Archives

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.
Sen. John Warner has asked the Energy Department at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient.

Sen. John Warner has asked the Energy Department at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient.

Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide, with oil hovering around $145 a barrel.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.

"Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater," Warner wrote Bodman.

Warner asked the department to determine at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered.

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner's letter but added, "If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production."

The department's Web site says that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated to cost motorists "essentially an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs," Warner said in his letter, citing the DOE data.

I vote for 60 mph on interstate roads, and 50 mph max. for 6 wheel and larger trucks.

How about 50 min and 60 max so you can decide how much gas you want to save.

How about 50 min and 60 max so you can decide how much gas you want to save.

I am for that too. 60 max is great, but will we ever see it?

I was a driver the first time around for 55 and I was given warnings for driving 11 and 15 over. Just because it's the law doesn't mean it will be obeyed or enforced.

The way things are going it will take a new administration and a change in the supreme court for a ruling that the 55 mph speed limit is required by the EPA due to global warming.;)

I think the Warner proposal makes lots of sense. Let them do some testing before they act. The truckers mounted a huge dinial game when we had the 55 limit of old. Let the legislators determine whether the truckers have a case for a higher optimum speed. I have a diesel motorhome which will not stay in top gear below 57-58 MPH. Dont't know about the big rigs, but we all know that 55 is plenty high enough for autos.

Driving 55 sounds good on paper and makes a good political speech if your trying to get votes from senior citizens but the reality is no one drives 55 it is un-enforceable always was and always will be. What will happen is law abiding citizens will all the sudden be charged with new speeding violations which puts more money into the local governments pocket and also creates more cash flow for the car insurance industry…Senator Warner rides in a chauffeur driven limo and I’m sure he is not concerned to much with the price of gas because he can afford gas no matter what the price...as most politicians can….the drive 55 measure will not counter the price of gas because it is based on the price of a barrel of oil not the speed limit...also there is not a shortage of gas because not one gas station in the USA right now that is out ..There are no lines at the pump...so driving 55 should be a personal choice not one prompted by the rich and famous...and pompous…don’t be fooled by political promises this close to election time..anything the government would do to try and help gas prices would fail ...Even the new political slogan to drill for more oil in Alaska and many off shore places in the USA right now would not change the price of gas one penny >>>"WHY" well for one thing once we let the oil companies invest their money into drilling lots of new wells on our pristine park lands means they are not interested in helping farmer John fill up his suv truck with $2 a gallon gas..That is not profitable what is profitable is selling the said oil which is now a global commodity to Asian markets for $143 a barrel..That’s right the newly drilled oil would just become another source of income for mega oil companies and their shareholders (Only a small percentage maybe like 3 0r 4% of Alaskan oil is used in the US it is sold to Asian markets)…Now even if we built 5 or 6 more new refineries (which were not at the moment) it wouldn’t change a thing because they would only be refining gas from oil at the current price of $143 barrel..Many toes would have to be stepped on to change the current system to make the oil more affordable to the American public…"not going to happen“ oil companies own many politicians and they are not going to mess with the feeding trough...we can’t live in a capitalistic society and then all the sudden take over all the oil in the USA and sell it only to USA companies to be used in the USA...nope just a pipe dream....so you see all the speeches in the world from all the new candidates are just empty promises of great things to come when you elect them… nothing will change and if it did it will be very slow in the mean time keep your wallet open cause gas prices are not coming down only going up ...so vote for your favorite candidate but ask them the right questions don’t believe lies and bull **** that I am seeing and hearing on the tv news...every time I hear them talk about drilling new oil wells makes me want to puke what a pretentious lie they are telling us...Also I think hybrid cars are a good start to help on the issue of gas efficiency but not gas prices and why make cars that will do 80 mph to 125 mph then say hey you can only drive 55 come on let’s get real here…
But thank you for letting me rant on your forum free speech is still alive and well in the USA.

Check this out and pass it around:http://www.flashwrkz.com/ImmediateOil.htm

Driving 55 sounds good on paper and makes a good political speech if your trying to get votes from senior citizens but the reality is no one drives 55 it is un-enforceable always was and always will be.

You must be one of the people who flies down the expressway doing 80+mph. There are many people who do 55mph. I most of the time drive 60 in a 65mph.

People have this notion about the speed limit that since so many people drive over the speed limit it is right and those of us that drive the limit or less are wrong. I've had family members tell me that that notion is reality and then I tell them that their reality is wrong.

I say we get rid of speeding violation laws (save tickets for reckless drivers), put speed cameras everywhere and give a huge tax break to anyone who doesn't trip them. That way there would be a reward for safe and efficient driving, instead of a slap on the wrist for all those scofflaws who could care less.

People are always going to drive over the limit. Some more than others. Even in my state where the limit is 70 mph, people drive 80 mph.

Enforcing a mandatory national speed limit won't work because the current limits obviously don't work if the number of speeding violations are an indication of it. Why would lowering the limits now (after we spent so long and hard getting it up) be feasible???

This should be done because it would save on gas... but really, the "people" by and large don't want this. They want to use gas and lots and lots of it. Its still just gas... its not like we'll EVER run out or cost $4 a gallon. NEVER!!!! Who wants to drive cars that get 30 mpg when you can keep driving your shiny new status symbol for 12mpg??? Image is everything and perception is the reality.

(also doesn't help this guy comes out now during an election year to soapbox. Makes people question his motives to critics and cynics alike. You'd think people would still remember that "little thing" that happened in the 70s... you know... that thing with oil... that thing)

*note: if I was ever more sarcastic I think my Sarc-O-Meter would explode :D What's more depressing is that some of it may still be true... I still see a lot of speeders and bad driving habits on the road.

I'm against the Federal Government mandating the 55 mph speed limit.
If individual states wish to set their own limits then I'm OK with it.
If any of you have ever lived through the national 55 limit you would agree.
Your driving under two hundred miles then there is no real reason to buck
the 55 mph speed limit. When you start making 500 plus mile trips especially west of the Mississippi river then you will understand the 70 mph speed limits are needed on those open stretches of highway.

Long haul truckers make their money on the basis of the miles traveled.
You take a trucker that is making .40 a mile and all of a sudden he is taking a major hit in the wallet over the year. They are allowed to run 10 hours a day. If a driver is averaging 63 mph vs 53 mph during those 10 hours it is going to see a difference of 100 miles per day. $40 a day times 4.5 days is $180 a week. Times 4.3 weeks a month or $775 a month. Times that by 12 months and now your looking at $9,300 less in his yearly pay. That is close to a 20% hit in the average drivers yearly income.
He is not going to take the hit, he is just going to demand .50 per mile to cover the difference. Higher fuel costs, plus now higher payroll costs will impact the cost of everything we buy even more than what we are seeing now.
The down side of the 55 mph is more people are going to push the amount of time they are behind the wheel on a trip truckers included.
Lets take me if I decided to take the family to Disney World. The trip is 1000 miles door to door. If I drove the speed limits right now as posted I would probably average 64-65 mph. That would work out to about fifteen and half hours.
I drive at the old 55 mph national speed limit or averaging about 51-52 mph and now that same trip is nineteen and a quarter hours. I now have three hours and forty five extra minutes or more added to my trip.

Local fox news (myfoxchicago.com), reported that due to the success of red light cameras and photo radar in constuction zones, they are purchasing more red light cameras and are looking at purchasing photo radar for areas outside of construction zones. However they will have to fight state regulations to be able to use that photo-radar outside of constuction. Frankly I think its the way to go, expect I'm disappointed to hear they will only be trying to use it in high risk areas. While having it always in high risk areas is a good idea, I really want to see it in use randomly everywhere.

While many people object to photo radar, I think its the only chance we have to bring speeds back to reason.

Maybe the trucking companies will finally clue in that they need
to STOP paying their drivers by the mile, because it only
encourages aggressive behavior. It took them MONTHS to clue
in about passing fuel surcharges on to the customers, so as
long as they're in there fiddling with their financials this
is something they really need to think about. The smart ones
have already realized that the fuel saved by slowing down far
overshadows the minor time delta.
.
_H*

Long haul truckers make their money on the basis of the miles traveled.
You take a trucker that is making .40 a mile and all of a sudden he is taking a major hit in the wallet over the year. They are allowed to run 10 hours a day. If a driver is averaging 63 mph vs 53 mph during those 10 hours it is going to see a difference of 100 miles per day. $40 a day times 4.5 days is $180 a week.

Those of us who lived through the 55 mph speed limit managed to live through it. No big deal.

Truckers make money for mileage, but they also spend money on gas. I've read they get about 5 mpg. Or they burn about 12 gallons per hour. If they can burn 11 gallons per hour going 53, then that's about $47 a day, or $235 a week difference which overshadows the loss on miles.

I gotta agree that 55 is no big deal, I grew up on the 55 limit (born in 1969). It only seems like a couple years with the new crazy speed limits. Here in Californiyay, the limit is 65 in most places and in many areas trucks and trailers have a lower limit anyway.

The bigger issue is paying truck drivers by the mile and then expect them to follow the regulations about the max number of hours a day they can drive. Several friends/family members have been truck drivers and the pressure, either from the pocketbook or directly from the company, to exceed the maximum is intense. And it leads to a lot of unsafe situations.

55 speed limit: bring it on! The only problem is that the politicians won't have the guts to pass it. Polichickens?

Speed limits do work up to a point. There are always crazies that drive 90, but reducing the speed limit from, say, 70 to 55, would induce many drivers to slow down from 80 to 65, because many drivers are aware that cops generally do not ticket for drivers within 10 mph of the speed limit -- so they work to remain within that limit. I think occasional enforcement is necessary, but speed limits do work. Frankly, I think that Warner is right; a national speed limit -- and also sensible reductions in local speed limits -- would save a great deal of oil.

Better "traffic engineering" could save oil too. For example, I live off of a loop that provides access to residential communities both within and outside of the loop. The speed limit on this residential road is an outrageous 45 mph -- dangerously high considering the many runners and bikers that use it. To slow people down and permit entry onto the road, the city has placed stop signs at roughly 1/2 mile intervals along the loop. Consequently, typical drivers drive 55 where they can, screech to a halt at stop signs and then accelerate rapidly back to 55 again. If the speed limit were 30, people would drive 35-40, fewer stop signs would be necessary to slow traffic and permit entry onto the loop and FE would improve! (I am aware that 55 mph may be a better cruising speed than 35-40 for most vehicles, but I think that there is too little time between stop signs for the better cruising speed to offset the losses in FE incurred though accelerating up to 55 mph.)

Please pardon this post if others have said it before. I am a newbie. Oh, and this is what I look like. :Banane03:

Man now I've got that Sammy Hagar song playing in my head.

Unfortunately there is no one-solution fix to oil prices.

Slowing demand is a key - hypermiling sites like this help, along with getting the word out about how to conserve.

Drilling in Alaska and off our coasts will lower our dependence on foreign oil. It's a bit of a slap in the face that the Chinese can drill a few miles off our coasts but we can't.

The 55mph speed limit will undoubtedly help. It did in the 70s and 80s and is not a bad idea for today. Like a previous poster said, if we can slow down the speeders (like myself, in times past) from 80mph to 70mph, some good will come from it.

And, of course, alternative fuels and energy sources will have to be explored and researched at an increasing rate.

I believe only a combination of all energy-saving measures will help us out of this dependence on foreign oil, and save this transfer of wealth to OPEC.

.....People have this notion about the speed limit that since so many people drive over the speed limit it is right and those of us that drive the limit or less are wrong.....

Those people are right, you are wrong. :flag:

People vote with their right-foot. They know they use more $ AND risk tickets (= more expense), yet they still drive over 65mph.


Why? Because they feel it is safe and reasonable.

Worse wastes of fuel happen on highways at low speeds, than happen at high speeds. Instead of a 55 mph max, how about a 70mph minimum? While we're at it, increase capacity on our over-burdened roads.

There are people stuck in commutes on the highway right now. Four-lanes-wide, stop-and-go at 0-20 mph on 65mph roads in 100+ mph cars. THIS is the great waster of gas, and more importantly, time. Time= money. Time = productivity.

If you want to drive 55mph, go for it. Just don't tell all of America that they should do such a foolish thing (again).

Speed limits should be set the 85th-percentile way. http://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-limits/how-should-speed-limits-be-set/

--The majority of motorists drive at a speed they consider reasonable, and safe for road, traffic, and environmental conditions. Posted limits which are set higher or lower than dictated by roadway and traffic conditions are ignored by the majority of motorists.
--The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal.
--A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.

You're on very thin ice. Safe, "reasonable" speeds would be
much higher *IFF* everybody actually gave each other decent
following distance. As things stand now with as close as cars
generally seem to get, I'd say a safe speed in that ratpack is
about 35 MPH. You *cannot* determine your percentile from that
sort of situation, it's just pathologically, hopelessly unsafe
for 55 or anything in that area until these numbnuts *back off*
from each other.
.
_H*

I wonder what would happen if, instead of MPH limits, we set minimum MPG limits? That'd ruffle a crap load of feathers. It also shoots the 70 minimum in the foot. I do own a newer vehicle (06 Sedona), and it still gets its best mileage in the mid 50s. Until we start making cars that get good mileage (and by good, I mean in the 60 MPG range) at anything over 65, it's just irresponsible to think of setting the limits any higher.

....Safe, "reasonable" speeds would be much higher *IF* everybody actually gave each other decent following distance. ...
Agreed.


... I'd say a safe speed in that ratpack is about 35 MPH. ....People aren't packed in closely because they like it OR feel it's safe. They're in tight because our road capacity can't handle the traffic.



...it's ....unsafe for 55 or anything in that area until these numbnuts *back off* from each other.
Back off, or pull away. Either one is fine for increasing following distance, but neither can be achieved with a 55 mph limit.

Either CAN (and would) be achieved if we had highways that could handle our traffic.

My dream of more lanes is not likely to be realized. :(

>> neither can be achieved with a 55 mph limit.
.
Huh? You can achieve three or more seconds of following distance at
any speed. Four or five leaves plenty of room for new cars to merge
in and re-establish distance, too. Like I do all the time in the
oft-fabled "directed malice" of Boston traffic.
.
See the traffic waves (http://amasci.com/amateur/traffic/traffic1.html) articles.
.
_H*

National speed limits are flawed in the sense that manufacturers gear cars for optimal performance at varying speeds. I belong to a group of LS4 engine owners and our engines are designed to shut off cylinders at under 8% throttle. We've all been tracking mileage on the highway and found that 61-65 mph is a sweet spot for our cars. Most people have gotten 28 mpg right there, with a few lucky people breaking into the thirties. If we slow down it down to 55 mph we see a drop down to 25 mpg. Whereas in a my old Saturn sedan, 55 did yield better mileage than 60. It depends on what you drive.


A much more logical solution is to shift traffic enforcement to cover tailgating, weaving and other habits that require frequent braking. Everytime I hit my brakes on the highway I waste gas, the gas I used to get up to speed and the gas I'll use to get back up to speed. Having the police clean up the flow of traffic would got alot further than setting an across the board speed limit.

National speed limits are flawed in the sense that manufacturers gear cars for optimal performance at varying speeds. I belong to a group of LS4 engine owners and our engines are designed to shut off cylinders at under 8% throttle. We've all been tracking mileage on the highway and found that 61-65 mph is a sweet spot for our cars. Most people have gotten 28 mpg right there, with a few lucky people breaking into the thirties. If we slow down it down to 55 mph we see a drop down to 25 mpg. Whereas in a my old Saturn sedan, 55 did yield better mileage than 60. It depends on what you drive.


A much more logical solution is to shift traffic enforcement to cover tailgating, weaving and other habits that require frequent braking. Everytime I hit my brakes on the highway I waste gas, the gas I used to get up to speed and the gas I'll use to get back up to speed. Having the police clean up the flow of traffic would got alot further than setting an across the board speed limit.

I would think a lot of manufactures have two goals in mind as they decide on their FE curve. The first is designing to the test. They want the numbers for their car to look good on the EPA test. So they are going to design their FE curve to get the best results on the tests that are given. This will be more so as the emphasis comes to be more and more on meeting some magic fleet mpg figure.

Secondly they don't want their customers to be too unhappy at the perceived performance of the vehicle. So as long as the design does not too adversely affect the EPA test results they are going to head that direction. That usually gets translated into acceleration as much as anything else.

With regards to the varying mileage at higher speeds, all I can say is to have a 5 speed manual with tall gearing and a lot of torque down low and it will work wonders for mileage. :)

I just say we enforce the speed limits as they are now--in other words, no blasting down the road at 85 MPH and getting a warning. 65 means 65. It's the law.

And then have cops focus on aggressive drivers--tailgaters especially. Idiots going fast in the slow lane should also have a bullseye on their backs.

With regards to the varying mileage at higher speeds, all I can say is to have a 5 speed manual with tall gearing and a lot of torque down low and it will work wonders for mileage. :)

I just say we enforce the speed limits as they are now--in other words, no blasting down the road at 85 MPH and getting a warning. 65 means 65. It's the law.

And then have cops focus on aggressive drivers--tailgaters especially. Idiots going fast in the slow lane should also have a bullseye on their backs.

Good point, they are very laxed about enforcing the current law. If the limits are lowered to 55, and they don't enforce it, what good is it. In California, they do "zero tolerence" enforcement, but only for a couple days per year, and they actually announce it. :rolleyes:

I think that before we lower speed limits we need to figure out how to enforce the current speed limits. They are 65 where I live but I would estimate that no more than 20% of highway drivers observe the speed limit.
In my younger days I always appreciated it when the highway patrol would only cite me for 10 over when I would be doing moch more. But it's created a lack of respect for the rule of law. I think officers should more aggressively cite speeders, perhaps for doing as little as 5 mph over and should cite drivers for the full amount they were speeding.
It's not just about the gas that they are paying for. Faster freeways kill more people.

It's really trivial to spot many of the more aggressive ones
on the freeway -- they're the ones always flicking their brake
lights as they desperately try to avoid crunching the backside
of the poor sod they're tailgating at .25 second. The cops
could just pick them off one by one and have a HUGE revenue
source -- that's the "self-funding" aspect of my hack piece (http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/sotu.html)
urging more on-the-fly enforcement via dashcams. Ten seconds
of video and the butthead is toast.
.
_H*

I don't know that I'm for a 55 speed limit, but I'm not positive I'm against it either...maybe 60, or as in California, 65?

How about 50 min and 60 max so you can decide how much gas you want to save.

Same here.

50 min..how about 40 min 60 max? I would go for that.

Let me throw a wrench in the works...if there were a national limit, should it take effect right away, or a few years in the future?
It would be a real shame if someone bought a car this year which was geared for best fuel performance at 60/70mph and then drop the limit to 55...suddenly these people would be getting less than their best.
I wish EPA stickers incluced a graph showing what mpg a car gets (under control circumstances) at every speed from 5 to 90 mph.

Let me throw a wrench in the works...if there were a national limit, should it take effect right away, or a few years in the future?
It would be a real shame if someone bought a car this year which was geared for best fuel performance at 60/70mph and then drop the limit to 55...suddenly these people would be getting less than their best.
I wish EPA stickers incluced a graph showing what mpg a car gets (under control circumstances) at every speed from 5 to 90 mph.
I, too, would be in favor of such an animal.

How about an imposed national 55MPH limit, with no press about it. The for the first few weeks, we divert the revenue from speeding citations to push for less foreign oil dependency?

I'm kinda kidding......kinda. :rolleyes:

I know of few cars, excepting perhaps sports cars, which are geared for their best FE in that range. So, I guess that I fail to see the point...

I know of few cars, excepting perhaps sports cars, which are geared for their best FE in that range. So, I guess that I fail to see the point...

You're right. From all analyses that I have seen on this site, as well as, many other sites, including the EPA, optimal FE is achieved well below 60 MPH for most vehicles. Here's a good thread with stats/charts on it...
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10986

This would be interesting to see, however....


I, too, would be in favor of such an animal.

How about an imposed national 55MPH limit, with no press about it. The for the first few weeks, we divert the revenue from speeding citations to push for less foreign oil dependency?

I'm kinda kidding......kinda. :rolleyes:

Here's a good thread with stats/charts on it...
http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10986

Yep that a great thread and make sure to check the traffic simulator posted near the end.

My only problem is the graphs can't be (completly) right. With the automatic cars, there should have been a sudden increase in economy when the car shifted down, but that itsn't seen. Another graph that shows economy at a fixed speed and different gears/rpms, verfies that the upper gears should show an economy improvement. One or the other has to be wrong, and from experience I'd say its the speed/mpg graphs. They are generally correct, but either some info is missing (like entire test in a forced single gear) or the data points were too far apart & the graph curve smoothed out.

Jonathan, your right regarding the data does not cover nearly all bases. I think the EPA ought to provide MPG data at different speeds for each vehicle, so that consumers can have vehicle & speed specific MPG information. I am sure there is at least some variation in optimal FE speed for every vehicle and transmission type.

PS - That simulator rocks! http://vwitme011.vkw.tu-dresden.de/%7Etreiber/MicroApplet/

Lowering the speed limit is a good move period. Yes people speed all the time, and yes the will keep doing it. But they will only do it to a certain point. 20 MPH over is reckless driving, so you see alot of people going 80-85 where the speed limit is 70. How many go whizzing by at 120? Not many because there is a point where it is enforced and quite harshly. So if you lower it to 55 or lets say 60...people may still speed but they will go maybe 70 instead of 80 and it will still reduce fuel comsumption.

Saying that drilling for more domestic oil wont lower prices is ignorant. Alot of flucuation in the market is due to speculation. 2 weeks ago crude prices had dropped $6 dollars then Iran tested new rockets. Increasing speculation that war with Iran could happen. Crude prices went right back up. About a week ago GWB removed the executive ban on drilling and crude oil prices have dropped 16 dollars a barrel since. Just the feeling that there will be more future oil supplies is enough to drop prices. It may take 5-10 years to drill but if the market knows more oil is coming they dont have to increase prices to slow demand.

If you want to speed, do it. But saying that slowing down an entire nation (the nation with more vehicles than any at that) of vehicles wont help fuel prices, is...well...retarded to put it bluntly.

Is anybody a cop here? They tend to have a code among themselves to let each other off when they are speeding off duty. I used to work with a woman who would tell the police officer that her husband was on the force (not the Jedi thing) and she would be let off doing 10-15 over and she bragged about this all the time. Years later, her husband, running radar, was on front page news about speed traps on the freeway and what the city would do with the windfall of $100,000 revenue generated from the tickets. Noone knew where the money went. I rode with my friend who was pulled over for doing 18 over and was about to be given a ticket until the police officer asked for ID and was flashed a law enforcement ID, my friend is a deputy sherriff. He said that he's been let off for doing as fast as 130 mph. They can't enforce the law among themselves. This is probably why everyone sees someone flying at 10-20 mph over the speed limit, they work in police, sherriff, US marshal, or state trooper/highway patrol, and are off duty. That is why I see trouble with enforcement of 55 mph speed limit.

I have heard about that. Very interesting, so many cops probably would feel like hypocits for handing out sppeding tickets to folks. That might explain the leniency of generally not ticketing for those speeding within 10 MPH of the psl .

People are always going to drive over the limit. Some more than others. Even in my state where the limit is 70 mph, people drive 80 mph.I remember driving back in 80's before MADD went into full force. Saturday night driving in the Country was a crap shoot at best. Seemed like at least 1/3 of all drivers in that hour after the bars closed were 3-sheets-to-the-wind. Then something changed in Texas. Repeated DWI convictions became a felony. Didn't change at first, but after a few guys spent a few months / years in the state pen, that curbed the behavior quickly. If you recall back in the 70's driving drunk was considered as victimless as speeding or street racing. Views change and if people really considered how many innocent motorists are killed or injured by people who's reaction time was to slow for their speed, things might change. Something like a felony conviction for serious injury to another as a result of speeding might do it.People have this notion about the speed limit that since so many people drive over the speed limit it is right and those of us that drive the limit or less are wrong.Logical point and counter point:

Premise: If the majority does it than it's right.
Correlary: If only a minority of people do it, than it's wrong.

Point: The majority of people speed, so speeding is OK, and speeding laws should be repealed.

Counter Point: The majority of people don't participate in the election process in the US, so elections should no longer be held.

See the flaw? If only one person votes in an election, it's still that persons right to participate and its wrong for others (even a sweeping majority of others) to take that right away. So... If I (as a licensed motorist) choose to travel the US motorways at a velocity BETWEEN the posted minimum and maximum speeds, it is my right to do so. If others (even a sweeping majority of others) disagree with my choice of speeds, it is still wrong of them to force me, through action or suggestion (ie tailgating), to travel at a velocity outside the legal limits (both above or below).

11011011

He said that he's been let off for doing as fast as 130 mph. They can't enforce the law among themselves.

Another good reason for automated systems....they don't care who does the speeding...they just issue the ticket. Even when a human gets involved during the review/data entry portion, they just keep writing the tickets out. I wonder where these things are used, has anyone come across themselves speeding & not issued the ticket? I wonder if there is an internal review process where they might catch someone doing that?


Point: The majority of people speed, so speeding is OK, and speeding laws should be repealed.
And of corse the government is supposed to uphold what is morally right no matter how popular an idea is. Everyone is down on Mr X, so we because eveyone hates & wants to hurt them, the goverment should allow it....obviously not.

So Sen. Warner asked what is the optimal speed for fuel economy? I'll tell him: probably about 45 mph, on average. If FE is the sole reason for choosing a speed limit, then it's time for a national 45 mph limit. There are very few cars whose FE will increase significantly at speeds higher than this (I see lots of claims to the contrary from people with low post counts, but very little real evidence -- mostly people believing what they want to believe IMO). And even those few cars will still get better mpg at lower speeds if P&G is used.

Setting speeds exclusively based on driver behavior would be even more ludicrous. Sure, people tailgate and speed because they "feel" it's safe. That's just proof that people aren't good judges of their own safety, let alone that of others. How many many times have you run into someone who's afraid to fly -- even though flying has proven many times safer than driving the same distance? I've run into plenty of newbie drivers who are scared of the freeway even though it's dramatically safer than the backroads. And I can't tell you how many people have expressed concern for my safety (or that of my son in the trailer) as a bicyclist, even though cycling is just as safe as driving on a per-mile basis and 3 times safer on a per-hour basis. You can't feel safety. If people were such good judges of their own safety, we wouldn't have 10,000 people brutally killed in bloody mayhem on our roads every year. I'm learning in my signal timing class that the measure of 85th percentile speed can be very useful for traffic planning and optimization purposes, but that doesn't mean it should be the basis for our speed limits!

Setting speed limits needs to be a compromise between based on either crash severity and fuel efficiency on the one hand vs. expediency (and possibly a reduced rate of solo crashes from drowsy driving) on the other hand. Again, I think it's silly that this arbitrary 55 number keeps coming up. 55 is neither optimal for safety nor fuel economy, and was a compromise when it was first imposed. The question is not "should we impose a national speed limit of 55 mph?" it is "if we imposed a national speed limit, what would the limit be?" Personally, I still think 60 is the best compromise. It will get much better compliance, will still save a ton of fuel and lives, allows those of us who want to drive 55-60 to do that safely while allowing breathing room for P&Ging and coasting down hills.

Is anybody a cop here? They tend to have a code among themselves to let each other off when they are speeding off duty. ....

Montgomery County, MD had a real stink a few months back when the cops in cop cars driving on their own time (not on duty, and something they were allowed to do) got caught with the speed camera. A number of them felt they should not pay the fines - "the county owns the car" - even got pictures of them giving the camera the one finger salute. The county and the head of the police department felt otherwise.

Try 40,000, not 10,000. That's from the NHTSA stats I found
while researching the hack-speech thing.
.
_H*

Try 40,000, not 10,000. That's from the NHTSA stats I found
while researching the hack-speech thing.
.
_H*Ooops, you're right. I realized that was wrong after I typed it. I was getting that mixed up with a different statistic.

If I (as a licensed motorist) choose to travel the US motorways at a velocity BETWEEN the posted minimum and maximum speeds, it is my right to do so. If others (even a sweeping majority of others) disagree with my choice of speeds, it is still wrong of them to force me, through action or suggestion (ie tailgating), to travel at a velocity outside the legal limits (both above or below).

11011011

AMEN. you said it as well as i have ever heard it said.

I know 55 helps my non-overdrive Mustang out a lot (17,7mpg vs. 15,5mpg at 65 and 14mpg at 70, a full 25% improvement), but would it really be as effective with overdrive as on non-overdrivers? Of course it'll help some out (although as I've said before, my conversion van seemed to have an FE sweet spot at 70), but would it then be worth the b!tching and moaning you'd hear everyone doing?

Make no mistake, I'd favour a 55mph speed limit myself, but my libertarian side says no...

Well, if saving gas were the only reason for a speed limit, then there should not be any speed limits at all going down hills, so you wouldn't have to use brakes.

I say let the states choose their own speed limits appropriate for the people who live there based on sound engineering principles. After all, limit is the key word. Your speed can be less than or equal to that speed, but must never exceed it. That is my take on the meaning of the word "limit." For example, 45 or 55 on the interstate would be fine for states like Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and other small states. But bigger states, where cities are further apart might want 65 or 70.

I think the real key is getting drivers to have respect for the law. Set the speed limit at the true maximum safe speed for which the highway was designed (yes, that might even be as high as 80 mph on some roads), but make the penalties for exceeding those speed limits very severe, such as fines in the thousands, or even jail-time. The problems we have on our roadways now come from it being considered commonplace and acceptable to be a scofflaw on the roadways.