Archives

Bush was on the TV the other day talking about lowering our dependence on foreign oil but at the same time they are thinking of rewarding gas wasters with a feel good $100 handout to ease the pain of high gas prices. I remember the 55mph limit being unpopular so it might be political suicide to try it again but we need to do something, right?

Bring on the double nickel!

I have a tough time with this one. See, I know that when I drive 55mph instead of 65-70mph my fuel economy increases dramatically. I also know that the same applies to some other guy in his Escalade. But I wonder (since I only vaguely remember 55mph limits) what will happen to traffic on the whole? Reducing the speed limit does reduce the carrying capacity of a given road. Cars get on at the same rate that they always do but it takes longer to get them off the road. The thought of summer traffic jams getting worse rather than better makes me shudder, even from the perspective of fuel economy. I suppose it could just as easily be the other way around, and reducing the limit would improve traffic flow. It's a tough call without data.

The other problem is that you are guaranteed to have a high percentage of "rebels" who will scoff at the new limit and continue to drive 75-80mph. An extremely nasty speed enforcement campaign would have to be launched, which I have qualms about as well. There really isn't a good way to "make" people slow down.

My philosophy on rampant inefficient driving is the same as my philosophy on cutting traffic deaths: educate. Legislating common sense is easy and cheap (in fact it brings in money from all the fines). Unfortunately, legislating common sense does not work until you follow it to the logical conclusion of putting a black box in every car that monitors operating parameters and enforces the laws in real time. That concept offends me. The better approach, in my mind, would be to launch a massive campaign to absolutely beat it into the heads of drivers that speeding wastes fuel. Don't guilt the public into it, don't threaten them. Convince them that it is in their best interests. Slowly people catch on, and slowly the attitude changes. Eventually doing 90mph in the left lane is not the acceptable or fashionable thing to do. Note that I am by no means claiming that this is the easiest approach, but that this would be the most effective.

Oh, and put a freaking FCD in every car made. (That could be legislated without offending me :) ) It's cheap, it's simple, and it educates.

55 didnt slow anybody down here. They still ran 70 mph regardless of what the law said.

I remember the 55 mile per hours speed limit and it worked for along time. Then they seemed to quit inforcing it. They did try the 55 mph speed limit her in the Houston area a few years ago to lower emmisions but the people SCREAMED, they said it took longer in traffic and increased emmisions! They then repealled it. When it was rolled back to 55 they didn't hardly enforce it so they figured why have it, go figure.kevin

The Texas Department of Transportation is considering increasing the speed limit on certain interstate highways:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060517/ts_usatoday/texascouldaccelerateto80mph

What was their motto? "Everthing is bigger in Texas"

The Texas Department of Transportation is considering increasing the speed limit on certain interstate highways:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060517/ts_usatoday/texascouldaccelerateto80mph

What was their motto? "Everthing is bigger in Texas"

That was in the www.dallasnews.com (http://www.dallasnews.com) yesterday - raising the speed limit on West Texas freeways to 80mph.

Whle I typically hypermile, time is at a premium on vacatins and last trip got up to 70-75mph. Both coming and going I got just shy of 60mpg on my Insight.

The 55mph speed limit ended up like Prohibition - too many defied the law.

There are so many other ways that would probably be more effective in conserving energy such as raising CAFE standards, swap tax breaks on gas guzzlers with gas taxes, enforcing the present speed limits. Places like Dallas you get the distinct impression it's legal to add at least 10mph to the posted limit.

Hi All:

___There are multiple problems with the consumption of oil at our present rate and there are only 2 things that can be done about it. Make the prices higher until people get it or lower the speed limits until people get it. CAFÉ’? That has been a joke for so long and if the states keep raising the limits, what does CAFÉ’ do? It was just last year when Iowa mandated more ethanol use at the pumps and in the same bill raised the states speed limits. Are they trying to reduce CO2 and smog related emissions or increase tax revenue from the ever increasing price and consumption of fuel/oil?

___As for traffic congestion, the limits are already 55 mph inside and around the Chicago Interstates and people get along just fine at 50 - 70 mph. The Traffic tie ups are construction and accidents that aren’t cleared off in minutes but hours usually. The normal 3 lane - 15 mile backups from Golf Road to Irving Park near O’Hare out on I-294 South bound start at 02:30 PM and last until 05:30 PM no matter what the limit is so that doesn’t matter either. When I see 18-wheeler’s running 70 - 75 mph down the Interstates thinking of their 4.5 - 5.5 mpg consumption, I cringe knowing 7 + is possibly available at 50 - 55. Is there time that much more valuable then mine? I spend 4 + hours a day on the road and that does not include my 12 hour work day. What is there excuse? They don’t care and there is only one way to make that happen. Enforcement to slow them down no matter what FE their rigs are getting.

___Finally, a trip across the country is one we all dread in terms of time but we also have to take responsibility for our fuel consumption no matter the time constraints. If that means running 60 in a 55 vs. 72 in a 65, so be it. It will be better for all of us in the end until we do figure out how we are going to transport all the goods, people, and stuff we do on a daily basis without destroying the planet or worse yet, fight major wars in the future over resources that are not rightly ours to begin with.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

accidents could have been preventable if everyone hypermiled lol... car's speed can be easily predicted by just looking at the road itself.

I must admit prohibition does not work though, it has never has, never will it just encourages people to break it even more. What we need is higher prices sadly.

CAFE could work, but there is not enough political support for a serious upgrade.

One idea I've tossed several times is a gas tax/income tax shift. Still pay income taxes - just transfer some of it to gas taxes. Total taxes for the majority of people would be the same, but shifing it to the gas pump is an incentive to drive better.

Three things that could significantly reduce fuel consumption:

increase the cost of fuel, driving gas guzzlers
enforce the existing speed limits a lot more.
Don't know how to do it, but somehow make peer pressure to make driving a gas guzzler (such as an H2) socially unacceptable.

It has long been my belief that Americans want a "pill" to cure the "ailment" of oil consumption. They are not willing to change their habits; they simply want a drug to fix the problem. Here are some options:

Producing all vehicles with an i-FCD: education is the key to change, and with this cheap little display, people could actually see how their driving affected their MPG. I was recently exposed to the typical attitude of American drivers at work a few weeks back, when talking to a coworker about fuel costs. As I told him about how I lowered my speed, accelerated slower, braked early, and coasted more, he noted that it must take me longer to get somewhere. I replied, "measured in single-digit minutes, possibly" At this point, he attempted to convince me that the shorter the trip and the faster one drives, the less fuel consumed, as the engine is not running as long. I guess the assumption that is made is that fuel use is relatively linear, no matter is the throttle is buried in the carpet or not. This is a thought process which must first be changed in order to get people to slow down. They simply don't understand! Edit: producing a cheap, easy-to-use i-FCD for used/current vehicles would be a great option as well. Someone needs to capitalize on this! (Learn how to control your fuel usage by purchasing this i-FCD!) Imagine if every driver could boost their FE by 4-5 MPG. Oil consumption and prices would drop notably, and giving the nation something to conquer collectively (liberating ourselves somewhat from our insatiable demand for foreign oil).

Mandating engine size: Here's a good one. Auto manufactures cannot produce vehicles with engines larger than X. Particularly, sedans with 4-cylinder 2.0L DOHC ICEs (upping MPG to 30+ hopefully) and larger supposedly-utilitarian vehicles may be equipped with 4.0L V8 engines, at max (excluding big-rigs). Making this a federal mandate would be the target goal. While I am no expert in towing, sometimes I wonder if a 5.7L V8 is necessary to haul around landscaping equipment, or a horse trailer, or a boat. I don't know, so I can't say. Anyway, this option is very unlikely, as our capitalistic economy is consumer-driven (no pun intended), and will cater towards the highest sucker. I mean bidder.

Taxing vehicles with MPG greater than X: if you're going to buy a sedan that gets less than X MPG, than you pay into a fund that subsidizes gas prices what you will use over the life of the vehicle (that time yet to be determined). Again, not gonna be a popular option, but why the hell does a 90-lb housewife with a kid that goes to tennis twice a week need a Navigator? Also, hit the rich up! The folks that really don't care what they pay should be squeezed to the last drop for purchasing these "posse wagons" in droves.

Lowering the speed limit: Boo! Hiss! Yeah, it isn't a popular option, but the numbers don't lie. At 55 MPH, you're getting pretty good FE; beyond there, it isn't worth your time savings. I like 60 MPH, you go a mile a minute (quite literally), and it keeps people under 70 MPH. Also, increasing speeding penalities would help; more along the lines of adding a "gas use" penalty. I also believe in some countries fines are based on income. Boom! There's a good way to go. Lastly, direct this added-on cost into that gas-subsidy fund mentioned early, so those who speed and attempt to drive up prices actually end up bringing them down!

Hope you're tired of reading, because I'm tired of typing. ;) What do ya think?

I like a lot of those ideas.

John,

I'd expand your "pill" statement to diet, health, and any other lifestyle change.

I generally agree on limiting engine size. To me, it's a variation of stricter CAFE requirements.

I enthuastically support all vehicles having an i-FCD or ScanGauge. I do suspect a few Hummer drivers and their brethern would play the "how low can you go game". :rolleyes:

I do suspect a few Hummer drivers and their brethern would play the "how low can you go game". :rolleyes:

Hopefully that will be a backlash limited to the segment of few Hummer owners out there. :cool:

Oh, hey, I just had an idea!! Make that iFCD read out in $$ instead of MPG! Maybe then people will understand the significance of those numbers.

Super idea! I LIKE IT!

Guys, fuel consumption hardly went up any more than the statistical average when the 55 limit was removed and most states went to 65-75mph limits. Obviously since consumption didn't skyrocket when they raised the limits, it won't decrease if we lower the limits. Did any of you think this through at all?

Did any of you think this through at all?

Yes :) I'm pretty sure everyone did.

Hi Brandon:

___I believe I have. I have seen UPS slow their drivers down to 55 - 60 mph in the Chicago area and there is only one reason they did it. I also know the FE difference between 55 - 60 and 65 - 70 in every car I own. The numbers go south fast. Whether drivers will stay at 55 - 60 in a 55 mph limited society is yet to be seen but if it is a 55 mph limit, 65 should be about the tops before Johnny Law takes out the gun. With 70 mph limits, Johnny Law doesn’t even bother to pull anyone over unless it’s a real head case punching out 85 +. We are burning each other’s natural resource at an unsustainable rate as well as filling the sky with the byproducts of combustion. I don’t want to get into where all those petrol $’s go, how they effect our economy, or what they have funded in the very recent past. Whether you believe in PO or GW or not, the fact remains we are using a finite resource and what comes out is not something you or I would like to be locked up in a small room with no matter how clean our automobiles emissions rating is? 55 mph can help reduce consumption and emissions somewhat until a much more sane solution comes about. Or at least I hope anyway?

___Good Luck

___Wayne - who is just as guilty as the next guy :(

the 55 limit was lifted while we were still on a positive slope for increasing our national fleet mpg. So the increased consumption that should have been seen may have been partly masked by increased FE?

I agree with X- the police start enforcing (end of month quotas notwithstanding) @ ~10 over the limit, no matter the limit. Most people want to be rebels, but not too rebellious or get caught at it. So Joe 50th-percentile will shift to drive 65ish- he'll bitch about it all the way but that's what he'll do nevertheless. Slowing down the national average just a few mph compounds hugely. Just like increasing the national avg MPG by 1 has a huge effect on consumption.

Ideal? Certainly not. But you gotta take what you can get in the real world. 55 WILL slow most people down at least some. Good is good, in any form it takes.

I bet a lower national speed limit would help the airlines....

Hi Lakedude:

___Now that is a very interesting and positive hypothesis.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

the 55 limit was lifted while we were still on a positive slope for increasing our national fleet mpg. So the increased consumption that should have been seen may have been partly masked by increased FE?

I think you've thought it through the most. ;)

I bet a lower national speed limit would help the airlines....

Great point - you can pursue this further.

More flights, more rentals, more use of American-made vehicles. Detroit should favor this. ;)

Speed limits don't work, that's all there is to it. The only thing that gets attention is money. If you want to make a difference, add another dollar or two to the gas tax, and increase taxation on aviation fuel while you're at it. People won't fly as much if ticket prices jump 20-30%, perhaps choosing to make a phone call to family instead.

While it's true that very few people drive at or below the posted speed limit, it does impact how fast people drive. Most stick to the "gray area" above the limit (5 or 10mph around here) where they can safely assume they won't get a ticket. So most people here might drive 75 in a 65, if you reduce the speed limit to 55 they are more likely to drive 60-65 as long as they believe that the enforcers are changing their tolerance accordingly.

The problem with intentionally raising the cost of fuel is that it effects literally everything. Those who are affected by fuel prices the most are the same people who can't afford to do anything about it, e.g. buy a more efficient car or move closer to where they work. Many already have a reasonable car but still scrape by. The cost of food increases, the cost of doing business increases...it's nothing to take lightly. The market forces will do enough on their own.

The point of finding other means to encourage conservation is to head off the problem before we become crippled. I suppose that any dramatic increase in the gas tax could be set aside for that purpose, which would be better than giving it to the OPEC counries and oil companies. From that perspective I can quite a bit of merit to your idea. But have to say that I don't really trust the government to put the money in the right place. Odds are we would do more harm to ourselves than good.

I thought that at first. But realisitcaly lowering the speed limit will lower the speed people exceed it by. So if it is 55 mph people will probably top out at 70, at 65mph people tend to top out around 80 or so.

Brick I mostly agree with you except that I'd like to see fuel prices go up and the speed limit come down. [rantmode on] I know a lot of "poor" people and even more who whine about gas prices. Most poor people I know live like kings and only think themselves poor. They all got cable, DVD players, VCRs, TVs in several rooms, beer in the fridge and smokes in the purse. Where is it written the poor people don't need to make sacrifices? When I couldn't afford a car I rode a petal bike to work several miles to work, sometimes in the snow. Try suggesting that a poor person should ride a bike or walk 2 blocks to buy their smokes and see what they say! Cars are an entitlement these days it seems....[/rant off]

I thought that at first. But realisitcaly lowering the speed limit will lower the speed people exceed it by. So if it is 55 mph people will probably top out at 70, at 65mph people tend to top out around 80 or so.
I've driven the I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson more times than I can count and continued on to Deming, New Mexico many times as well. The speed limit is 75mph. For comparison, our freeway limits in Phoenix are 65mph. On the freeways, people drive 70-80mph. On the highway, where the limit is 10mph higher, people drive *GASP* 70-80mph. Hard to believe, I know, but it's true. I often have to use the left lane to pass people driving UNDER the limit on the I-10 while cruising at 75mph and am very rarely passed by anyone going much more than 5mph faster than I.