Archives

A national speed limit of 55 saved both money and fuel. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles&oref=slogin)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Speed_Limit_55.jpgPeter Applebome - NY Times - July 17, 2008

Law of the land?

Everyone must believe there is a never ending supply of the stuff or they would not resist reality so fiercely... -- Ed.

At the Plattekill travel plaza of the New York State Thruway on Wednesday, you didn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing on gas prices and on the economy over all.

Forget the $4.27 per gallon for regular at the pumps. Inside, every flat-screen television seemed to feature one scary message or another for people to ponder over their Starbucks lattes or Roy Roger’s burgers.

“America’s Fuel Crisis,” read the headline on CNN as various talking heads were summoned to debate drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. “What I’ll Never Give Up,” was the topic on Headline News as callers were asked what they could not do without (favorite guitar and amp was one reply) no matter how far under water their finances might sink.

So you might have thought an idea that could cut people’s gasoline costs by 15 percent or more as soon as they pulled out of the lot might have some appeal. It’s a Golden Oldie from the 1970s that was resuscitated this month when Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, suggested that Congress might want to consider returning to a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices… http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles&oref=slogin

I hope they do it.
a year ago I would have thought this was crazy but i've changed alot since then and so have the gas prices.

Let the small municipalities make a ton off all the speeders :)

I can't wait for this to be done!, now i can safely coast down to 40!!

Nothing more than a cash cow for the government and the greedy insurance companies. Reducing the speed limit could also be an excuse for car makers not to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Though I'd like to see a national 55 MPH speed limit, I don't see it happening:(

Many Americans have vivid memories of the double nickel first time around and are in no mood to repeat the experience. Sad, but Americans just don't like laws which restrict their personal "freedom" in the interest of the common good. Prohibition is a good example and the 55 limit idea will likely become another.

If we get a change in national leadership, I suppose there is some slim chance of a national 55 MPH speed limit. I don't think either of the Presidential candidates is going to commit to the idea since these kinds of questions can only lose votes. We could all write to our congressman. That might help build a bit of steam behind the idea. But when they weigh the mail, we aren't likely to build much pressure that way. I wish I had a more optimistic view.

The campaign to reach drivers through the media, as we seem to have some success with, is a good start. Personal influence with our friends and family, is another good outlet. Writing to our representatives. What else? Even a trip of 1000 miles begins with a single step.:)

I have mixed feelings about this idea. On one hand, it would reduce fuel consumption if people stayed in the 55-60 MPH range when driving over long distances. On the other hand, the government has gotten a bit obscene with the penalties for speeding ($250-$500 for speeding is just over-the-top).

The better way to reduce fuel consumption is simply to require carmakers to produce cars and trucks that get 35 MPG or higher. They've been selling such vehicles in Europe for decades, so it's obvious that it can be done and at a reasonable profit.

Most people cannot fully control a car at the speeds that are now allowed. That explains all our accidents. We cannot prove to the government that we can handle these machines, how are we gonna then say that the speed limit cannot be reDUCed with this war at home mowing down each other?

Well said, Catgic.

I'd be more than happy if the 55mph limit were to be set here in Califonia

100% in favor of a 60 MPH speed limit.

Most will drive 5 MPH over the speed limit anyway, bringing the effective speed to about 65 MPH.

That will slowdown the flow from 70-75 to 60-65.

Great idea. Needs to be done.

But I would sell the idea with a strong marketing campaign educating Americans on the benefits.

1) Saves lives. Fewer accidents. Lower insurance.

2) Primary cost savings. Immediately better MPG. Equivalent to about $20 an hour for each hour we drive 60 instead of 70.

3) Secondary cost savings. Less fuel use could bring down pump prices significantly.

4) National benefits... Energy independence, national security and economic growth.

If fact, whether we pass a 55 or 60 MPH limit, we need national public service messages extolling the benefits of driving slower.

How about a 60 mph limit?

55 does seem a bit low to me. I'm fine with 60 mph, and more people would comply with it. Too many people violated the old 55 mph limit.

Harry

Nothing more than a cash cow for the government and the greedy insurance companies. Reducing the speed limit could also be an excuse for car makers not to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

I see it as an opportunity to correct the misperception of bigger engines are required in NA because of all the highway driving. If people couldn't drive fast without taking a huge hit to the wallet and if people were allowed to drive slower because of a lower posted speed limit, maybe this big engine misperception would start to fade and we could get the smaller engines in cars like the Yaris and Fit like the rest of the world does. I just don't need the 1.5 liter in our Yaris and I drive 100 km's of extremely busy highway everyday.

Germany has much higher speed limits than we do - and their fleet MPG is 38 !


The reason we have a gas consumption problem is that we have massive subsidies and incentives which reduce the cost to the consumer.


Any economic good that is subsidised will be over consumed. Gasoline in this country is hugely subsidised - ergo is will be over consumed until the subsidies stop.

Stop the subsidies and you won't need a 55 speed limit:


1) stop subsidising oil exploration with tax dollars ($250 billion per year)

2) stop subsidising roads with tax dollars ($250 billion per year on top of gas tax)

3) stop subsidising ex-urban development with land use & tax policies favouring sprawl

the list could go on and on

Wrong idea! Really stupid idea, to force everyone to drive slowly in order to squeeze marginally better mileage out of oversize & inefficient gas guzzlers - even ignoring the many situations (such as any long downgrade) where going faster gives better mileage. No, what we need is cars that a) get better fuel economy; and b) use little or no petroleum.

As for the previous comment about a 35 mpg fleet average, that's thinking way too small. The goal ought to be 100 mpg at 100 mph - and don't say it's impossible, the Aptera is damned close already.

PS: And if you have to get the government involved, how about a program to buy up & crush the guzzlers?

..."Equivalent to about $20 an hour for each hour we drive 60 instead of 70."

I wanted to clarify my statement here.

To be more precise, what I meant was that for the extra time it takes going 60 vs 70, that extra time will return you about a $15 per hour after tax savings or equivalent to about $20 pre-tax savings.

IE... a 7 hour trip at 60 MPH vs a 6 hour trip at 70 MPH will save you about $15 after tax based on a MPG improvement from 20 MPG to 25 MPG.

Yo Guys I hate to poop in your post toasties as they say. But I think you need to read this first before you start whining for the 55 mph speed limit.
Seems all of us that have cut our gasoline consumption has put our elected flunkies in a small predicament. They have a 9 billion dollar short fall in gasoline taxes revenues.

[QUOTE=xcel;125245]A national speed limit of 55 saved both money and fuel. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/nyregion/17towns.html?_r=1&ref=automobiles&oref=slogin)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Speed_Limit_55.jpgPeter Applebome - NY Times - July 17, 2008

Law of the land?

Everyone must believe there is a never ending supply of the stuff or they would not resist reality so fiercely... -- Ed.

Well said. Many still just don't get it. Every day I continue to witness speeding motorists, tail-gaters, people driving to a grocery store in their Hummers or Suburbans just to get a loaf of bread, and other wasteful and dangerous habits.

Get a clue, people!

2) stop subsidising roads with tax dollars ($250 billion per year on top of gas tax)



Raise the gasoline tax, and lower the other subsidies. That's fine with me. But you big-city people need to appreciate the situation for rural folks. Much of the original road building in this country was categorized as "farm-to-market roads." All the meat and veggies that show up in your big city groceries don't originate in cities. All your food comes from rural areas, and you need roads to get that food to the cities.
So stop pretending that you don't need roads. You sure do.

I wouldn't mind taking a train, but where I live there is no longer passenger rail service. I have to drive on roads for an hour or two hours to catch a flight. Don't tell me we can get by without roads.

Harry

Harry,

If we eliminated the $250 billion highway subsidy - there would still be zillions upon zillion of dollars for roads from the gas tax.

I'd sure support re-allocating some of that $250 billion to rebuild the RR in your district - but note Metro North is having a difficult time expanding the Harlem past Wassaic - becuase the upstate locals don't want the trains back !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Line_(Metro-North)


Re: 35 MPG not enough ? - The Germans agree with you that's why they are implementing a 48 MPG CAFE standard !

"Mr. Warner did not call for a return to 55 miles per hour, the limit set by Congress in 1974 in reaction to the energy shocks of another generation. But he asked the Energy Department to determine the most fuel-efficient speed limit, noting that Americans had saved 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day when the 55-mile limit was in effect. (Congress repealed the measure in 1995.)"


If you looked at the average typical vehicles on the road today, and got an average of their
"most fuel-efficient speed" on a flat road, what would it be?? 40? 50? 60?

Subsidies are very hard to pin down. Yes roads are subsidized. Is it any worst than any other mod of transportation. Around here, the Washington, DC metro areas public transportation is surely subsidized. Uncle Sam give any government employee who used public transportation, or bus, or van pool $100 a month tax free to pay for their transportation. That is a $1,200 a year subsidy. And it is a double subsidy since now these people are driving their cars even less. Also these people are paying less in gas tax to keep up the roads that are used to deliver the good they use. When the built the metro system and every time they want to expand the system they look to both the local governments and the federal government to subsidize the cost. This is in addition to subsidizing the ongoing operational cost.

Does this mean that public transportations is subsidized more or less than the road system. I have not idea and I very much doubt that anyone can reliably sort everything out to tell me the truth.

"Mr. Warner did not call for a return to 55 miles per hour, the limit set by Congress in 1974 in reaction to the energy shocks of another generation. But he asked the Energy Department to determine the most fuel-efficient speed limit, noting that Americans had saved 167,000 barrels of petroleum a day when the 55-mile limit was in effect. (Congress repealed the measure in 1995.)"


If you looked at the average typical vehicles on the road today, and got an average of their
"most fuel-efficient speed" on a flat road, what would it be?? 40? 50? 60?

For a Prius, it is 21mph. The wrong question is posed here. They should estimate the fleet average fuel economy at each practical limit (55 - 70, say), and let our elected reps debate how to compromise it out. 55 would be the most fuel-efficient speed, only because I just limited the bottom end of the analysis. Even lower speeds would be a little more efficient. Time must be a factor.

I favor national rules, but not a flat one-size-fits-all limit. Those in W TX and MT need a little slack. Very few cars there and very great distances to travel. Why not develop a sliding scale considering population density and/or traffic density. The nice part is that safety and FE tend to vary consistently with such densities.

Maybe its 70 in a few remote areas, 65 for much of the west, and 60 for high-traffic areas. FE got more important in the equation lately, but time and safety are factors, too.

There are more effective ways to save gas than to drive one speed all the time despite going uphill or downhill.

I would rather see a law instructing drivers on Interstates to drive at a SAFE and EFFICIENT speed - and to slow down on inclines.

In other words, remove the speed limit altogether while telling people to drive efficiently. The cops can decide who is driving recklessly and inefficiently and pull them over.

Reason being is that the speed limit clouds people's view of what it means to drive safely and efficiently. In any case, slower is safer. It's lunacy to drive 70 mph if it's raining cats and dogs, or even to drive 55 in thick fog.

We could also make quick and abrupt passing illegal, because that wastes a lot of gas due to the engine usually having to downshift. And make passing illegal except on downgrades.

I guess the gist of what I'm saying is to legislate hypermiling.

Subsidies are very hard to pin down. Yes roads are subsidized. Is it any worst than any other mod of transportation. Around here, the Washington, DC metro areas public transportation is surely subsidized. Uncle Sam give any government employee who used public transportation, or bus, or van pool $100 a month tax free to pay for their transportation. That is a $1,200 a year subsidy. And it is a double subsidy since now these people are driving their cars even less. Also these people are paying less in gas tax to keep up the roads that are used to deliver the good they use. When the built the metro system and every time they want to expand the system they look to both the local governments and the federal government to subsidize the cost. This is in addition to subsidizing the ongoing operational cost.

Does this mean that public transportations is subsidized more or less than the road system. I have not idea and I very much doubt that anyone can reliably sort everything out to tell me the truth.

Whoa!

Subsidizing public transport is a good idea. It keeps people off of welfare which is even more expensive than that subsidy. Most of the jobs that uneducated and unskilled laborers can do pay just a little over minimum wage, and on top of that you've got to pay for health care. Plus, have you ever tried to drive in your own city? When you think about it the public transit subsidy is a good idea. It's better to have people working jobs than running drugs ... or getting upset and pulling out (now legal) guns in traffic.

We could use something like that in some S.C. cities as well.

I guess the gist of what I'm saying is to legislate hypermiling.

Did I hear legislate hypermiling?? :P I'm writing my senators!!

Whoa!

Subsidizing public transport is a good idea. It keeps people off of welfare which is even more expensive than that subsidy. Most of the jobs that uneducated and unskilled laborers can do pay just a little over minimum wage, and on top of that you've got to pay for health care. Plus, have you ever tried to drive in your own city? When you think about it the public transit subsidy is a good idea. It's better to have people working jobs than running drugs ... or getting upset and pulling out (now legal) guns in traffic.

We could use something like that in some S.C. cities as well.

I did not mean to take a position on what subsidies are good and which are bad. But rather that the very general argument that subsidies result in overuse need to be thought out. It can apply equally to all forms of transportation. Then there is the question of what is a subsidy. If you tax my road use (aka gas tax) and feed that money back into keeping the road in good condition one can argue that the roads are not subisdized but being paid for by their users. I tend to say anything that hides the true cost of doing something, be it driving or riding public transportation, tends to hide the true cost and thus distort the economy in sometimes undesirable and unanticipated ways.

As for the poor and public transportation that raises a second issue. Just reducing the cost of public transportation through a subsidy benefits not just the poor but everyone who uses public transportation regardless of their income level. That to me seem to be a very inefficient way to help those most in need. I would much rather find a way to target my subsidy to those who truly need the help. And that is much easier said than done.

...what I meant was that for the extra time it takes going 60 vs 70, that extra time will return you about a $15 per hour after tax savings or equivalent to about $20 pre-tax savings.

I'm happy to say that my employers seem to value my time rather more highly than you do :-)

You're also missing what I think is the most important point: going fast on decent roads is FUN. Of course freeways are boring no matter what speed you drive, but am I alone in being incredibly frustrated by people who seem to think that driving 25 mph is the appropriate reaction to any bit of road with curves on it?

Raise the gasoline tax, and lower the other subsidies. That's fine with me. But you big-city people need to appreciate the situation for rural folks. Much of the original road building in this country was categorized as "farm-to-market roads." All the meat and veggies that show up in your big city groceries don't originate in cities. All your food comes from rural areas, and you need roads to get that food to the cities.
So stop pretending that you don't need roads. You sure do.

And as the gasoline tax is raised, more of those meats and veggies will be moved by rail because it's 3 times as fuel efficient as trucks. The sooner the better.

So yes we need roads... railroads.

Subsidies are very hard to pin down. Yes roads are subsidized. Is it any worst than any other mod of transportation. Around here, the Washington, DC metro areas public transportation is surely subsidized. Uncle Sam give any government employee who used public transportation, or bus, or van pool $100 a month tax free to pay for their transportation. That is a $1,200 a year subsidy. And it is a double subsidy since now these people are driving their cars even less. Also these people are paying less in gas tax to keep up the roads that are used to deliver the good they use. When the built the metro system and every time they want to expand the system they look to both the local governments and the federal government to subsidize the cost. This is in addition to subsidizing the ongoing operational cost.

Does this mean that public transportations is subsidized more or less than the road system. I have not idea and I very much doubt that anyone can reliably sort everything out to tell me the truth.

Average area has very little subsidy for public transportation. DC is an anomaly. Around here we have a few buses and I suspect they are barely running a loss. The road construction costs millions of dollars (and you can't say that is for the busses at all since if they were used at any significant %, there wouldn't need to be more lanes). The biggest subsidy of all is on oil. That is hard to pin down - things like security cost.

On topic - I want to drive 100 mph but with the current vehicle mix-the limit should be 55. People like to say that 55 mph is not the right answer but it is the quickest answer. I think 55 mph today and then gradually climb back up as efficiency improves - with perhaps a higher speed limit for more efficient cars on certain roads. Once we are all driving Aptera like vehicles - the limit could be 100.

To all those that feel bad for those in West Texas - why should the rest of us subsidize their wasting of oil. Yes - boring, yes - time wasting but they are wasting huge amounts of oil. They should be the first area to have higher limits for efficient cars.

As far as enforcement - cameras. Mobile cameras in sufficient numbers would do the trick. With enforcement and a lower limit, it would make a huge difference.

I think you are correct. The United States is the only nation in the western world with crippled and mediocre railways - and (except for the northeast corridor) has almost ZERO passenger service. US railways should be improved and expanded. It is the only way to move goods (and people) efficiently.


And as the gasoline tax is raised, more of those meats and veggies will be moved by rail because it's 3 times as fuel efficient as trucks. The sooner the better.

So yes we need roads... railroads.

To all those that feel bad for those in West Texas - why should the rest of us subsidize their wasting of oil. Yes - boring, yes - time wasting but they are wasting huge amounts of oil. They should be the first area to have higher limits for efficient cars.

As far as enforcement - cameras. Mobile cameras in sufficient numbers would do the trick. With enforcement and a lower limit, it would make a huge difference.

You can drive half way across your great state in their distance to the grocery store. And no, they are not wasting huge amounts of oil, since there are very very few cars involved.

Part of the objective of my approach is to get large western states on-board with a program moving us toward greater efficiency.

Cameras, ... Let's go for thought-crime too. Das Amerika!

Why should my elderly Mom - living in a fixed income - subsidise West Texans & their long distance driving ?

Why should my elderly Mom - living in a fixed income - subsidise West Texans & their long distance driving ?


They must pay for the extra gas if they choose to go faster. What subsidy are you paying to them?

I'm confused what people are outraged saying "I don't want my government telling me how fast to drive!" There are LIMITS in place now. The questions shouldn't be about "freedom" because we're not totally free as it is to drive "100MPH down curvy roads" as I'm hearing some people say.

I doubt few here would argue that auto manufacturers need to design more efficient vehicles. But in the meantime, the answer isn't "oh let's sit around and wait till that happens" when we can act now by driving slower. Every vehicle on American highways right now is more efficient at 55 than at 70 (let alone the 80+ that is commonly seen). This topic is a no-brainer.

I think you are correct. The United States is the only nation in the western world with crippled and mediocre railways - and (except for the northeast corridor) has almost ZERO passenger service. US railways should be improved and expanded. It is the only way to move goods (and people) efficiently.

Canada's mass transit is a complete joke as well.

Go to Japan and you'll see what mass transit shuold be. Discover that young Japanese are starting to not buy cars and you'll see why we don't have a system like that here. It's not good for the "economy". Economy equalling rich peoples pockets.

If you watch the episode of Top Gear the one before last you'll see even British people are amazed by the mass transit in Japan. There's good and bad everywhere, but Japan is a model we should all take notice of and attempt to emulate their lead and even improve upon it.

They must pay for the extra gas if they choose to go faster. What subsidy are you paying to them?

By consuming more gas they are driving up the price for everyone else. That is Econ 101 and the law of supply and demand. If there are large numbers out there driving their Fsp and running at high speeds and therefore consuming more gas they are driving the price of gas up for everyone.

I'm still waiting for answers to a couple of questions from someone pushing 55.

First, the easy one: How does it help to save fuel for me to go 55 mph on that 20-mile stretch of 6% downgrade?

Now the hard one: How does a 55 mph limit address the fundamental problem? Remember that the situation today is very different from that in the 1970s, when the Arab world instituted its oil embargo - effectively an act of war. The problem then was that there simply wasn't enough oil.

Today there seems to be plenty of oil - at least I haven't heard of any shortages, lines at gas stations, or any other signs of shortages. It's just that the asking price is more than a lot of people want to pay. Well, so what? If people aren't willing or able to pay for their current lifestyle, let them change it.

Keep the price of gas high (not that I'm claiming that $4/gal is actually high, you understand), and those changes will happen, as we see by declining SUV & pickup sales. Take measures to cut the price, by for instance forcing conservation measures like 55 mph limits, and you reduce the price. That a) removes the motivation for change; and b) causes the hard-of-thinking to believe it's all a government plot.

If you look at it this way, a 55 mph speed limit seems counterproductive. A 55 cents per gallon increase in gas taxes would do better :-)

By consuming more gas they are driving up the price for everyone else. That is Econ 101 and the law of supply and demand. If there are large numbers out there driving their Fsp and running at high speeds and therefore consuming more gas they are driving the price of gas up for everyone.


If there were large numbers of them, the road won't qualify for a higher psl. If other states have similar traffic densities, they too could have a higher limit.

First, the easy one: How does it help to save fuel for me to go 55 mph on that 20-mile stretch of 6% downgrade?

Now the hard one: How does a 55 mph limit address the fundamental problem? Remember that the situation today is very different from that in the 1970s, when the Arab world instituted its oil embargo - effectively an act of war. The problem then was that there simply wasn't enough oil.

Today there seems to be plenty of oil

First, there are very few places where you have enough grade to even maintain 55mph for a long period of time, and for the few places that do exist, either we could have special dispensation or we just do 55 to keep things consistant. High speeds down a steep winding road make a receipe for disaster, so for safely its probably better to stay slower there. Almost any car would get excellent mileage ideling at 55mph for that slope.

There isn't plently of oil. Even if we agree that there is an unlimited amount of oil in the ground, we can only get it out so fast at a given price. The world could probably double its oil production in just a few years time, but the actual cost to produce that high output could very well make current oil prices seem low, and thats without any increases caused by speculation. There is only so much oil in the market during a given year, and the demand for that oil is increasing...worse, the need is so great people are willing to pay those high prices. Even as high as the prices were, I didn't hear about any warehouses full of oil that couldn't be sold. Somewhere there is a price point where demand will be less than production, but we haven't seen that point yet, and I'd rather not go looking for it.

Car travel is massively subsidised in the US. Any good that is subsidised will be overconsumed.


1) Gas taxes pay only a portion of what it costs to build and maintain our highways. (circa $250 billion)

2) Oil Companies get massive tax breaks (circa $250 billion)


end the subsidies and we won't need to have a 55 MPH limit.

I find it interesting to note that their seems to be so much resistance to a 55 mph limit on this site dedicated to raise fuel economy when we know GOING 55 mph SAVES GAS!

And by the way, oil is LIMITED, read up on peak oil and you'll see that the world's oil supply is dwindling. Add in the fact that 90% of the world's remaining oil lies in the middle east -- despite the majority of current imports coming from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, etc.

Subsidies plague all facets of society, notice how corn and soy winds up in all kinds of food. They are our most subsidized crops! There are scientists who spend their career researching ways to implement soy and corn into products that don't need them because we grow so much of it. Now subsidized solar and wind energy is an idea I can get behind...

I have mixed feelings about this idea. On one hand, it would reduce fuel consumption if people stayed in the 55-60 MPH range when driving over long distances. On the other hand, the government has gotten a bit obscene with the penalties for speeding ($250-$500 for speeding is just over-the-top).

The better way to reduce fuel consumption is simply to require carmakers to produce cars and trucks that get 35 MPG or higher. They've been selling such vehicles in Europe for decades, so it's obvious that it can be done and at a reasonable profit.

Efficiency without government limitations on use will be ineffective. Efficiency will drive the cost of driving down and encourage more consumption. This is known as Jevons' Paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox and it was postulated in his paper The Coal Question back in 1860's Britain over her profligate use of coal and how much was left.

Canada's mass transit is a complete joke as well.

Go to Japan and you'll see what mass transit shuold be. Discover that young Japanese are starting to not buy cars and you'll see why we don't have a system like that here. It's not good for the "economy". Economy equalling rich peoples pockets.

If you watch the episode of Top Gear the one before last you'll see even British people are amazed by the mass transit in Japan. There's good and bad everywhere, but Japan is a model we should all take notice of and attempt to emulate their lead and even improve upon it.

I haven't been to Japan, but have visited Europe, especially Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, many times. I don't know much about their freight rail service, but their passenger service is great, and can get you from anywhere to anywhere just like it used to be in the U.S. back in the 30s and 40s. Those that are too young to remember those days would be amazed as to how convenient travel was back then. Now, for long distance travel, we are packed in like sardines on an airliner unless we have deep enough pockets to afford a very expensive flight on a private jet.

Every vehicle on American highways right now is more efficient at 55 than at 70 (let alone the 80+ that is commonly seen). This topic is a no-brainer.

EVERY vehicle? I beg to differ. When you get the Cd down into the 0.1's, then improvements in an engine's BSFC as you increase its load can more than cancel out the slight increase in aerodynamic drag as you go from 55 to 70mph. If every vehicle on the road had a Cd as low or lower than that of my car (0.17), then we wouldn't be needing to have this discussion on this thread.

But even with current production cars, a high-powered, moderately low drag car like the Corvette usually get their best mileage at 70 to 80mph.

Most people cannot fully control a car at the speeds that are now allowed. That explains all our accidents. We cannot prove to the government that we can handle these machines, how are we gonna then say that the speed limit cannot be reDUCed with this war at home mowing down each other?


That might be true in the Northeast, but most drivers can control their cars.
Otherwise, there would be no place to park since the roadsides would be
overflowing with crashed cars.. :)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourcar/P151501.asp

I'd be more than happy if the 55mph limit were to be set here in Califonia

I just want signs that says "55 is allowed"... people seem to misread the characters 'ax' as 'in' in "Maximum Speed 65 MPH".
________
Glass pipes (http://glasspipes.net/)

Canada's mass transit is a complete joke as well.

Go to Japan and you'll see what mass transit shuold be. Discover that young Japanese are starting to not buy cars and you'll see why we don't have a system like that here. It's not good for the "economy". Economy equalling rich peoples pockets.

If you watch the episode of Top Gear the one before last you'll see even British people are amazed by the mass transit in Japan. There's good and bad everywhere, but Japan is a model we should all take notice of and attempt to emulate their lead and even improve upon it.


I was in Japan about 30 years ago and found out that a Corolla was cheaper to buy in the USA!
I also found out they had to own a parking space BEFORE they could get a permit to buy a car. Most folks I ran into over there didn't need anything but a bike to get them to the train station. (I had to walk 6 miles everyday!).
So, if you live in a city that has cheap mass transit, there isn't any reason to own a car.

When my wife and I were starting out (1968), we wanted a car because we wanted
to haul a larger load of grocery bags for a longer distance.
That was before plastic bags and all we could handle on the bus was two bags each..
Had we been smarter, some really large back-packs would have done the trick.. :Banane09:

We simply will not see the speed limit return to 55 because;

1. We have been conditioned for more than 30 years to believe that fast, agressive driving enhances our machismo. High gasoline prices have, for the most part, not changed this feeling. It will take a long time to break it down.

2. We feel it is our god given right to go any speed we want. High gasoline prices have, for the most part, not changed this feeling. It will take a long time to break this down also.

3. The big .3, the oil industry and the media still downgrade our need to change. This gives everyone the idea that if you can afford it, it is still OK to drive a FSP. With big powerful companies still protecting the right to conspicuously consume fuel, conservation will remain the preoccupation of a "fanatic minority".

We need gas prices around $7.00 / Gal to start moving people away from old habits.

If every vehicle on the road had a Cd as low or lower than that of my car (0.17), then we wouldn't be needing to have this discussion on this thread.

But even with current production cars, a high-powered, moderately low drag car like the Corvette usually get their best mileage at 70 to 80mph.

How many other passenger vehicles on the highway do you see with Cd of 0.17 or lower? Not having an exceptionally aerodynamic vehicle, I haven't experienced operating vehicles at 70 and 80 mph and achieving better FE. Perhaps I was making sweeping generalizations by stating "every", however I doubt you're encouraging everyone to go out and buy a Corvette and drive 80. My point is, based on the current U.S. fleet of everyday passenger vehicles, lowering the speed limit (to 65, 60, 55, whatever) will reduce fuel consumption and will (I'm speculating as I don't have data) reduce speed related accidents/deaths.

Car travel is massively subsidised in the US. Any good that is subsidised will be overconsumed.


1) Gas taxes pay only a portion of what it costs to build and maintain our highways. (circa $250 billion)

2) Oil Companies get massive tax breaks (circa $250 billion)


end the subsidies and we won't need to have a 55 MPH limit.

Could you please give the sources for both of the $250 Billion figures?

I can't find any site getting even remotely close to those numbers.

Gas tax isn't the only revenue that goes to roads and bridges, I pay more at $230 a year in registration fees than approximately $74 in federal tax, and $88 state tax. I don't think many people would characterize the fees that we pay for roads as a subsidy. We are paying for the road, the only subsidy is that which is over and above the what was already paid. Is that the $250 Billion number?

If as you seem to be saying, any money spent on roads is a subsidy, then let's privatize it and I'm sure will get more for our $$$$ than what we see now with the feds picking and choosing who get's money or whether they will take it away if the state doesn't obey the latest no child left behind or drinking age or blood alcohol level mandate.

Robert, I'm not sure how you can say that high gasoline prices haven't changed anything. There is both subjective and objective data suggesting people are driving less and driving slower. And certainly our buying habbits of cars have been effected.
However the higher the prices go the more effect it will have. And a sudden reduction to even just $3 might cause a short term rebound effect, but I doubt it.

Even changing Interstate speeds from 75 to 65 mph would make a difference. Here in Nebraska, more and more people are slowing down. Our incomes cannot support the high gas prices, even tho' most drive pickups and SUV's, so more are driving slower.

I've lived in Washington, Virginia, Ct, and other states that have some insane drivers, so I am for reducing the speed limit to a point that doesn't necessarily cut into drive time but will reduce the fuel usage.

Exactly. No matter how you look at it, coefficient of drag or whatever, slowing down will definitely save fuel - with almost no exceptions. As for deaths resulting from traffic accidents, there are NO exceptions. The death rate due to traffic accidents will diminish with slower speeds, and, by-the way, help save our environment.

How many other passenger vehicles on the highway do you see with Cd of 0.17 or lower? Not having an exceptionally aerodynamic vehicle, I haven't experienced operating vehicles at 70 and 80 mph and achieving better FE. Perhaps I was making sweeping generalizations by stating "every", however I doubt you're encouraging everyone to go out and buy a Corvette and drive 80. My point is, based on the current U.S. fleet of everyday passenger vehicles, lowering the speed limit (to 65, 60, 55, whatever) will reduce fuel consumption and will (I'm speculating as I don't have data) reduce speed related accidents/deaths.

Where does the $250 billion figure come from ? :

The $250 billion comes from The Economist magazine. About 1/2 of that comes from the 6 year 'road expansion' boondoggle cooked up this administration and congress (both parties) another 1/2 of this is state and local plus gas tax shortfalls.

User fees (gas tax and liscense fees) pay only a portion of Highway costs - the rest come out of general revenue.


My response to those who advocate a 55 MPH limit:

If this a a true national crisis, then why a 55 MPH limit ? We all know that 45 MPH is the typical sweet spot of MPG - why not a 45 MPH limit ?

Here in Pittsburgh our mass transit system is going bankrupt. Round trip fare is $14 and they're losing millions each year. The base fare is $2 each way and the state and county subsitizes it an additional $5 per trip. So for a 4 mile ride on our mass transit system is $7.
They are cutting routes and planning on raising fares even more.
Waste fraud and mismanagement is rampant at all levels of the system.

Most residents want the public system to just die and go to private firms running the mass transit system.

Where does the $250 billion figure come from ? :

The $250 billion comes from The Economist magazine. About 1/2 of that comes from the 6 year 'road expansion' boondoggle cooked up this administration and congress (both parties) another 1/2 of this is state and local plus gas tax shortfalls.

User fees (gas tax and liscense fees) pay only a portion of Highway costs - the rest come out of general revenue.

So this isn't an annual $250 Billion? Is there online access to the article from the Economist by chance?

What about the $250 Billion in oil subsidies, the extremely biased study from 1998 that came up with the $15 a gallon true cost only attributed between 9.1 and 15.7 billion in oil tax subsidies or 3.5 to 6 cents a gallon, and believe me they obviously took every opportunity to inflate the numbers they could.

For instance they concluded that because the government isn't properly taxing the value attributed to free parking as an though it was income, those that have a parking spot where they work should be taxed. The conclusion, 199 Billion or $0.75 a gallon because parking is in many places free? Utter BS.

http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

This study sure didn't find $250 Billion in subsidies, and IIRC the number I remember most recently was $16 or $18 Billion annually.

First, there are very few places where you have enough grade to even maintain 55mph for a long period of time...

Maybe not in Chicago :-) Out here in the rest of the world, there are plenty of them.

There isn't plenty of oil. Even if we agree that there is an unlimited amount of oil in the ground, we can only get it out so fast at a given price.

You're looking at the wrong time frame. There is, right now, plenty of oil, since anyone who is willing to pay can go down to the local station and buy it. This is just the opposite of the situation in the 1970s, when short-term political factors disrupted supply. The problem now is that oil is still too plentiful and too cheap, so that people use it instead of alternatives, despite the fact that doing so funds jihad and contributes to long-term environmental disaster.

If you think about the problem in this light, instead of just the short-term effect on your wallet, you see that small & short-term savings via such measures as 55 mph speed limits would be counterproductive. They might lower the cost of driving current-style cars, and even drive down the price of gas a bit, but that would lessen the incentive to make the major changes that are needed.

I haven't been to Japan, but have visited Europe, especially Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, many times. I don't know much about their freight rail service, but their passenger service is great, and can get you from anywhere to anywhere...

No, it doesn't get you from anywhere to anywhere. It will get you from one urban area to another, but then you need some other form of transportation, such as a bicycle, to get you that last however many miles to your actual destination. Which is really the whole problem with mass transit: you may not need a car to get around a city, but you need one to get OUT.

The study you cite has the information people should be aware of. Thanks for linking it. - Here is a good quote:


RECOMMENDATIONS
The ultimate result of the externalization of such a
large portion of the real price of gasoline is that
consumers have no idea how much fueling their cars
actually costs them.

The majority of people paying just
over $1 for a gallon of gasoline at the pump has no idea
that through increased taxes, excessive insurance
premiums, and inflated prices in other retail sectors that
that same gallon of fuel is actually costing them between
$5.60 and $15.14. When the price of gasoline is so
drastically underestimated in the minds of drivers, it
becomes difficult if not impossible to convince them to
change their driving habits, accept alternative fuel
vehicles, or consider progressive residential and urban
development strategies.

The first step toward getting the public to recognize
the damage caused by the United States’ gasoline
dependance is getting the public to recognize how
much they are paying for this damage.

The best way,
in turn, to accomplish this goal is to eliminate
government tax subsidies, program subsidies, and
protection subsidies for petroleum companies and
users, and to internalize the external environmental,
health, and social costs associated with gasoline use.

This would mean that consumers would see the entire
cost of burning gasoline reflected in the price they pay
at the pump. Drivers faced with the cost of their
gasoline usage up front may have a more difficult time
ignoring the harmful effects that their addiction to
automobiles and the internal combustion engine have
on national security, the environment, their health, and
their quality of life.



==============

All I am suggesting is that we no longer subsidise oil exploration and production via tax breaks and incentives. The oil industry should follow the same tax system that other companies follow in the US - Oil co's should neither pay more nor less taxes than other companies.


In addition, I suggest that Highway construction and maintence be 100% paid for by Gas Taxes & other user fees - No general revenue spent on Highways.


Finally, I also suggest that Land Use and tax policies which favour exurban sprawl over cities be eliminated. Both exurban and urban development should compete on a neutral playing field as much as possible. Current Government policies favour (and subsidize) exurban sprawl at the expense of urban development.


None of this should be particularly contraversial.

All I am suggesting is that we no longer subsidise oil exploration and production via tax breaks and incentives. The oil industry should follow the same tax system that other companies follow in the US - Oil co's should neither pay more nor less taxes than other companies.


In addition, I suggest that Highway construction and maintence be 100% paid for by Gas Taxes & other user fees - No general revenue spent on Highways.

I think if you are going to make such a proposal you need to extend it to all forms of transportation.

We can start with public transportation - let the users pay the full cost.

Next comes the airline industry - let the users pay for the traffic controllers, the FAA and the like.

The railroad industry gets some subsidies as well. AMTRAK will of course lose it's subsidy.

And least we forget we must find a way to make those who choose to ride bikes pay for the bike paths and for their use of the roads.

Then everyone will be on the same footing and the users can decide strictly based on cost which mode of transportation to use.

As for noncontroversial - Since the cost are now taken over by the users we should be in line for a rather large tax cut. The first impact would be a huge shift in costs to the low income workers who will now have to pay for the full cost of their travels and who don't pay much in taxes and therefore will not have any offsetting tax cut. That alone should make the proposal very controversial.

All I am suggesting is that we no longer subsidise oil exploration and production via tax breaks and incentives. The oil industry should follow the same tax system that other companies follow in the US - Oil co's should neither pay more nor less taxes than other companies.


In addition, I suggest that Highway construction and maintence be 100% paid for by Gas Taxes & other user fees - No general revenue spent on Highways.


Finally, I also suggest that Land Use and tax policies which favour exurban sprawl over cities be eliminated. Both exurban and urban development should compete on a neutral playing field as much as possible. Current Government policies favour (and subsidize) exurban sprawl at the expense of urban development.


None of this should be particularly contraversial.

And what I am suggesting is that if the actual numbers are not correct then we don't know how much it will effect the price of gas. Your contention is that if the subsidies are eliminated gas will have to go up and by a lot.

But if oil tax subsides are only $18 Billion and road subsidies are $25 billion (wild probably high guess) annually that only amounts to $0.16 a gallon, not enough to get people to drive 55 as you are hoping.

This article from 2005 puts total combined US road spending at $66.3 Billion annually. We simply aren't taking that much from the general fund.

I agree that our highways should be funded through use taxes, but as it stands they are mostly already and even $0.10 a gallon increase will make up the current shortfall in road expense. Better yet I'd like to be paying use taxes and tolls to private industry.

Tax breaks are a little different than "subsidies". If oil companies get tax breaks it's only from an arbitary level to begin and lots of industries getting lots of tax breaks. Still if we eliminate all of the tax breaks we're talking $0.06 a gallon at most. I'd like to see the government eliminate all subsidies to all industries.

The cost of urban sprawl is incredibly subjective, but if sprawl was somehow a big money loser then local taxes should be high to reflect that, but millions of sprawlish cities are doing fine with their budgets. If you simply want to reduce or eliminate sprawl then raising gas taxes for that purpose will be a hard sell.

I wouldn't take the $15 a gallon site too seriously though, the parking lot subsidy is just one of many ridiculous "externalities" they dreamed up.

I think if you are going to make such a proposal you need to extend it to all forms of transportation.

We can start with public transportation - let the users pay the full cost.

Next comes the airline industry - let the users pay for the traffic controllers, the FAA and the like.

I should note that gas taxes already pay for capital improvements and ATC. Plus, GA Flyers are subsidizing the airlines through the AvGas tax.

Although, just like cars, much of it gets fleeced and dumped into the "general fund".

Not to mention- what do you do when the socially desirable outcome is not the most economically desirable? IE, tragedy of the commons.

Not to mention- what do you do when the socially desirable outcome is not the most economically desirable? IE, tragedy of the commons.

You got it. The reason we have most subsidies in the first place is that someone has convinced the powers to be that they will produce the most desirable outcome. The arguments arise because there are many who will dispute that conclusion.

If you think about the problem in this light, instead of just the short-term effect on your wallet, you see that small & short-term savings via such measures as 55 mph speed limits would be counterproductive. They might lower the cost of driving current-style cars, and even drive down the price of gas a bit, but that would lessen the incentive to make the major changes that are needed.

Funny, I don't remember any fuel shortages back then...I remember plenty of news about fuel shortages, but never saw them. Back to Chicago, I dind't live here then, but my wife did. She saw shortages, but only in and around the city. When they did dog shows, they traveled out of the city, and never had any problems getting gas. I suspect their is a pretty good post-game analysis of what happened then, but it always makes you wonder if fuel was really that tight.

Based on your last comment, why are you here? Saving gas by hypermiling would probably fall into the same catagory as a 55mph national limit. So, to save the world should we do nothing....like most people. We could help use more gas and more oil until we drive the prices up high enough that a major change is made (national mass-transit/EV/etc).

While I recognise the theory that you are suggesting, its still better to do something than do nothing, and then keep trying to do more. Surely you wouldn't want to stop people from doing every step they could?

User fees (gas tax and liscense fees) pay only a portion of Highway costs - the rest come out of general revenue.




The opposite is true in New York. So called "dedicated highway funds" are siphoned off into the general fund, and not used for road work.

Harry

The oil industry should follow the same tax system that other companies follow in the US - Oil co's should neither pay more nor less taxes than other companies.


In addition, I suggest that Highway construction and maintence be 100% paid for by Gas Taxes & other user fees - No general revenue spent on Highways.

Sorry, but these two things conflict. You want oil to not pay more or less taxes, but you then want to tax them for the general public using roads. Since oil isn't necessary for road use (electric/hydrogen/peddle-power), why should only oil pay for the roads?

I agree that oil shouldn't be given any breaks, they are big and old, and if they can't support themselves by now they should fail. But I can't really say its fair for gas users only to support the expense of roads. At some point that will fail as we use less gas per mile due to increasing mileage and alternate technologies, so at some point the burden would have to change or the road would fail.

I agree that oil shouldn't be given any breaks, they are big and old, and if they can't support themselves by now they should fail. But I can't really say its fair for gas users only to support the expense of roads. At some point that will fail as we use less gas per mile due to increasing mileage and alternate technologies, so at some point the burden would have to change or the road would fail.

Good point. This also means that the current hybrid cars are getting a tax break as they don't pay nearly as much in gas taxes as do the gas powered cars. But then as well since we hypermilers are using less gas we are also getting a small tax break.

Those big fsp lawn tractors are paying for the roads too, that's not fair.;)

For me, riding a bcycle is not an option. However, that has not stopped me from visiting everything of interest. I'll take a train to an area, then - if necessary (it usually is not) I'll take a short tour bus ride to a site. The rail system in Europe puts the United States to shame - and it is almost criminal the way it has been allowed to deteriorate.

Germany's rail pass and youth pass offer very good rates, as does EuroRail (the correct name is Eurail). Try them some time.


No, it doesn't get you from anywhere to anywhere. It will get you from one urban area to another, but then you need some other form of transportation, such as a bicycle, to get you that last however many miles to your actual destination. Which is really the whole problem with mass transit: you may not need a car to get around a city, but you need one to get OUT.

Based on your last comment, why are you here? Saving gas by hypermiling would probably fall into the same catagory as a 55mph national limit.

First, it's not at all the same, because you're talking about legislating a 55 mph limit. I have no problems with anyone driving 55 (or any other speed) if they want to - I do so myself, when I think the situation warrants - but I don't want to see it made mandatory, just as I don't want most other aspects of hypermiling made mandatory.

What I really want, in the long term, is efficient transportation. If I chose to drive somewhere, I'd like to make the trip in my 100 mpg at 100 mph Aptera derivative. Alternatively, for longer trips I'd like to be able to hop on a train (perhaps with my bike), and read or work in comfort on the journey.

So, to save the world should we do nothing....

No, to save the world we should do something different. It's like (if you'll forgive a brief interjection of partisan politics) a certain candidate who runs on a platform of unspecified "change", when experience strongly suggests that most changes actually wind up making things worse. It's not enough just to change something: you have to try to figure out how to make the changes that will have the effects you want.

Well, despite what McCain said, we do need to, as you implied, try to figure out how to make the changes that will have the effects that will work. :D



No, to save the world we should do something different. It's like (if you'll forgive a brief interjection of partisan politics) a certain candidate who runs on a platform of unspecified "change", when experience strongly suggests that most changes actually wind up making things worse. It's not enough just to change something: you have to try to figure out how to make the changes that will have the effects you want.

Well, despite what McCain said, we do need to, as you implied, try to figure out how to make the changes that will have the effects that will work. :D

...and no matter who is in power, hold them accountable to do things that will work.

Sammy Hagar would be happy if they brought back 55mph. His song might become a hit again. As for speeding tickets, I wish we could set the fines like they do in a certain country. In this country, the amount of your speeding ticket is a percentage of your income. I don't know the specifics of their system but what I do understand is the amout of speed above the speed limit dictates the percentage number. So let's say someone earns $2,000 a month and his penalty is 10% of his monthly income then he'd pay $200. If someone earns $10,000 a month and his penalty is 10% of his monthly income then he'd pay $1,000. If we went to that then the punishment would be a real punishment. If Oprah Winfry or Bill Gates went over the speed limit by more than 50mph they'd have no real punishment with the current fines compared to their income.

sailordave makes a very good point. It should have been this way from the beginning. but we all know the governing system is designed to keep the rich, richer and the poor poorer. I can almost see w/ someone who is late for work and on the brink of losing their job, so they drive a little faster to get there on time. That person gets pulled over and the ticket almost nullifies the attempt. sometimes some situations cant be prevented and you just have to go with the lesser of two evils.

So, old guys like me, drawing very small retirement checks can speed as much as we want to
and pay peanuts for fines?? :woot:

Is the country you are thinking about have a name that starts with the words The Peoples Republic of Socialistic ....etc.. ??

So, old guys like me, drawing very small retirement checks can speed as much as we want toand pay peanuts for fines??

And if you heve no income? Say you're on welfare, or a high school/college student, or just an idle layabout living off the parents: do you then get a free pass?

And if you heve no income? Say you're on welfare, or a high school/college student, or just an idle layabout living off the parents: do you then get a free pass?

Same for spouses who don't work.

Now what I would like to see is fines proportional to the weight of the vehicle. The semi that runs the light is going to do a lot more damage than the little Honda Civic.

And if you heve no income? Say you're on welfare, or a high school/college student, or just an idle layabout living off the parents: do you then get a free pass?

Nope, I'd vote that you lose the right to drive, and the car gets impounded.

Nope, I'd vote that you lose the right to drive, and the car gets impounded.

And the guy who just lost his job and gets a speeding ticket on the way home losses his car as well. So much for finding another job.

Well, that wouldn't do much... there is no RIGHT to drive in this country. It's a privilege last time I checked, which can be revoked. Just my thought any way.

And the guy who just lost his job and gets a speeding ticket on the way home losses his car as well. So much for finding another job.

Yep, and it's called a consequence. Even when I did speed, I understood that it was something not done legally and could wind up with me in jail, and my car impounded (especially in NC/VA) for anything over 80 MPH. I have had two legitimate cases in which I could justify going above the limit. First was getting to the ER as our then 6 month old was admitted for rotavirus. Almost everyone gets it, but some worse then others. It's extremely dangerous to kids that young and I hauled a$$ to the ER to meet my wife. Case 2, my mother came down for a visit but was experiencing what seemed like a heart attack. I hauled a$$ to their hotel to show them the way to the local hospital, but it turned out to be a virus that just made her extremely ill. In hindsight, that one was not an emergency, but was played up by my father to be more than what it was. The poor little Elantra averaged about 90 over 14 miles for that jaunt.

Now, if I'd been pulled over, I may have been able to explain that away to the police, and they may have even offered to escort.

As to the case of the unemployed, yes that would be a sucky scenario, but there's better ways to vent frustration then speeding. I get it, I truly do, as I spent the years from 94 to may of this year driving whatever the car could handle safely (read, in my mind I was safe). But if we truly want to make a dent in the way things are going, the consequences are going to have to ramp up as well. As others have pointed out, driving is not a right. If I lost my car due to my own stupidity I could carpool, take the van services offered to the Triangle area, have a spouse drive, (try to) sell the house and move closer.

The point I'm trying to make is thus: If we want to turn slow this train wreck down, something has to give. John Q isn't going to change their lives unless something acts towards making that change happen. For me, it was when I sat down with a spreadsheet and noted how much money I was throwing away when gas went from $2.50 to $4. I knew that I hadn't budgeted for an extra $1k a year for that, and so my lifestyle had to change. If it has to be stiffer penalties to jump start it, I'm for it.

The point I'm trying to make is thus: If we want to turn slow this train wreck down, something has to give.

On that we agree. Unfortunately, you seem to miss the point(s) I'm trying to make, the major one being that even if John Q will put up with 55 mph speed limits for long (and the experience of the last attempt suggests he won't), they simply won't do what needs to be done. What has to give is John Q's belief that he A) has to drive everywhere; B) has to do it encased in a couple of tons of metal and glass (in the name of "safety", but really as a sort of penis enhancement/substitute); and C) has to power that behemoth by burning petroleum distillates in an inefficient internal combustion engine.

Yes, something has to change. And change is usually for the worse, not the better. So we first have to figure out why...and the answer is probably as simple as it sounds. Politicians do the poplular thing, not the right thing. A 55mph speed limit is a good example of something that will be fairly unpopular. It might have received enought support just a few weeks ago, but with gas prices dropping just a little and Americans breathing a collective sigh, we probably have already changed our fickle little minds and want to get back to the way we were.

We like to think we are a great tech country, although I'd debate that these days; However because of that we will probably want PHEVs, hydrogen, fuel cells, and other high tech solutions to give us back our heavy cars and nasty driving habits. And maybe it will, but really we need to adjust ourselves, and laws are a way to enforce that if the laws are actually enforced strictly enough. I think we have an opportunity right now to get control of ourselves now, which may well disappear in another 10/20 years. I hope we take it.

No one mentioned it yet, but a 55mph national limits saves even more fuel that we mentioned. We can have lighter cars with less safety. We don't need cars that can survive as much if we all slow down.

I love the idea of % penalties, but that probably should be just cars. Thats something nearly worthy of a constitutional admendment. A guarentee that all penalties will resulst in equivilant loss. Maybe a bill that states all fixed numbers in all previous bills represent the amount of money that should be taken from the average household income in the year it was passed. From that point you get a %income that can be used from that point forward. And all future laws should be required to penalize as a %household.

Well, that wouldn't do much... there is no RIGHT to drive in this country. It's a privilege last time I checked, which can be revoked. Just my thought any way.

Speeding isn't a moral crime like stealing. Why do you want punish speeders harsher than burgulars?

Speeding isn't a moral crime like stealing. Why do you want punish speeders harsher than burgulars?

You may not think it is a moral crime, but what if that speeding ends up causing an accident, that ends up maiming or killing other people? There's a reason for speed limits and one is to keep people to safe driving speeds. I would agree with you that burglarizing is worse than speeding though.

I say we stick with 60mph until auto makers and the NHTSA can get their act together, making more fuel-efficient cars, allowing diesels and stop being so paranoid about safety standards.

Look at Europe; their average max freeway speed is 120kph (75mph), and yet they still manage a continental fleet average of about 40mpg, while the US snails behind at around 25mpg. European cars are considered "unsafe" and diesels still have the stigma of sooty polluters, and yet somehow the environmental standards are more severe and road laws more heavily enforced in Europe than the US could ever dream of doing.

The Big 2 (Chrysler is only about 1/2 anyway) already have amazing, fuel-efficient vehicles they sell to our cross-atlantic brothers, so it is not as if they don't have the technology available.

I truly don't think trying to control Mister Average's speed on the freeway is the effective way to go. Speed is in American blood. Rather, provide the super-efficient vehicles Americans have been deprived of for so long, and let the public drive at their current reckless speed. Mass marketing campaigns to change the American mindset about small cars will remove the cultural concept that anything under 100hp and a V8 is insufficient. The fuel efficiency gains of the new vehicles will more than balance out the current fuel economy problem.

Then, as alternative fuels and automobile technologies emerge, gas resources become scarce and ICE's go the way of the dinosaur, gasoline cars will be replaced with renewable energy vehicles, where it truly wont matter what speeds people drive at anymore, except for the sake of safety, no more for the sake of economy.

The problem is, even if they started offering highly efficient cars today, how long would it take to get the inefficient onces off the roads? From a personal standpoint, I'm not ditching my Elantra until it literally falls apart. I've already got a car payment on the Sedona and cannot afford another payment until it's paid off. I suspect there's a ton of families in this same situation. So, even if they started offering up insanely efficient cars, I couldn't just go out and buy one. Especially if they're priced in the low 20k range. The mid term solution would change something that can get the best FE for the majority of the cars out there, and that's why I'd support a 55 limit. It's something that can be done without John Q putting out for a new car.

The problem is, even if they started offering highly efficient cars today, how long would it take to get the inefficient ones off the roads? From a personal standpoint, I'm not ditching my Elantra until it literally falls apart.

If the government is series about helping people and getting low mpg cars off the road, they should be able to get you to give up a vehicle. They shouldn't ban the car or put higher costs on you, but they could take a positive approach....they could offer a rebate, tax incentive, etc that rewards people for getting higher mileage cars. There should probably be a double floor. One that says the new cars must get an least mileage X, and a second floor that says you must get at least Y mpg better than the car you are trading in, and maybe your old car has to get less than z mpg. Looking at your numbers, it looks like the Elantra gets around 25mpg combined, which really isn't a bad number, but if you traded up to a 100mpg car the government would say, OK, you get $10 for the first 10mpg, $50 for the next 10mpg, and $100 for the rest (10*10 + 10*50 + 55*100)=$6100 incentive to upgrade, not bad. Such a plan would probably be small incentives to begin with (maybe you would only be able to get $600 in the first 5/10 years of the program), but at time marches on, the rebate numbers would increase, especially for poor mileage vehicles. Somebody who has a 1970's 10mpg vehicle might get a special 2x multiplier to further increase incentive. Such a program would have to have some pretty careful rules and lookouts to prevent people from taking advantage, (such as running down & grabbing a $300 old car just to trade it in for a $6000 rebate).

I don't ever want to see the government force people to hand in classic cars just to get higher mileage, but if they can get the right incentives, they can certainly encourage people to upgrade junkers.



Speeding isn't a moral crime like stealing. Why do you want punish speeders harsher than burgulars?

I'd love to hear your definition of a moral crime, or maybe you didn't phrase that the way you intended, but I consider almost everything that is illegal to be immoral. Many things which aren't illegal are also immoral. Usually illegal is a subset of immoral, not the other way around. The whole point of law is to protect us from each other (and sometimes ourselves), so usually when you break a law you either hurt someone or increase the risk of hurting someone. (I'll be using the word "you" generically from this point forward...Its not intended to be personal) I always love the comment, "I can handle X mph". No you can't. Because the guy in the other lane going the speed limit has a right to expect you to only be going the speed limit, so when he sees you 10 car lengths back, he can should be able to change lanes without a second thought. However if you are speeding, you feel the guy just cut you off, but he didn't intend too, it just didn't identify you as being so far outside the limits.
That's the problem with people who think "they can handle it", if they are the sole driver on a closed race track, they are welcome to handle any speed they want to, but when driving among others, we do have to drive to the lowest common denominator, and least the lowest that law allows. Sadly I find its those who usually could be described as the LCDs who are also driving the most out of bounds.

I think we should look to the nascar or other professional drivers to get a clue. Several have done seat belt commercials. Now why would someone with that much skill in a high speed car need to have a seat belt on when driving at even interstate speeds? Because they realize they are not in total control of their cars...sometimes outside forces are.

If burglars only burgled (never harmed a person, just took property), but speeders caused people to die needlessly, which is the greater moral crime? Both are selfish people looking out only for themselves. Both effect only a small number of other people, but one takes things that are mostly replaceable, while the other takes something that can never be replaced.

Dont think a national 55mph limit will do much other than PO those that want to go faster. Heck, I even want to go 60 (in a 65) on the long stretch of beltway here.

Instead of mandating limited speeds and CAFE levels, perhaps ALL new vehicles need to come with simple instant and average FE gages and subsidize installing simple "scangage" on existing vehicles w/o them. Maybe a $/hour indication would drive home the point.

I think many drivers would start slowing down if they saw the FE and $ staring them in the face.

I would say remove all speed limits, but then that puts everyone else in danger. Chaos and the likes. It almost sounds like fuel should be rationed sensibly because consumption of one affects another..isn't that infringement for the hogs to be taking up all the fuel because they can afford it? That is very similar to me walking into class late everyday and disrupting because I'm already filthy rich and could care less about education.

You may not think it is a moral crime, but what if that speeding ends up causing an accident, that ends up maiming or killing other people?

Turn the question around: what if your driving slowly winds up causing an accident?

To all who want to tax oil companies more, or remove their tax breaks...its a well know fact corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do.

We, our government, needs to spend billions on a "Manhattan" type project and not waist our time worrying about a 55MPH speed limit.

Turn the question around: what if your driving slowly winds up causing an accident?

Could you please provide a situation (fictional or fact) where a slow driver caused an accident? I just find it a bit puzzling because any given person behind the wheel controls a car going 30mph a lot better than the same car going 60mph, a trend where control reduces at the exponential level as speed goes up.

I have heard of instances where someone merging onto the highway at too slow of a speed, and cutting others off, has caused an accident. Ultimately hypermiling is more that just going slow. So far I have not heard of anyone causing an accident while hypermiling.

I have heard of instances where someone merging onto the highway at too slow of a speed, and cutting others off, has caused an accident. Ultimately hypermiling is more that just going slow. So far I have not heard of anyone causing an accident while hypermiling.

That situation I completely understand is the nut behind the wheel, however as a courtesy, If I'm on the highway and people are merging, I get into the other lane so they merge safely. There are some people who are just terrible at merging and sometimes end up stopping. This I see too often...

Turn the question around: what if your driving slowly winds up causing an accident?

It still wouldn't be a crime, unless there were posted signs with a minimum speed limit. Driving faster than the speed limit is a lot more dangerous than under the speed limit.

Even if both scenarios were equally likely to cause a wreck, Kinetic Energy= 1/2 times Mass times Velocity Squared, aka the person over the speed limit would have a lot more energy thanks to the squared velocity. Say it was a 70 mph speed limit on the interstate and someone was driving slow at 60 mph, and someone was driving faster at 85, the person driving 85 mph would have twice as much energy, aka destructive power and chance of injuring or killing someone.

Just putting things in perspective.

It still wouldn't be a crime, unless there were posted signs with a minimum speed limit.

Now we're getting into the difference between what's legal, and what's moral/ethical. (I prefer ethical because moral tends to get conflated with religion & sex.) Quite frankly, I don't really care that much about whether something is legal or not, except to avoid getting caught. I do care about my own ethical standards - which tell me there's nothing wrong with going whatever speed I like, as long as I can avoid running into other people, and otherwise behave with the degree of courtesy that I wish others would show me.

Do you trust everyone out there to drive the speed they liked?

Quite a thread, we have here. Subsidies are quite the hot topic. From what I read here subsidies can be very good or very bad. I guess we simply don't know how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Politicians who advocate change might help our country immensely by doing just that, encourage the good while keeping the bad at bay.