Archives

A trucking industry group is calling for the return of a speedier national speed limit. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/02/autos/65_mph_speed_limit/index.htm?postversion=2008040314)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Big_Rigs.jpgPeter Valdes-Dapena - CNN Money - April 3, 2008

Sammy Hagar's protest ballad for speeders would need a 10-mile-per-hour update if a trucking group gets its way.

The American Trucking Associations, which represents trucking companies, is calling for the return of a uniform national speed limit, something this country hasn't seen since the 1990s. But this time the ATA is after something a little more modest: It wants to drop the limit to 65 mph for all cars and trucks.

A national limit on speed limits, set at 55 mph, was enacted in 1974 in response to a severe oil shortage. Even after the crisis had passed, it was kept in place because of apparent safety benefits. In the mid-1980s, restrictions were loosened to allow higher speeds and the law was finally stricken altogether in 1995.

Today, states are allowed to set their own speed limits, and 31 of them have limits over 65 mph, according to a list supplied by the ATA. In Texas some highways have speed limits of 80 mph. The other 30 have limits of 70 or 75 mph on some highways.

Not just trucks

The ATA has been calling for a national speed limit of sorts on trucks since 2006. The group wants a federal requirement that electronic speed limiters on all tractor-trailers be set at 68 mph.

That wouldn't be a huge change for its own members, said Clayton Boyce, an ATA spokesman. According to him, 77% of the ATA's member trucking companies already set their trucks' speed limiters at 68 or below. It's a little above 65 so drivers won't constantly be running up against the speed limiter, allowing some leeway.

A regulation would bring every trucker in line, making the industry safer and would bring financial benefits, Boyce said. Setting a limit will relieve pressure on some truckers to drive faster to keep up with competitors and will make the highways safer for everyone, including truckers with slower rigs.

Slowing a fully-loaded semi from 75 mph to 65 results in a 27% improvement in fuel economy, according to Boyce, while it lengthens engine oil and tire life. These savings should more than make up for money lost due to longer travel times, he said.

But the ATA fears that reducing the speed of trucks while allowing cars to barrel through at 75 or 80 mph could create a hazard with cars weaving between slower trucks. That's why the group wants an across-the-board speed limit.

So far, it's just a plan, and even the ATA's two-year-old proposal to just limit the speed of trucks has made little headway, Boyce said.

Setting a national speed limit would be even harder, requiring congressional action. But rising fuel prices lend new impetus to the proposal.

As with trucks, driving cars at high speeds greatly reduces their fuel efficiency. As speed increases, so does the effect of wind resistance, the biggest energy drainer at highway speeds. Every 10 mph faster a car goes reduces fuel economy by about four miles a gallon, according to Roger Clark, a fuel economy engineer with General Motors… http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/02/autos/65_mph_speed_limit/index.htm?postversion=2008040314

Well, I agree, though I think 60mph is a better target.

The hypermiler in me wants 50mph.

Texas used to have varying limits passenger cars, pickups, vans and suvs were 70mph and semis and the like were 65, knock 5 off of both at night and it was a pain. Apparently they have changed that or at least taken the signs down.

EDIT: Better driver education and a mindset change would help a great deal.

That wouldn't be a huge change for its own members, said Clayton Boyce, an ATA spokesman. According to him, 77% of the ATA's member trucking companies already set their trucks' speed limiters at 68 or below.

Oh, really? In what alternate universe is this? :confused:

A few months ago, I drove from here to Dallas (150 miles), and drafted the slowest truck I could find, at a bit over 70mph. We went the whole way without passing a SINGLE OTHER VEHICLE! Truck or otherwise!

I may be puttering along slowly, but I don't want EVERYBODY traveling my speed. I kinda like having traffic flow past...and leaving me alone to travel 'my way'.

65mph sounds fine to me.I'm planning a 3400 mile trip,and I have to use my guzzler.I'm going to be driving on I-10 and the speed limit between San Antonio and El Paso is 80 mph!! I sure as heck am not going to drive an ancient-1998, high mile,200,000 miles,Suburban at 80 mph.It would get 12 mpg at 80 mph! I plan to drive about 62 mph,and I will approach 20 mpg(according to my SG I get about 20 mpg at 60 mph).

65 mph is plenty fast enough.Many vehicles-SUVs,Pickups-are a lot safer at 60 or so than at 75 mph.They are a lot less likely to flip in response to a sharp movement of the steering wheel if you keep the speed down.

I have to agree with palemelanesian.I spend a fair amount of time on interstates.There are lots of trucks going 75 mph,and most do a couple of mph over the limit.The limit is usually 70 mph on interstates,with some being 75,and TX being 80 mph on some of I-10.

80 MPH is just too fast for a 80,000 lb truck.Heck,some of these trucks are DOUBLES!!

65 mph sounds perfect.It might be worth 50,000- barrels/day just for trucks. If 100,000 trucks drive 500 miles a day,this is 50,000,000 miles-about 10,000,000 gallons.If they save 10%,then it is 1,000,000 gallons saved ,, or 25,000 barrels. At 20% saved it is 50,000 barrels.

Thanks,
Charlie

Hi All,

I think 55 is a good speed limit for all trucks over 8000 pounds, and 65 for high profile vehicles (pickups/SUVs) between 5000 and 8000 pounds loaded weight. Its a shame the truckers snuck that above 55 mph crap for themselves back into the laws when 55 was relaxed. BEFORE the 55 mph universal limit in the 70s, large trucks were ALWAYS limited to 55 mph. I can remember the 70/55 signs from my teenage years. Where the 70 was for the cars, and 55 for the trucks.

Everything else should be allowed 75 in the open road between metropolitan areas.

This law would help people reduce fuel consumption of vehicles with poor aero drag. And this would help the price of fuel by reducing demand. Want to go fast, just do it in a car that does not damage the nations economics.

The next four paragraphs were copied from the article "Can't drive 55? How about 65 instead" posted on today's home page:

The National Motorist's Association, which describes itself as a "motorists' rights organization," was originally created to fight against the old 55 mph speed limit. Today it advocates setting speed limits based on the speeds actually traveled on a given stretch of highway.

"We think it's astounding how people who drive desks understand the operating conditions" faced by truckers, said Todd Spencer, executive vice president of Owner Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA).

There would be little gain in safety from setting such low speed limits, said Spencer. Truckers tend to speed MUCH LESS often than other drivers, anyway, and car drivers will simply ignore artificially low speed limits, he said.

Low speed limits actually promote greater fuel consumption by creating big speed differences, he said. The few vehicles that conscientiously obey the law become obstacles to the majority of drivers who ignore it, a situation that invites more braking and hard acceleration, said Spencer.

There you have it folks, something that tries to pass as intelligent speech. If you set the speed limit based on the speeds travelled on a stretch of highway today, you'll be back tomorrow with yet another sign to up that by 5-10 MPH, ad nauseum. Really a lame idea.

I like the "people who drive their desks" statement. Of course these people have all been out on the roads and have seen the behavior this OOIDA talking head is lying about.

It's true, lower speed limits would create big speed differences, only if there was no enforcement. The two would have to go together, with huge fines for speeding. It can be done effectively (and put the money from the tickets into development of alternative energy).

Now, who has actually been behind a truck going only 65? They mostly seem to be pedal to the metal, and if there is a speed limiter, they've figured out how to reset it (it seems).

If we are to get hold of this fuel situation before we all go broke, it is going to take a lot of people with a desire to save and to cutback, not someone who wants to drive a truck at 65, or someone who thinks speed limits should set themselves. Okay, my medicine is kicking in, I'm all better now.

most people already speed, no matter what the limit. changing it is hardly going to slow anyone down.

I have to concur with those saying that nearly all of the semis are going faster than 68! I drive a stretch of I-80 in Iowa close to every day, which sees ridiculous levels of semi traffic - I normally go around 65-66 (speed limit of 70 for all vehicles), and 95%+ of all the semi traffic passes me...some literally flying by!

Insanely frustrating, when you start to think about the excessive fuel being burned as the result of these high cruising speeds...

most people already speed, no matter what the limit. changing it is hardly going to slow anyone down.Sadly, the speed limit is not very respected these days, but it seems most figure they will do the speed limit + 15mph (or something like that). Enforcement is another part of the solution - if you get pulled over for going 5mph over - speeding stops.

Hi All:

___The only thing I can add is that 20 + % more consumption because they have to travel at 70 + vs. 55 is killing their own. Most if not all do not get that message yet but as prices continue to climb and the dead carcasses of former Big Rigs litter the junk yards, it might finally sink in. Far too late for most however …

___Someday on your local Ch. 19.
Hey good buddie, your pushing the pedal a little hard today as I am doing 53 and it appears you are blew by goin at least 62. I just called your dispatch and you will be receiving a nasty call here in short order. Sorry but you are burning my fricken diesel too ya knuckle draggin bast’d. Now slow down you *** **** @$$**** :angry:
___Good Luck

___Wayne

The best thing about a mandatory reduction of the speed limit (any amount) is the resulting educational value. I think the vast majority of drivers don't even know that their mileage goes up dramatically if they slow down. The press coverage alone would reap huge dividends.

My tdi loses about 1-1.5 mpg from 65 to 75....ill sacrifice it when driving across montana or texas. How about trucks go 60mph nationally...on the the deck of a flat bed train car...so long trucking industry :flag:

I must live in a special universe. Most trucks in my area run right at 66-68, up against their speed governors. SWIFT is at 64 mph, Con-way just turned down to 62 mph, Schneider is at 68 mph, and I rarely see one doing over 65. The satellite systems catch the drivers if they exceed that speed. Many insurance companies mandate speed governors. All trucks are not speeding. And trucks are not the enemy.

The death rate involving large trucks is shrinking. Fatal crash rate involving large trucks- 4 per 100 million miles in the 80's, 2.5 per 100 million miles in the late 90's, and the last statistic put out by the FHWA- 1.93 in 2006.

ATA is right about the large carriers and speed governors. Remember that over 90% of trucking companies have less than 20 trucks, many of which are not governed.

Keith

most people already speed, no matter what the limit. changing it is hardly going to slow anyone down.

Agreed. Most of the area around here is 65mph, and when it is 55mph it's completely ignored. People go on by, hauling ass at 75 or more. And nobody really cares, not even the cops.

My tdi loses about 1-1.5 mpg from 65 to 75...

Unfortunately I lose about 15 MPG going from 60 to 75 MPH. The gearing kills me. :(

I support a national limit of 60 MPH, 50 in urban and suburban areas. It should be high enough for cars to get into high gear in any case. (When I take long trips, you can bet I'm doing ~60).

KngKeith is correct in his observation "All trucks are not speeding. And trucks are not the enemy." We do have a tendency to generalize. That said, KngKeith, on my trip up here, I passed nary a semi, and hundreds passed me. One did stay with me for awhile, so you are correct, all trucks are not speeding. One was not.

most people already speed, no matter what the limit. changing it is hardly going to slow anyone down.

I know enough people who regularly go 5-10 MPH over the limit. Upping the limit from 65 to 75 means that they'll go from 70-75 to 80-85.

Then lather, rinse, repeat with these same old arguments (just raise the limit to 85, it's what everyone's driving anyway) until it becomes a speed limit arms race...

Sigh.

I know enough people who regularly go 5-10 MPH over the limit. Upping the limit from 65 to 75 means that they'll go from 70-75 to 80-85.

Then lather, rinse, repeat with these same old arguments (just raise the limit to 85, it's what everyone's driving anyway) until it becomes a speed limit arms race...

Sigh.

That has not been my observation. On interstates with 75 mph limits, very few people pass me if I'm going that fast. Same is true with the 70 mph limits on rural highways, most of the traffic seems to go about 70. The vast majority of people drive a speed they feel is safe, you can see that for yourself when there is thick fog or rain, the traffic then goes slower than the speed limit even though they could legally go faster.
When the national 55 mph speed limit was in effect, obeying the speed limit meant being passed by everyone, including cops not in pursuit.
The 55 limit, rather than slowing everyone down, instead turned us into a nation of speeders and bred a contempt for traffic laws that did not exist before it was enacted, just like prohibition spawned speakeasies, organized crime, and corruption instead of turning Americans into a nation of tea-totalers.

"That wouldn't be a huge change for its own members, said Clayton Boyce, an ATA spokesman. According to him, 77% of the ATA's member trucking companies already set their trucks' speed limiters at 68 or below."

He said 77% of ATA member companies are set at 68mph or below. Since membership in the ATA is voluntary and great number of trucks are operator-owned or small business owned, I don't see how one can discredit his statement with personal observations. I'm just saying that fighting isn't going to get us where we want to go.

national 50mph speed limit, signs posted up and ENFORCEMENT! what we need is a shockwave pulse across the nation, maybe that will curb some nasty habits, the funds generated will go to developing an infrastructure for the most viable fuel...energy sources producing electricity ehem. windmills I dont care if you dont like how it looks, its progress > oil regress...that will buy us time (using less petrol) and also shorten it with the funds injected to get the new technology on the road...can be raised later upon successfully implementing a new infrastructure supporting nuclear plants and ways to dispose of the waste...
my $0.02

Unfortunately I lose about 15 MPG going from 60 to 75 MPH. The gearing kills me. :(



Yah bro, I can get 47-50mpg driving 55 or 75...doesnt really affect the tdi because of the low end power i get in 5th. Unfortunately I will not get more than 53mpg (personal experience) tops even hypermiling, so the hybrids got me there. give and take.

Im leaning more toward Germany's Autobahn freeway model for rural interstates. I think unlimited speed limits will self regulate enough in rural areas. If you want to push your 1500 Silverado to 100mph, live with 8-10mpg. Im certain based on all the media sob stories, people who cant afford gas will drive slow or not at all, and people who dont care will drive fast like they do now. 75 mph in montana means about 92mph in my own experience...and i still didnt get pulled over when i passed a speed trap

Im leaning more toward Germany's Autobahn freeway model for rural interstates. I think unlimited speed limits will self regulate enough in rural areas. If you want to push your 1500 Silverado to 100mph, live with 8-10mpg. Im certain based on all the media sob stories, people who cant afford gas will drive slow or not at all, and people who dont care will drive fast like they do now. 75 mph in montana means about 92mph in my own experience...and i still didnt get pulled over when i passed a speed trap

but those driving and getting 8-10 mpg will effectively remove people in lower brackets from driving all together since the price of gas will be so high. there are ppl who drive and make 20k/year and ppl who drive that make north of 100k, I'm sure they wont feel the pressure at the same point so it does make it unfair for those who are not making as much.

that would probably work out very well in a communist economy.

I recently was lucky enought to drive a Toyota Yaris 5 door hatch through Europe and unfortunately, I was forced to drive at speeds around 70-80 MPH on certtain areas of the Autobahn due to the speeds of surrounding traffic. At home I rarely exceed 55 MPH. Further, a recent movement in Germany is attempting to limit speeds on the Autobahn due to the increased greenhouse gas relased from all those speeding automobiles.

However, I must state how courteous the drivers were and how well even congested traffic flowed when all the drivers were working together.

but those driving and getting 8-10 mpg will effectively remove people in lower brackets from driving all together since the price of gas will be so high. there are ppl who drive and make 20k/year and ppl who drive that make north of 100k, I'm sure they wont feel the pressure at the same point so it does make it unfair for those who are not making as much.

that would probably work out very well in a communist economy.


The volume of people able to withstand higher fuel prices and lower mpgs will be very low compared to the population that cant, it wont affect prices because the people who cant afford it will more than make up in savings than the ultra rich who can. Capitalist ecnonomies are not about being fair, as we all know if you live in a free market country. You have to trust that eventually everyone (but the ultra rich) cannot follow that model of fuel consumption and it will regulate itself. Just like people who have SUVs and Trucks that trade them for subcompacts and prius's. If we want to conserve fuel, outlaw all cars that get lower than 30mpg. That wont work either, its not "fair", if joe rich man wants a 100k hummer, then he will get and pay the price for fuel.

Just throwing out a different way of thinking about he speed limit. I see a bunch of answers that 55 in the 70s and 80s did nothing to curb the speediest people, Montana and Texas, it means rarely keeping at 75-80....so whats the point of having one.

There are some people who drive based on what the speed limit is. I know since that is what i used to do. Also i think it is not that it will eventually work out. But the mentality behind the wheels of todays machines arent really concerned about environmental issues

Enforcing a 65 mph limit will be fairly easy,and if it is enforced folks will drive 65 to 70(or whatever fudge factor becomes commonly used).

We in NOLA and Jefferson Parish-just west of NOLA- are horrible drivers,and regularly run redlights by many seconds.Recently both parishes installed red light cameras.Guess what-we have quit running redlights,and the parishes have more $$.

Some of the cameras have speed sensors-radars I guess, but they could probably use sound waves-and they will start sending speeding tickets also.I'm fiarly sure these types of devices are used in Europe for speeding.

Oh, trying to claim,"I wasn't driving the car" doesn't work;your car-your ticket-!!

A reasonable national speed limit-65 mph seems about right- would put us all in the same boat-rich and poor-and would wake us up to the energy crisis we are facing.It shouldn't be sold as a Global Warning solution, it should be sold as a first step to energy independence.

Thanks,
Charlie

We in NOLA and Jefferson Parish-just west of NOLA- are horrible drivers,and regularly run redlights by many seconds.Recently both parishes installed red light cameras.Guess what-we have quit running redlights,and the parishes have more $$.

Some of the cameras have speed sensors-radars I guess, but they could probably use sound waves-and they will start sending speeding tickets also.I'm fiarly sure these types of devices are used in Europe for speeding.

Oh, trying to claim,"I wasn't driving the car" doesn't work;your car-your ticket-!!




This was enacted in Minneapolis a couple years ago and the State Supreme Court made them turn off the cameras because its unconstitutional. Your car your ticket for 1 is B.S.... if an officer isnt present, theres no legal right to prove you did it. Hopefully your Governing bodies will realize this as well.

People who got fines were able to submit proof for refunds if they were caught by a camera i believe.

Toastblows,
They are getting around that by treating it the same way they do a parking ticket.
Ask yourself-do you have to pay for a parking ticket even if you didn't park illegally(your kid did, or someone you loaned the car to)???? The answer is YES YOU HAVE TO PAY.

Now I'm not 100% sure how they manage this, but if you get a ticket-you pay. I think that it has something to do with it not being a "crime" to be caught by a camera.-Louisiana-doesn't report you to your insurance company because it isn't a "crime" when the camera does the catching.

They-Louisiana- treat it just like a parking ticket-your car means your wallet gets tapped.The owner is responsible for his car,not in a criminal sense, but sure as heck in a "tap your wallet sense."

I guess Minnesota can learn something from Louisiana. The companies that own and install these systems are selling them all over the country(apparently they do all the leg work,and are probably fully aware of the Minn. case). I bet Minnesota over reached and tried to make it a crime. If you aren't being charged with a crime, but just some sort of civil "badness",your rights are more limited.

60,000 folks in Jeff parish have paid $120 each in just 8 months!

Nice try, but if-when- "they"-feds or local govs-set up speed cameras you will have to pay.

Just try to weasel out of a parking ticket by demanding your "Constitutional Rights."

Thanks,
Charlie

PS-Not trying to be a smart ass, but if you get a ticket,you will pay(or lose the right to register your car).Heck,they can tow , or boot non payers.

PPS -In general our Pols are a bunch of moronic thieves, but they are pretty adept at putting their hands into our pockets. It is absolutely hilarious to hear them going on."we are doing this just for safety, not to increase revenue.We would love to give Zero tickets." The parish president said this with a straight face!! Same pol who was crying on national TV while telling an absolute lie immediately post Katrina(he had an old lady in a nursing home making calls to her son 5 days after she was dead)-pitiful story,complete lie.

I remember reading a forum about England think about reducing their allowable speed limit grace from 1 mile per hour over to exact speed limit.

They use automatic signs that take your picture and mail you your ticket. This would slow people down. But like the, was it Orwell, 1984, written in 1948, big brother is watching. Do we want this, it would limit the speed to the speed limit, but at a certain cost. What is acceptable?

Danbudy.

You hit the nail on the head with those four paragraphs, kwj. Nonsensical babble. As far as a speed limit reduction, I'm all for it. If it were enforced it would lower death tolls on highways and increase fuel efficiency by approximately 15 percent which would in turn realize a marked decrease in the price of gasoline and diesel fuel. We live in a consumption-crazy society and Americans have grown too accustomed to excess. My grandfather remembers a time (Great Depression) when even coffee was rationed. It wouldn't hurt us to "ration" our highway speeds a little bit, would it?
brian

How about 60? Makes trip calculations easy, a mile per minute,
one gallon per hour in my prius, and nearer to the reasonable
cusp on how much energy is involved:
http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/hp-color.gif
.
As far as enforcement goes, dash-cams coupled with radar/laser
units that calculate delta speed would make the whole thing
absolutely trivial. The cops wouldn't even have to pull anyone
over or risk getting out of their cars, it could all be a nice
convenient data stream back to where the tickets get printed
and mailed out from.
.
Even easier for nailing the gdf tailgaters. Snap 'em with their
brake lights on in the left lane, got 'em dead to rights.
.
_H*

I'm not sure what happened to freedom in this country, but I think it is shrinking fast.

I CHOOSE to drive slower just like many of you do. Some other people CHOOSE to drive fast. I grew up in the world of 55 speed limits. I have driven fast enough in different vehicles to land me directly in jail if cought. That was a CHOICE and a risk taken.

People who drive fast are CHOOSING to use more fuel. When fuel is too high they will slow down or stop driving.

People who use little fuel are not effected much by higher fuel costs. That is their CHOICE.

The problem is that the people who CHOOSE to use more fuel are
settling themselves into an extremely harmful mindset, with heavy
doses of a bogus "entitlement" that they're special somehow if
they can afford it, while in reality their gluttony and self-
important hurry-up-and-wait attitude infects far too many sectors
of society and keeps ALL of us making no progress on the changes
that the HUMAN RACE really need to be making. So those who can
see the horizon and the storm building on it need to smack those
who don't upside the head and say "look, you no longer have the
RIGHT to squander a resource that is precious to ALL of us"
because ideally, the structure of "rights" is such that people
have the right to do things that don't hurt others. And these
asshangs screaming down the highway with the phone glued to
their ear because it's their "american right" are hurting us
in, crikey, just uncountable ways.
.
_H*

Don't think that you're safe from photo radar just because it was struck down in MN. It's been in widespread use here in Oregon for about 15 years. It's used only by municipalities (not by sheriffs or state police) and, at least in Portland, there's generally a 10mph fudge factor before you get a ticket. But it's out there, and I see photo radar vans clocking traffic once a week or so. My biggest objection to the system is that you don't know you got a ticket for a week or so, and by then you don't remember the situation and have a difficult time fighting it. Also, if you get a traditional on-the-spot ticket from a cop, you slow down immediately so you don't get another. Since you don't know right away when you've gotten a photo radar ticket, you might keep speeding and could get several tickets in one day. Technically legal, but unfair IMO.

We Oregonians would be unaffected by a 65mph national speed limit, because the top limit here anyway. Even in this big, wide-open western state, it works fine. Wouldn't want to see it set below 60mph though. That might make sense in the densely populated East, but not here.

I have a very hard time believing that a 20mph difference in speed only makes a 1.5mpg difference in a TDI. Unfortunately the ScanGauge doesn't behave linearly in my TDI so I cannot test this empirically (FWIW my indicated mpg is far lower at 75 than at 55) but it flies in the face of physics. At highway speeds wind resistance accounts for the majority of needed power, and increases with the cube of speed. The only thing that could cause fuel economy to remain level with increasing speed would be extreme aero mods or gearing high enough to operate the engine more efficiently at 75 than 55. Even in the tall-geared TDI, the engine is operating very near its efficiency peak (2000-2200rpm, IIRC) in the 55-65 mph range. By 75mph the RPMs are well above maximum efficiency unless you've replaced the standard 5th gear with a taller one.

I'm not sure what happened to freedom in this country, but I think it is shrinking fast.

I CHOOSE to drive slower just like many of you do. Some other people CHOOSE to drive fast. I grew up in the world of 55 speed limits. I have driven fast enough in different vehicles to land me directly in jail if cought. That was a CHOICE and a risk taken.

People who drive fast are CHOOSING to use more fuel. When fuel is too high they will slow down or stop driving.

People who use little fuel are not effected much by higher fuel costs. That is their CHOICE.

ditto. I'm not particularly fond of a 'nanny' state that somehow knows what is 'good for me'. I firmly believe in individual responsibility.
Or, as the old saying goes...Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Being old enough to remember prior attempts at a national speed limit, I should add that I'm skeptical that it's a good idea.

The nationwide speed limit of 55mph back in the 1970s created not only widespread lawbreaking, but a widespread culture of lawbreaking and disrespect for the law in general. As I recall, most people (where I lived -- MN) actually kept their speed near 55-65 during that period, with only a small minority going faster. But it created an attitude among my generation -- even those who were mostly law abiding -- that cops were to be distrusted. Sure you could get away with low 60s, and most people did, but you never knew when some hard-a** cop would decide to nail you for 62mph. Or 56mph if you were a Minnesotan traveling through Wisconsin.

The Baby Boomers might have gotten their defiant attitude towards law enforcement from the drugs and protests of the Vietnam era, but my generation (X) didn't. We got it from the a popular culture (remember Convoy and the Cannonball Run series?) that explicitly resisted and defied speed laws.

Remember that the radar detector was invented during that era. Might not even have happened if we'd hadn't had a 55mph national limit.

Or 56mph if you were a Minnesotan traveling through Wisconsin.



Through Wisconsin?, you sure you weren't just crossing the border to drink at 18 in WI.:Banane35:

ditto. I'm not particularly fond of a 'nanny' state that somehow knows what is 'good for me'. I firmly believe in individual responsibility.
Or, as the old saying goes...Your freedom ends where my nose begins.

Yes, as soon as people can find a way to keep their others' habits from affecting my gas prices, or to keep their pollution to themselves, I'll agree.

I'm opposed to a nanny state for the sake of one, but when we as a country/state/world aren't willing to change for the better on our own, something has to be done. Sometimes the hammer has to fall.

Originally posted by BLE: "The 55 limit, rather than slowing everyone down, instead turned us into a nation of speeders and bred a contempt for traffic laws that did not exist before it was enacted, just like prohibition spawned speakeasies, organized crime, and corruption instead of turning Americans into a nation of tea-totalers."

If what you say is correct, now that the nasty ole double nickle is history, why is there still such contempt for traffic laws? No one has the "right" to speed. Speeding is illegal, and as proof, you can get a speeding ticket which will cost money and points. Contempt for the law is an individual choice, bred not by a 55 MPH speed limit, but by individuals who think they are better than others, that they have the right to break any law with which they disagree. While you may feel that you should be able to drive any speed you think appropriate, perhaps I feel an equal right to come into your home and remove your possessions. You can justify anything if you try.

Here's my lame attempt at justice. If there is a limited supply of crude oil, and if Hummer drivers are wasting what should be available to the next generation, then let's go with a sliding scale ration. Every legally registered automobile owner, gets 20 gallons a week for each legally registered automobile, at a discounted rate. Beyond that, gas can be purchased for a premium of cost plus $5 per gallon (indexed to inflation). That way, those who drive Hummers - can. Those wishing to speed - can. Those wishing to conserve, will be rewarded with cheaper gasoline.

kwj- I kinda thought BLE's point was that the 55 mph speed limit made a mockery out of speed limits, similiar to Prohibition and temperance. There is a general consensus that breaking into a home and stealing is wrong. The double nickel lacked that support.

RE: rationing gasoline. Wish there was a way to do the increasing scale. But I'm back at Prohibition- a black market and rampant corruption.

Keith

The problem is that the people who CHOOSE to use more fuel are
settling themselves into an extremely harmful mindset, with heavy
doses of a bogus "entitlement" that they're special somehow if
they can afford it, while in reality their gluttony and self-
important hurry-up-and-wait attitude infects far too many sectors
of society and keeps ALL of us making no progress on the changes
that the HUMAN RACE really need to be making. So those who can
see the horizon and the storm building on it need to smack those
who don't upside the head and say "look, you no longer have the
RIGHT to squander a resource that is precious to ALL of us"
because ideally, the structure of "rights" is such that people
have the right to do things that don't hurt others. And these
asshangs screaming down the highway with the phone glued to
their ear because it's their "american right" are hurting us
in, crikey, just uncountable ways.
.
_H*


I don't believe we are entitled to do anything we want but we are entitled to have a say in what the laws we have to obey are. Looking at the votes of this forum it looks like the people in favor of the double nickle slightly outnumber those that oppose. That is in a forum of people that have a keen interest in fuel conservation. Bring up this idea in a general interest forum and I would bet that this idea would get booed off the stage.

Yes, gasoline is a precious resource, we currently value it at about $3.30/gallon. But to a lot of us, individual freedom is also a precious resource, more precious than the cheap gas you feel you are entitled to.

Time is also a valuable resource to many of us. I could save maybe five bucks or so in gas by turning a 5.5 hour trip into a 7 hour trip. If that's all your time is worth, then by all means, keep your highway speed down to 55.

There are two ways to overthrow a government, one is by violent revolution, the other is by ignoring its laws to the extent that the government becomes irrelevant. The last time the double nickel was imposed on an unwilling public by the decision of some bureaucrat, it resulted in the most massive episode of civil disobedience since the era of alcohol prohibition, an era noted mostly for widespread corruption, speakeasies, and organized crime.

Hi BLE:

___There is a difference between the 70’s and today as back then, most had no idea or cared about the following …

The more gasoline we consume, the more emissions coming out of the tail pipe causes environmental harm to us as citizens. The faster we drive, the more harm we do.

The more gasoline we consume, the more we hurt our economy. The faster we drive, the more harm we do.

The more gasoline we consume, the less secure we are as a nation and a planet. The faster we drive, the more harm we do.

The more gasoline we consume, the less of this finite resource will be available for later generations. The faster we drive, the more harm we do.
___It may soon not be a choice for all the reasons above so which side of the fence is it our god given right to be on? Our choice has already caused gasoline to triple in the last 5 years and how many people on the bottom rungs have to drop out of society due to high fuel costs to get back and forth to work all because most “want” to get from Point A to point B in 34 minutes instead of 42? The only thing I can hope is fuel becomes so expensive that most of our “wants” are overridden by both our actual “needs” and consideration is given for what is best for our nation and the planet. A price run-up of a basic staple is terrible thing to consider given the harm it causes but given this natural resources importance, we should all think about the above before we turn the key. Another way to look at it … Is this good for our country and the planet or is this good for just me? I suspect at some point in the very near future, our god given right to drive will be severely hindered due to our current reckless excess.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

On the laisse-faire vs nanny state arguement citing the failure of Prohibition - look at the toll of irresponsible drinking....if one were to Google, probably 50-60% of the auto fatalities are drinking-related.

Goes back to what I've said recently - nanny state laws are the result of it's citizens actling like spoiled brats!

http://www.webdelsol.com/The_Potomac/issue2/crybaby.jpg

Through Wisconsin?, you sure you weren't just crossing the border to drink at 18 in WI.:Banane35:Oh, that certainly happened on a number of occasions. :cocktail: Wisconsin's drinking age was indeed 18 until shortly after I turned 18. For the record, I never once drank in WI and drove back afterwards. But I've made plenty of beer runs to Hudson and Houlton for consumption back home.

Most of my experience driving Wisconsin highways was on the visits we paid several times to my aunts, uncles and cousins, most of whom lived halfway across the state just off I-94. During the double-nickel area, if you had out of state plates you had better keep your eyes peeled if you wanted to go even the 56-60mph pace that my family typically did. Also (as I'm sure you know!) Wisconsin demands on-the-spot bail payment from out of state drivers. I know people who've spent a night in jail because they weren't carrying enough cash to pay for a speeding ticket.

One of my favorite movie quotes of all time -- Bill Murray in Stripes: "C'mon, it's Czechoslovakia. We zip in, we pick 'em up, we zip right out again. We're not going to Moscow. It's Czechoslovakia. It's like we're going into Wisconsin"