAL reasons Kelloggs dumped Phelps was something along
> these lines: "Look at all the money we don't have to pay him now!"

LOL. Probably. Perhaps they came to their senses and realized that no
one in their right mind buys cereal because it has someone's picture on
it. It certainly never influenced my buying habits.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>> Michael wrote about another Michael:
>>
>>> Yes, he probably broke his contract. Yes, he made a mistake. I feel
>>> Kelloggs should have given him a second chance.
>>
>> I think the REAL reasons Kelloggs dumped Phelps was something along these
>> lines: "Look at all the money we don't have to pay him now!"
>
> LOL. Probably. Perhaps they came to their senses and realized that no one
> in their right mind buys cereal because it has someone's picture on it. It
> certainly never influenced my buying habits.

Phelps would have to do more for Kelloggs than just have his picture on
their cereal packets.

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
> No one said it did and you've missed the point, as usual. Do you even
> understand the point I was trying to make? Yes, he probably broke his
> contract. Yes, he made a mistake. I feel Kelloggs should have given him
> a second chance. You do not. Being inflexible does not necessarily always
> make a person right.
>
> Michael

We've become a "second chance" society. No one thinks there will be
consequences for their actions, at least the first time. He made a deal and
broke it. Sorry, but goodbye Mr. Phelps. Being inflexible does not
necessarily always make a person wrong.

Being inflexible does not necessarily always
> make a person right.
>
> Michael

It's good that you finally realize that.

On 08 Feb 2009 04:55:58 GMT, "Michael \"Dog3\""
> wrote:

>Melba's Jammin' >
: in
>rec.food.cooking
>
>>
>> ?? I'd never consider a speeding ticket to be harmful to a nurse's
>> image or to the nurse's employer's image. Do you?
>
>No I don't. Nor do I think Phelps taking a hit off a bong damaging to his
>image. Obviously his employer thinks differently.
>

The picture of the champion athlete on the cereal box is to give the
impression, especially to young children, that if you eat the cereal
you will become a champion athlete. That is why the cereal makers pay
the athletes big money. If the athlete no longer has the image of a
champion, they no longer have value to the company.

--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

blake murphy wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:14:53 -0800 (PST), merryb wrote:
>
>
>>On Feb 6, 1:53 pm, Goomba > wrote:
>>
>>>merryb wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm so disgusted by the treatment by Kelloggs towards Michael Phelps.
>>>>He made a mistake by letting someone take a picture of him while he
>>>>was taking a bong hit, but this is ridiculous! It didn't enhance his
>>>>performance, and it had nothing to do with his swimming abilities. I
>>>>guess it's the image thing, but still, I'm boycotting Kelloggs.
>>>>Kelloggs is a food manufacturing company, so I didn't label this as
>>>>OT...Do any of you agree with me?
>>>
>>>No.
>>>Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or demote,
>>>anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into their
>>>market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing support of a
>>>"pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to offend someone no
>>>matter what.
>>
>>I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...
>
>
> i think they're missing out on a marketing angle here. 'when i get ripped
> to the tits, there's nothing like a bowl of shredded wheat with kellogg's
> all-natural honey...'

"When I get the munchies my choice is a mixing bowl full of Frosted
Flakes, with a gallon of cold milk... And a roll of chocolate chip
cookie dough. And a plate of nachos. And yesterday's leftover beef
stroganoff..."

Kathleen wrote:

> "When I get the munchies my choice is a mixing bowl full of Frosted
> Flakes, with a gallon of cold milk... And a roll of chocolate chip
> cookie dough. And a plate of nachos. And yesterday's leftover beef
> stroganoff..."
>
For those that don't catch SNL, this sketch on Weekend Update last night
sums it all up beautifully ...

http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/02/saturday-night.html

--Lin (Really!)

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 07:55:59 -0800, Lin >
wrote:
>>
>For those that don't catch SNL, this sketch on Weekend Update last night
>sums it all up beautifully ...
>
>http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/02/saturday-night.html
>

His last comment sums up my opinion too! Thanks.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 08:05:53 -0600, Kathleen wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:14:53 -0800 (PST), merryb wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 6, 1:53 pm, Goomba > wrote:
>>>
>>>>merryb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm so disgusted by the treatment by Kelloggs towards Michael Phelps.
>>>>>He made a mistake by letting someone take a picture of him while he
>>>>>was taking a bong hit, but this is ridiculous! It didn't enhance his
>>>>>performance, and it had nothing to do with his swimming abilities. I
>>>>>guess it's the image thing, but still, I'm boycotting Kelloggs.
>>>>>Kelloggs is a food manufacturing company, so I didn't label this as
>>>>>OT...Do any of you agree with me?
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>Kellogs (or any commercial sponsor) has the right to promote, or demote,
>>>>anyone they're financially supporting if it doesn't fit into their
>>>>market plan. They'd be boycotted by others for continuing support of a
>>>>"pot head" (or fill in the blank) so they're going to offend someone no
>>>>matter what.
>>>
>>>I'm sure they are happy when pot heads buy their products, tho...
>>
>> i think they're missing out on a marketing angle here. 'when i get ripped
>> to the tits, there's nothing like a bowl of shredded wheat with kellogg's
>> all-natural honey...'
>
> "When I get the munchies my choice is a mixing bowl full of Frosted
> Flakes, with a gallon of cold milk... And a roll of chocolate chip
> cookie dough. And a plate of nachos. And yesterday's leftover beef
> stroganoff..."

i think there were numerous stories in the press about how much the boy ate
every day. it was an impressive amount by any standard.

your pal,
blake

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:59:17 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote,
>Being a public figure is not so much fun after a while. I break the law
>every day when I drive to work.

Here in California, I can really never be sure at any given moment
whether I am breaking the law or not.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:32:04 -0800, David Harmon >
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:59:17 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, "Ed Pawlowski"
> wrote,
>>Being a public figure is not so much fun after a while. I break the law
>>every day when I drive to work.
>
>Here in California, I can really never be sure at any given moment
>whether I am breaking the law or not.
>
Ain't *that* the truth? It changes suddenly and often with no posted
speed limit in sight. Speed limits in town are equally as hard to
figure out. It's 25 here and 35 there, no wait! It's 15 now.
Where's the speed limit sign?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
>
> In article >,
> "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
>
> > Goomba > : in
> > rec.food.cooking

<snip>

> > >>
> > >> And you've never done anything Illegal, right?
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > > Sure I have. But I wasn't being paid to represent an "image" that I
> > > agreed beforehand to do.
> >
> > Then perhaps some legislation to yank someone's nursing credentials if
> > they are caught speeding is necessary.
> >
> > Michael
>
> ?? I'd never consider a speeding ticket to be harmful to a nurse's
> image or to the nurse's employer's image. Do you?
>
>

Depends on *why* that nurse (or doctor or whoever) was speeding. Drunks
and other drug-users often speed. Wouldn't want to be cared for by
someone who was doing that on a regular basis, not that we are really
given the choice

<snip>

> >>
> >> i think they're missing out on a marketing angle here. 'when i get ripped
> >> to the tits, there's nothing like a bowl of shredded wheat with kellogg's
> >> all-natural honey...'
> >
> > "When I get the munchies my choice is a mixing bowl full of Frosted
> > Flakes, with a gallon of cold milk... And a roll of chocolate chip
> > cookie dough. And a plate of nachos. And yesterday's leftover beef
> > stroganoff..."
>
> i think there were numerous stories in the press about how much the boy ate
> every day. it was an impressive amount by any standard.
>
> your pal,
> blake


Easy to eat that many calories in a day when that many are burnt off
during training. Good lesson for a lot of people. Want to stuff that
face every day? Work it off!

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:32:04 -0800, David Harmon wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:59:17 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > wrote,
>>Being a public figure is not so much fun after a while. I break the law
>>every day when I drive to work.
>
> Here in California, I can really never be sure at any given moment
> whether I am breaking the law or not.

discretion is the better part of valor.

your pal,
blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:32:04 -0800, David Harmon wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:59:17 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > > wrote,
> >>Being a public figure is not so much fun after a while. I break the law
> >>every day when I drive to work.
> >
> > Here in California, I can really never be sure at any given moment
> > whether I am breaking the law or not.
>
> discretion is the better part of valor.

Actually, it's not. A few years ago, I had to take a driving test to
get my license renewed. I've lived in this same house for over 30
years. The DMV is a mile away, so the driving test was in my
neighborhood. So I'm told to get on the freeway. I worry about merging
and getting up to speed, and suddenly realize that I don't know what the
speed limit is. I know it's either 55 or 65, but it's always changing,
either over time, or where on that freeway, or due to the ever present
construction. Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
(don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
*flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during your
driving test!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Dave Smith > news:498e56d9$0
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> > Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> >> Michael wrote about another Michael:
> >>
> >>> Yes, he probably broke his contract. Yes, he made a mistake. I feel
> >>> Kelloggs should have given him a second chance.
> >>
> >> I think the REAL reasons Kelloggs dumped Phelps was something along
> >> these lines: "Look at all the money we don't have to pay him now!"
> >
> > LOL. Probably. Perhaps they came to their senses and realized that no
> > one in their right mind buys cereal because it has someone's picture on
> > it. It certainly never influenced my buying habits.
>
> I suspect that may have been part of it. People are probably less likely
> to buy their over priced boxes of sugar in this economy.


You know, I never once in my life have bought a box of breakfast
cereal...does this make me "wierd"...???


--
Best
Greg

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> The Cook >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>
> > The picture of the champion athlete on the cereal box is to give the
> > impression, especially to young children, that if you eat the cereal
> > you will become a champion athlete. That is why the cereal makers pay
> > the athletes big money. If the athlete no longer has the image of a
> > champion, they no longer have value to the company.
>
> Dan Abel posted a wikipedia link on one of the founders of the company. It
> was hilarious. Yes, Kelloggs should certainly try to maintain a wholesome
> "image".


"From carnival side show antics doth big businesses grow..."


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:


> You know, I never once in my life have bought a box of breakfast
> cereal...does this make me "wierd"...???


That, in and of itself? No.

However....

Kathleen wrote:

> Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
>
> > You know, I never once in my life have bought a box of breakfast
> > cereal...does this make me "wierd"...???
>
>
> That, in and of itself? No.
>
> However....


<chuckle>

I never liked cereal as a kid and that continues as an adult. I, frankly,
find the concept of pouring cold milk on a bunch of sugary stuff pretty
revolting. When I was a kid my fave breakfast food was hotdogs...

I'm not a big breakfast eater in any case. In the winter I like
oatmeal...but it *must* be oatmeal prepared by *me*, I find the premise of
eating oatmeal made by someone else pretty revolting...

So like you say, "wierd"...!!!

:-)


--
Best
Greg

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Kathleen wrote:
>
>
>>Gregory Morrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>You know, I never once in my life have bought a box of breakfast
>>>cereal...does this make me "wierd"...???
>>
>>
>>That, in and of itself? No.
>>
>>However....
>
>
>
> <chuckle>
>
> I never liked cereal as a kid and that continues as an adult. I, frankly,
> find the concept of pouring cold milk on a bunch of sugary stuff pretty
> revolting. When I was a kid my fave breakfast food was hotdogs...
>
> I'm not a big breakfast eater in any case. In the winter I like
> oatmeal...but it *must* be oatmeal prepared by *me*, I find the premise of
> eating oatmeal made by someone else pretty revolting...
>
> So like you say, "wierd"...!!!
>
> :-)
>
>

My son likes pasta for breakfast. As a stay-at-home mom, my reaction
was, "WTF, why not? How is that different from fixing oatmeal or cream
of wheat?" ( So sit down and shut up, mother o'mine)

My "no longer completely SA0HM" status was a driving force in motivating
him to learn to make the pasta and sauces he loved.

My daughter would rather have last night's leftovers re-heated, or a can
of Kirkland brand slimfast and a piece of fruit for breakfast.

When I buy sweetened cereal it's as a snack food rather than a meal.

I only like steel-cut irish oats with brown sugar, milk, butter, almonds
and dried apricots. So I generally won't eat oatmeal prepared by
another person. Go figure.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
> was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
> (don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
> *flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during your
> driving test!
>

As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence (weather
permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse than speeding.

Couple of years ago I wanted to do an experiment. My car has an instant
readout of mpg. I chose a section of highway that is flat and the reading
is steady for at least a half mile. The idea was to see how speed affect
mileage on my particular car. One day I drove at 75, next day at 70, then
65, 60, but at 55 I feared for my life as cars sped around me.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>> Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
>> was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
>> (don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
>> *flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during your
>> driving test!
>>
>
> As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence (weather
> permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse than speeding.

Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. There may be an
argument that driving excessively slow is especially dangerous in
combination with other traffic that travelling excessively fast. Speed
alone does not necessarily cause accidents, but accidents at high speed
cause more damage, more injuries and more deaths.


> Couple of years ago I wanted to do an experiment. My car has an instant
> readout of mpg. I chose a section of highway that is flat and the reading
> is steady for at least a half mile. The idea was to see how speed affect
> mileage on my particular car. One day I drove at 75, next day at 70, then
> 65, 60, but at 55 I feared for my life as cars sped around me.


We had photo radar for a while here in Ontario. It was only used on the
major corridors. I never got caught. Like most other people, I set my
cruise control for the speed limit or a little bit over. Everyone was
moving along at the same speed. There was no reason for most people to
be changing lanes and cutting people off. There were fewer accidents and
therefore fewer injuries. With few accidents, there were fewer traffic
tie-ups. It made driving into the city a much more enjoyable experience.
With smoother traffic we got there just as fast.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>>> Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
>>> was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
>>> (don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
>>> *flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during your
>>> driving test!
>>>
>>
>> As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence
>> (weather permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse than
>> speeding.
>
> Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. There may be an argument
> that driving excessively slow is especially dangerous in combination with
> other traffic that travelling excessively fast. Speed alone does not
> necessarily cause accidents, but accidents at high speed cause more
> damage, more injuries and more deaths.

Perhaps in Canada, but in the US, the Interstate system has a lower limit.
It is not posted, but it is on the books. A guy I used to work with was
stopped once (CT State Police) for going to slow and he was given a
warning. Very rare, but it does happen. It is a safety hazard.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits.

\
Check this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_l..._United_States

http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/...9p767-775.html
This paper presents the results of the mail out survey conducted in the
United States to unveil the current state of practice related to the posting
of minimum speed limit signs on Interstate freeway system. The analysis of
the survey results has revealed that half of the country (25 states) posts
the minimum speed limit on Interstate freeways. The most common posting is
40Â mph. There are few states that post 45Â mph and 55Â mph in some sections
on Interstate freeways. The survey results has also discovered that many
states raised the maximum speed limits on Interstate freeways as the
consequence of the National Highway System (NHS) designation Act of 1995
without revising or studying the effect of the existing minimum speed limits
on traffic operation. Implications for future research relates to a multi
state study which will evaluate the relevance of minimum speed limits on
speed variability that is created by the posting of minimum speed limit.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Dan Abel" > wrote in message
>>>> Knowing that same phrase as you quoted, I decided that 55
>>>> was safest. He dinged me for it! In fact, I read somewhere lately
>>>> (don't ask me where), that in some state in the US, they can actually
>>>> *flunk* you for driving 15mph or more below the speed limit during your
>>>> driving test!
>>>>
>>> As well they should. Driving 15 below is also a ticketable offence
>>> (weather permitting) as it is unsafe and can cause an accident worse than
>>> speeding.
>> Speed limits are upper limits, not lower limits. There may be an argument
>> that driving excessively slow is especially dangerous in combination with
>> other traffic that travelling excessively fast. Speed alone does not
>> necessarily cause accidents, but accidents at high speed cause more
>> damage, more injuries and more deaths.
>
> Perhaps in Canada, but in the US, the Interstate system has a lower limit.
> It is not posted, but it is on the books. A guy I used to work with was
> stopped once (CT State Police) for going to slow and he was given a
> warning. Very rare, but it does happen. It is a safety hazard.
>
>
Ed guess he was not in a Hyundai then <wink >