Lane Splitting.

[Rosco61]

White House petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...roads/qP86QbjN

[PhilB]

While I approve of the intent, the federal government has no Constitutional authority to mandate traffic rules within the states.

PhilB

[MoXzilla]

White House petition.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...roads/qP86QbjN

Sweet!

[Rosco61]

As usual Phil has the edge on this stuff. Never thought of that angle. thanks!

[Jim]

Phil, the sky is blue

no it's not. it's whatever color the goverment wants to make me think it is

[GixerJockey]

[SRTie4k]

The whole White House Petition site is a big sham anyways.

[breakdirt916]

won't do anything

it's like the suggestion box at work - at least the employees have hope that they're being heard

I figure if it becomes a law change:
1.) gotta show how it will be a benefit - you need studies, statistics, etc.
2.) gotta make sure non-motorcyclists will approve of it (prepare for plenty of opposition)
3.) gotta show how to prevent the gazillion deaths that are going to happen once if it becomes legal

never gonna happen...if you love bikes, want to lane split, want some great touring rides/canyon rides/dirt rides, just move to CA and get it over with

[PhilB]

Phil, the sky is blue

I am consistently in favor of limited and Constitutional government. It would be hypocritical of me to be in favor of federal intervention when it suits me, and only oppose it when I don't like what they want to do. That's how the D and R parties work, and that's a big part of the problem with this country's government.

PhilB

[scottieducati]

No Constitutional Authority perhaps, but Feds provide the bulk of funding that go to roads, so there is an interest. And the feds do all the safety related work (NHTSA, etc.), so there's absolutely an interest and role for it, just not with regard to changing the law. That needs to happen at the state level. Petitions are nice, but the message really needs to hit your state level reps or those on the Transportation committee.

[RandyO]

No Constitutional Authority perhaps, but Feds provide the bulk of funding that go to roads, so there is an interest. And the feds do all the safety related work (NHTSA, etc.), so there's absolutely an interest and role for it, just not with regard to changing the law. That needs to happen at the state level. Petitions are nice, but the message really needs to hit your state level reps or those on the Transportation committee.

bulk of road funding is state and local

yes, NHTSA makes safety reccomendations to the states, counties and municipalities and private developers thru regulations that may or may not be followed , they do NOT do any specific site design

[scottieducati]

Uh, bulk of road funding is not state and local. This is just one example, but the state revenues going into road maintenance are usually a drop in the pan compared to the amount the state receives in Federal funding. It's called the Highway Trust Fund. States can piggy back on top of the Federal taxes, but most large projects require as little as a 20% match (sometimes less) from state and local funds.

Edit: NH cites that 26% of their fund is form the Feds but doesn't break State / local sources up individually. TX gets 42% from Fed, 37% from the State Highway Fund, and the remaining from other sources. So maybe "majority" is misleading, but when you break down the funding streams the Fed share typically is the largest single source.

[SVRACER01]

i split lanes whenever i deem it necessary. legal or not.

[PhilB]

No Constitutional Authority perhaps, but Feds provide the bulk of funding that go to roads, so there is an interest. And the feds do all the safety related work (NHTSA, etc.), so there's absolutely an interest and role for it, ...

That stuff isn't Constitutional either.

... just not with regard to changing the law. That needs to happen at the state level. Petitions are nice, but the message really needs to hit your state level reps or those on the Transportation committee.

This is true, and where the efforts need be directed.

PhilB

[scottieducati]

That stuff isn't Constitutional either. PhilB

Incorrect. Regulatory agencies that execute Federal Law fall under the Executive branch, as the Legislative and Judicial branches are prohibited from the execution of Federal laws. They were also formed by Congress. Don't confuse unconstitutional regulations with the mere existence and mission of an agency.

[Jim]

someone move this to Rambunctious sub-forum, where only 3-5 people care about government bullshit

[PhilB]

Incorrect. Regulatory agencies that execute Federal Law fall under the Executive branch, as the Legislative and Judicial branches are prohibited from the execution of Federal laws. They were also formed by Congress. Don't confuse unconstitutional regulations with the mere existence and mission of an agency.

Most of those agencies are not covered under the list of powers in the Constitution, Article I Section 8. If they are executing laws that Congress has passed that are un-Constitutional, they are behaving un-Constitutionally. If they are making regulations that have the force of law, and enforcing those, then they are behaving un-Constitutionally regardless of the content of those regulations. Don't confuse "whatever Congress thinks it can get away with doing" with "what is Constitutional".

PhilB

[scottieducati]

Well I'm sure your analysis trumps all the legal background behind what formed various Agencies at the time of their creation, and the numerous constitutional powers challenges that always come around from this stuff.

Or that Article 1 only deals with the Legislative branch, and Section 8 addresses the Powers of Congress, whereas Fed agencies as noted above, fall under the Executive branch, however Congress does have the power to *direct* an agency to issue or enforce certain regulations. This has all been thru the judicial system before, and ruled Constitutional. Specifically: "The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The legal mumbo jumbo that governs all Federal agencies is the Code of Federal Regulations.

[PhilB]

Well I'm sure your analysis trumps all the legal background behind what formed various Agencies at the time of their creation, and the numerous constitutional powers challenges that always come around from this stuff.

Or that Article 1 only deals with the Legislative branch, and Section 8 addresses the Powers of Congress, whereas Fed agencies as noted above, fall under the Executive branch, however Congress does have the power to *direct* an agency to issue or enforce certain regulations. This has all been thru the judicial system before, and ruled Constitutional. Specifically: "The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The legal mumbo jumbo that governs all Federal agencies is the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Constitution only authorizes the legislative branch to make law. Not the executive branch.

Obviously, I recognize that the judicial lapdogs, appointed by the executive and confirmed by the legislative, selected for their docility and complicity, have approved most of the transgressions of their appointers. Surprise! Which doesn't make any of it ethical, Constitutional, or right.

In particular, the SCOTUS gets Constitutionality correct a bit less than 50% of the time. I have no confidence in their integrity. We'd do better flipping a coin.

PhilB

[butcher bergs]

I have no confidence in their integrity.

When you use the word "integrity" in this context, are you going by the actual meaning of the word now or by your personal definition as previously stated below?

Because "integrity" is defined as "obedience to the arbitrary rules of government". Except when one finds a legal way to act that you find less onerous, in which case that's called a "loophole", and "integrity" is re-defined as "submission to whatever the authorities wanted, even if they didn't manage to spell it out very well".

PhilB

[Ductard]

Uh, bulk of road funding is not state and local. This is just one example, but the state revenues going into road maintenance are usually a drop in the pan compared to the amount the state receives in Federal funding. It's called the Highway Trust Fund. States can piggy back on top of the Federal taxes, but most large projects require as little as a 20% match (sometimes less) from state and local funds.

Edit: NH cites that 26% of their fund is form the Feds but doesn't break State / local sources up individually. TX gets 42% from Fed, 37% from the State Highway Fund, and the remaining from other sources. So maybe "majority" is misleading, but when you break down the funding streams the Fed share typically is the largest single source.

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal. Just ask Louisiana why their drinking age is 21 (hint: It wasn't, until the government threatened to pull their highway funding)

[PhilB]

When you use the word "integrity" in this context, are you going by the actual meaning of the word now or by your personal definition as previously stated below?

I'm using the dictionary definition here, rather than the obviously sarcastic definition I smacked you with in that thread, which was based on your misuse of the word.

PhilB

[PhilB]

Yeah, it's kind of a big deal. Just ask Louisiana why their drinking age is 21 (hint: It wasn't, until the government threatened to pull their highway funding)

That and a lot of other things. The federal government loves to extract a lot of money from people, then use it to bludgeon the states those people live in to toe their line. And it's not just the highway funds; they do this with education funding, healthcare funding, and several other such funds (pretty much all of which are un-Constitutional and shouldn't have any fedgov involvement at all.

PhilB

[scottieducati]

I'm all for constitutionality and limited government. Many agencies overstep their bounds from time to time and yes, I'm sure checks fail as they sometimes succeed. But how an agency was formed and the process to which authority is assigned in most cases, particularly benign entities for the public good, are absolutely done within the legal and Constitutional framework of our government. Whether an agency steps beyond their powers or authority is another discussion.

[scottieducati]

I have very mixed feelings about this whole deal too. I watched this on a plane recently, and it kind of exemplifies the worst, and best, of the integrity of America / gov't type issues.

George Takei: Why I love a country that once betrayed me | Talk Video | TED.com