Sunday, July 06, 2008

Will 55 MPH be back???


Republican senator John Warner of Virginia is considering asking congress to impose a national speed limit of 55 mph. Again.
Just like in 1974.

I must say, I have been trying it for the past couple of days myself. Just to see. And there is a noticeable benefit in MPG.

Would that really make a difference?

What do you think???

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

It would be difficult for some since vehicles nowaday are more quiet and more powerful than the 70s vehicle. The speed limit here in dc on local highways is 55 and the majority of cars are going at least 70.

what we need is to dial down the engine and impose stiff fine for breaking the speed limit.

i read somewhere that you could gain at least 5%-10% for going 55 instead of 65.

Anonymous said...

Why not leave that decision to yourself? You know if you're going to drive faster that you burn more fuel (incl. speeding). Also if you accelerate fast and brake hard you also will get lower mileage.

It's not that we have a fuel shortage. If that would be the case I could see a law is needed.

A mandatory MPG display in all new cars would be more effective I think.

Anonymous said...

I can't drive 55

www.AllClassics.com said...

You have Freedom of chioce. But please stay in the right lane. Why impose this on people who don't want to be thrifty? Back when it was mandatory 55 mph no one went that speed anyway. Gov Christy Whitman of NJ and Gov Shaefer of Md got speeding tickes and many more undeserving citizens who went the logical safe highway speed.
Sattes like Md and Ohio made a fortune giving speeding tickes and that 55 speed limit is responsable for all the radar and speed traps used today.
Havent we already learned from the past?

Anonymous said...

People these days will be too ignorant and arrogant to abide by that limit.

Anonymous said...

Virginia Senator John Warner is just another example of why there should not only there be term limits but also age limits. The man is not in his right mind. 55mph (90 km/h) is just too slow and any savings would be very minimal at best.

Anonymous said...

Great! Here come the socialists to solve the gas price problem! Nyet!

Anonymous said...

Ok. Seriously. This has to be one of the dumbest ideas around. I live in Virginia, and the speed limit on the majority of the highways is 55. People do anywhere between 65-80 on them. I know, in my car, on a trip on I-81 to Washington DC that doing almost 70/75 the whole way, I averaged 36mpg in my Saturn L200. I also know the same amount of driving, at say, 55/60, I average about 31/32mpg. My car shifts at anywhere between 60 and 62, so it runs at a lower RPM at higher speeds. I do agree with the above comment to put MPG displays in all cars - I know by driving some that have them that I am not as lead-footed on the gas or the brake. Despite all the technological advances to improve MPG, adding that could at 5-6 mpg to a person's driving if they paid attention to where they could save fuel.

Anonymous said...

Im getting out of this retarded country...People are so pathetically weak just like little girls. time to move to Dubai.

Anonymous said...

I can go 55 if I choose. Why do the stupid little parasite voters have to destroy everything. Is it infantile envy? What are we - Europeon?

iQuack said...

Terrifying photo! There's Jimmy Carter, perhaps the worst President of the 20th Century.

What scares me is the similarity we'd face with a President Obama. Chilling and abhorrent thought.

Anonymous said...

Shift to diesels and manual transmissions and you'll be saving millions of barrels. We do that and are still punished, our gas is 10$/gallon, you lazy fat people drive V6 and auto and get rewarded with 5$ gas.

Anonymous said...

A simple demonstration about why a 55mph national speed limit is not only stupid, but dangerous too. We need some thinkers in Congress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuM2AfJ4fmc

Anonymous said...

spewing out 10 percent more exhaust in order to get to destinations a few minutes earlier makes plenty of sense to me. A little more dirt in the atmosphere can't hurt. let future generations worry about our environment. Let's all just Floor it. It's the (non socialist) American way, by gawd.

Anonymous said...

Would this save gas? Yeah, sure it would. And so would not driving at all and have all of us forced to take NOTHING BUT public transportation. That would save even more gas would'nt it? But there is a practicality issue. It would'nt be realistic to have everyone take public transportation. Some people drive (truck, bus drivers and others) very far distances and driving these distances at 55 mph would be impractical. And like what was mentioned earlier.....nobody drives the speed limit anyway. The government knows this. Which leads me to believe that this is a money making item for the state governments in the form of speeding tickets. If the government gave a crap about fuel consumption and the environment why don't they outlaw suv's to people who don't really need them? Why don't they mandate that everyone drive around with 1.5l 4 cyl. engines? Why don't they give tax breaks to people who DO use public transportation? Because they want more of our money, that's why. That ultra doofus Warner tried to pass $1000 speeding tickets to people who speed who were residents of Virginia State. Anyone else who was a resident of ANY other state could speed in our state at a much discounted rate. Again, would the 55mph thing save gas? Yes. Would anyone really do it if the law was passed? No. Therefore would it save gas? No. Will the states bring in more income in the form of speeding tickets? YOU do the math.

I just hope they(the pro 55 group) do a NEW study with MODERN vehicles and don't use the studies that were made back in the late 60's early 70's to justify their argument.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree people are just to arrogant and some to ignorant to do whats right.
If we went for a lower speed limit the more fuel we would save maybe preventing us from have to pay $10 a gallon in the near future. If some can't drive 55mph let them pay extra to drive faster and let them pay more at the pump. Others shouldn't have to pay for your lead foot. Set the limit at 40-50mph and give people a break of 10mph over thats a physiological way to get people to save fuel.

Anonymous said...

That stupid man opened a pandora box for rogue nationals to take advantage of us.

Other Smucks:
1. Johnson
2. Kennedy
3. Clinton
4. Bush
5. Obama

Anonymous said...

Road assholes run over people doing 75 mph as it is now. They won't obey new lower speed limits either, but by god they should pay out the nose if they're caught. I love my country, and if driving 55 helps, I'll support it.

SlippedClutch said...

Good grief.... I can only imagine the additional congestion that would be created if I had to drive 20% slower. That means that people would spend 20% more time on the highways. That equals 20% more congestion, more road rage, and more bottleneck traffic. I'd bet that the aggregate fuel savings would net worse than with a 75mph speed limit. Or are we now supposed to widen our highways to accommodate more traffic? Dumb. The things that will really impact fuel consumption in a positive way are to pass laws that help keep traffic flowing as briskly as possible. Not by passing laws that will create more stop-and-go.

Anonymous said...

It's more patriotic and sensible to conserve fuel than to go half way around the world killing people who have it.

Anonymous said...

55 mph will help the gas crisis?

Er...I mean...the gas prices?

Er...I mean...global warming?

Er...this is like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

I'm going to tell it like it is. Even with $4.00 regular and $5.00 premium in some places, Americans are generally happier when they get to drive fast. There are a ton of people out there whose self-esteem is centered on their car engine. We practically invented the muscle car (sorry, Gottlieb) and even though folks are starting to feel the pinch of gas prices, most people I know are still partying like it's 1999 out on the open road.

Vince, thanks for the Carter picture. It got me thinking about 1980. Carter got a lot of blame for the 55 mph speed limit from everyday people who don't think things through. Then he lost the election.

This probably won't pass in time for the election, but if it does, here is what could happen:

1. State Troopers becoming really excited because they'll get to give more tickets. States get more revenue, but then their legislators will squander their new budgets on programs whose budgets were supposed to pay for higher operating costs (that are thanks to higher energy costs).

2. Radar detector sales will increase.

3. Some states may enforce anti-radar-detector laws.

4. Lawyers will be called upon to fight speeding tickets and radar-detector tickets more often. Lawyers will make more money.

5. If Obama is in office when a proposed national speed limit of 55 is passed, he'll be blamed for it by the folks with 'Support the Troops' bumper stickers on the back of their SUVs and muscle cars.

6. Sammy Hagar will release a re-recorded version of "I can't drive 55" and it will be played at Republican fund-raisers for legislators courting the speeding-ticketed folks pissed off by those "socialist hippies" who made them drive 10 mph slower.

It could happen.

Anonymous said...

Here goes. I went up to NYC today from DE and I decided to drive 64mph. The majority of cars were going alot faster than me and I found that it was more relaxing (less stress) to drive at that speed. I didn't have to pass anyone except for the few big trucks. Use less brake and alot less fuel.

I got there not any longer (15 minutes longer) than I would if I drove 70-80mph.

Give it a try and you will be surprise too.

Anonymous said...

Out here in the prairie states, 55 mph is more dangerous than 80 mph...I remember 55 in the 'bad old days,' and I always had to fight falling asleep at the wheel. Really! The know-it-all politicians aren't considering that danger are they?

Anonymous said...

55 is much too fast. Why not take the car, put it in the driveway and go to sleep in it. Your savings would be tremendous and you can´t kill anybody and you would not pollute and you would not disturb anybody and you would be named man or woman of the year by the the gas price greedies. After one year of saving this way you would have saved the world. zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Anonymous said...

I own 3 companies and it would definitely make a noticeable difference in the cost of our goods. TIME costs a LOT more than gas when it comes to shipping; and I estimate we';d pass on an IMMEDITATE 6% PRICE INCREASE in EVERYTHING we sell. ( After we absorb further price increases from our venders, I believe the end result to most consumers would be more like 9%-13% permanant price increases in most items to consumers. The cost of a drivers time is a fare bigger factor in the net cost of raw materials, services, and finished goods; than the price of fuel will ever be.

Anonymous said...

I own 3 companies and it would definitely make a noticeable difference in the cost of our goods. TIME costs a LOT more than gas when it comes to shipping; and I estimate we';d pass on an IMMEDITATE 6% PRICE INCREASE in EVERYTHING we sell.

Bullsh*t. You neither own 3 companies nor will slower speeds cause price increases.

Anonymous said...

"There's Jimmy Carter"

One of the most decent, moral men to have ever led this nation.

Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Anonymous said...

"A little more dirt in the atmosphere can't hurt."

What dirt? Car exhaust is CO2 and Water, you publik skewl retard.

Anonymous said...

You know what else saves gas, coasting down hills. I think there should be no speed limit on down hill sections of roads and highways. It actually sounds just as ridiculous as anything else they've proposed, but here is some proof. If I break all speed limit laws, I can coast for almost 3 miles on my way home from work (20 mile trip) and about 2.5 miles on the way there. Along with every other gas saving tip I knew, without being ridiculous, I drove & coasted back and forth to work for one week, 200 miles, on 5.8 gallons of gas getting over 34 mpg in a 2004 Nissan Maxima with a 265hp V6!!! My regular law abiding driving methods yield me about 25mpg. I think the politicians are ruining this country one law and tax at a time and us little people are left to deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I can't drive 55


Fine. Don't.

But your ass will pay the fine when your caught.

Anonymous said...

"I went up to NYC today from DE and I decided to drive 64mph. The majority of cars were going alot faster than me and I found that it was more relaxing (less stress) to drive at that speed. I didn't have to pass anyone except for the few big trucks. Use less brake and alot less fuel."

I drive from NYC to MD about once per month. It's a 200 mile trip with the speed limit being 65 most of the way. I can do it in a little over 3 hours if I travel at a fairly steady 75 at a non-peak time and make one stop. My car, as most modern cars are, is very steady and comfortable at 75mph. For me to slow down by 10-15mph adds about another 20-40 minutes of driving time, making it necessary to stop one more time. And to enforce the lower limit would create additional bottlenecks around speed-traps. Lowering the speed limit would use more gas, create more congestion, waste more time and be less effecient. It's simply a knee-jerk, simple-minded idea to lower the speed limit.

Anonymous said...

It's simply a knee-jerk, simple-minded idea to lower the speed limit.

It's scientifically proven that driving 50-55 mph saves fuel over driving 65-75 mph. That's not a knee-jerk reaction. You may not like it, but it really is simple to understand the reality of it.

Wanna tackle evolution next or does that pesky ol' science get in the way of that, too?

Anonymous said...

"It's scientifically proven that driving 50-55 mph saves fuel over driving 65-75 mph. That's not a knee-jerk reaction. You may not like it, but it really is simple to understand the reality of it."

I don't know of any modern scientific analysis that supports what you're saying. Regardless, if you know science, then you know that there are always opposing scientific POV's.

I gave a real example with my wallet and my time as the gauge. Thats real enough for me. I'm not saying it's absolutely conclusive. But even if you don't agree, just try not to be a lemming.

Soul2Stinger said...

"Shift to diesels and manual transmissions and you'll be saving millions of barrels. We do that and are still punished, our gas is 10$/gallon, you lazy fat people drive V6 and auto and get rewarded with 5$ gas."

Unfortunately our public transportation is nowhere near as perfect, so most of us still have to drive...and diesels are rare here for the time being, but it still doesn't give us the excuse to complain when driving Suburbans to an office job. As for manual transmissions, a great number of cars don't even offer it as an option. I would LOVE to see a 6MT Impala LS, but it would never sell because of the type of customers interested in that class of vechicle.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous July 7, 2008 1:50 AM: You call us "lazy fat people", I call you brain washed sheep being led to your socialist slaughter. The reason diesel seems cheap in most of Europe is because the consumer lets the government tax the incentive out of gasoline engined cars right at the pump.
Keep sucking on that "Diesel is King" cool-aid. With the price of diesel in the U.S. significantly higher than petrol, I just don't see consumers switching.

Anonymous said...

RE: your comment: "Bullsh*t. You neither own 3 companies nor will slower speeds cause price increases." Actually I do. The one that leases real estate won't see increases for a year or so after lowering to 55 MPH takes effect. But the two that distribute building materials will absolutely positively see IMMEDIATE price increases passed on to consumers on anything delivered on our trucks -- and you can take that to the bank!

Anonymous said...

I don't know of any modern scientific analysis that supports what you're saying. Regardless, if you know science, then you know that there are always opposing scientific POV's.

I gave a real example with my wallet and my time as the gauge. Thats real enough for me. I'm not saying it's absolutely conclusive. But even if you don't agree, just try not to be a lemming.


I found tons of information, but here's a simple video to watch.

Click here

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:30...

This video is of a study that is SO NOT at all scientific and it completely overlooks many important factors. Typical CR. Clearly if you are able to drive a constant 55mph, you’ll use less fuel than if you drive a steady 65mph. Better yet, save even more fuel by using a motorcycle, walking or riding a bike. Or just work from home and don’t drive at all. Or just don’t work, live in a mud hut in your parents back yard, wear a loincloth and don’t use any fossil fuel whatsoever. That’d be even greener.

What this non-scientific study fails to take into account is what happens when an entire highway full of traffic drives 15-20% slower. It takes 15-20% more time for tens of millions of people to get where they’re going. It creates 15-20% more congestion and more bottlenecks. That’s just reality and it may completely offset any fuel savings from driving slower. There is also a correlation between increased gridlock and road rage. And for those people driving long distances, driving slower means they need to stop more often, meaning more accelerating and stopping which negates any fuel savings you’d see by driving 55mph. Surely you’d agree that a more comprehensive study needs to be done than this amateurish Consumer Reports video?

My general feeling is that, on a macro level of this magnitude, what our struggling economy does not need is anything slowing it down even further.

Anonymous said...

Surely you’d agree that a more comprehensive study needs to be done than this amateurish Consumer Reports video?

You completely missed the satire in my posting the video. I figured if people are too stupid to search, review, and understand the mountains of evidence proving slower speeds save gas, then maybe a Consumer Reports video might be appropriate for their mental capacities.

SlippedClutch said...

" I figured if people are too stupid to search, review, and understand the mountains of evidence proving slower speeds save gas, then maybe a Consumer Reports video might be appropriate for their mental capacities."

I tend to agree with the 8:43 post above. There really isn't a "mountain of evidence" to support the claim that driving slower saves more gas. Maybe it might be true if you're the only person driving on an empty highway, but that's never the case and added travel time would cause the highways to swell with traffic even further. Also, how would this affect interstate commerce? Is anyone willing to absorb higher inflation that results from longer transportation times for products to get onto the shelves?

Anonymous said...

There really isn't a "mountain of evidence" to support the claim that driving slower saves more gas.

We can do this all day, but the evidence is there regardless of how unpopular.

Also, how would this affect interstate commerce? Is anyone willing to absorb higher inflation that results from longer transportation times for products to get onto the shelves?

The point of Vince's post was whether we would see a noticeable benefit in MPGs, not inflation or longer transportation times.

But those are interesting topics for a future post. Why don't you go look it up and get back to us.

Anonymous said...

"But those are interesting topics for a future post. Why don't you go look it up and get back to us."

Nice. It's amazing how selective the eco-lackeys can be with facts and logic. The point that I, and others, are attempting to make is that there would be no improvement in MPG because of the additional strain and congestion on our roadways that a 55mph would create. It could potentially even make the average MPG worse. And the facts are, whether you like it or not, that the impact on interstate commerce would have a horrible ripple effect on the economy. While Vince didn't directly address that in his post, it's very relevant. And these will be some of the reasons that Warner's proposal to reduce the speed limit will be rejected immediately. If he actually proposes it at all.

So take your ball and run home and put in your copy of The Inconvenient Truth. Sounds like that kind of non-critical thinking is more up your alley. Evidently you need your fix.

Anonymous said...

The point that I, and others, are attempting to make is that there would be no improvement in MPG because of the additional strain and congestion on our roadways that a 55mph would create. It could potentially even make the average MPG worse. And the facts are, whether you like it or not, that the impact on interstate commerce would have a horrible ripple effect on the economy.

Prove it.