55 MPH: It's time to bring it back.

Make the cars less powerful at the same time! Cars that can do an easy 150mph accelerate effortlessly to 70-80-90, which would explain why drivers get so frustrated at the thought of going a bit slower.

Only ways to make people drive slower is with a carbon tax or through a coercive authoritarian police state. Take your pick.

"Design loads and lane widths could be adapted to the smaller vehicles. Three lane highways might become four lane; more capacity for the price of a can of paint."

Not while big rigs are still used to transport goods cross country which won't stop any time soon.

I'm all for sustainabliity in all other realms, but for the record, I'm all for driving 90mph while traveling cross country via interstate (which I do in an `86 VW diesel on veg oil).

Not gonna work. The benefit has to be encapsulated....not one of us is thinking about bridges when merging onto a highway during our morning commute.

I remember 55....and that everyone continued to drive 70-75. And my car gets 29mpg highway whether I drive 55 or 70....ECU-controlled ignition systems map air-fuel mix for optimal efficiency the way our old carbeurated engines (or early fuel injection systems) ever could. I drive a sensible, safe European car.

I say, build the train anyway. I'd love to ride Boston to Chicago, Washington or Seattle at 200 mph.

And smaller, lighter cars....good. Way good. As long as they can keep me safe for when my neighbor clobbers me in his Bummer or Ford Excretion.

Speed does not kill, it is very sudden acceleration or deceleration which does!

Either way when I am in the Ozark Mountains, I am a NYer, I drive 55 over the immense distances it takes to go anywhere just to save gas, it really does help.

Of course a jeep is an areo dynamic brick so results may very.

A better idea might be the "Is this trip necessary?" kind of campaign, although retail stores would be angry at that.

Perhaps government grants to software developers to create a trip-planning portal that integrates information about shopping and attractions based on distance.

People are wired to drive at 75-80. 55 if fatiguing and irritating for me.

I agree-- the speed limit should be lowered to 55. The only time going 5 miles per hour faster makes a difference is when you are traveling for many many hours. When you're traveling locally (as most people in their cars do) you'll only get somewhere 1 to 2 mins faster. Not worth the effects on the environment (or my wallet with gas costs) if you ask me.

I have always wonder why in Canada, the highest speed limit we have is 100km/h but we the goveners on our cars don't kick in until like 175 I believe. Why not make that 110 or max 120 km/h? There is certannly no need for anyone to do faster then 120 km/h.

If the automative industry has to goveren all engines out at 120, whats the point of making one that can do 200?

I think that would be a better approach then changing the speed limits, although speed limits are not a big issue for me, as I often don't break them on my fixed geared bike...

Bad idea! I would rather drive less to save that 5% of fuel than drive slower. I think the suggestion alone is dangerous because so many Americans already feel like they have no spare time left at the end of the day from such busy lifestyles that asking them to donate more time in traffic for the environment would just make them resent environmental ideas and solutions even more and give them the false impression that these ideas are inherently unreasonable.

As someone who works for a Fortune 50 company that has a lot of eco-friendly initiatives and sustainability on the mind, I can tell you that there is a lot of low hanging fruit we need to tackle first, things that people can feel good about without compromising that will change their minds and help the environment before we even begin to ask for sacrifice.

Why not start by everyone proposing LED streetlights at their caucuses and pushing hard for that? It can save taxpayers money on their state's electricity bill (less than a 4 year ROI,) make a profound environmental difference, and provide a more attractive and higher quality light? If we focus on an easy change like that, where you have very little resistance after explaining why we should do it, we can get people thinking green and feeling good about it in no time! Change doesn't need to be painful!

(And just for the record, I offset with a TerraPass to alleviative some of the guilt over speeding home every day)

I will admit that it is very easy to get used to driving at 75mph but I have found that when I drive a slower 65mph my commute is much more relaxing. I would have no problem with the NJ Turnpike going back to 55mph. My commut would become so leisurely I could read a magazine while driving!

You obviously don't live out in the west where states are 400 miles across and it takes over 5 hours to cross one at 75MPH. Take speeds back down to 55, and you increase that number to over 7 hours.

Stop trying for "one size fits all" solutions to our problems.

55mph - actually more like 50mph - is the most efficient speed for most vehicles. I've seen this in practice while driving my own vehicle that has a couple different instantaneous/average fuel efficiency readouts. It's quite dramatic how much your mpg drop with an added 10mph.

I'm also a sailor and know that wind power increases exponentially with speed, so the faster you drive, the more work the engine has to do to overcome wind resistance. Above ~50mph is where this becomes increasingly more difficult.

blueshift says: "my car gets 29mpg highway whether I drive 55 or 70"

Ummm.... just because the sticker says "29mpg highway" doesn't mean.... you can't be serious.

Some places could use a reduction in speed limit just to help keep people from crashing into someone while racing to get their Starbucks (*cough*San Diego*cough*). However, I don't think a change in speed limit would make much of a difference in places like Los Angeles where most people spend a lot of their commute time creeping along because the highway's packed. Speed limits are actually a very regional thing. I think I would have torn all my hair out if I'd have had to drive the length of I-40 at 55 miles per hour. I think time and energy could be better spent on other campaigns first.

The answer is not with law enforcement -- everyone hates being told what to do, and being stopped by the police blows hard enough that increased enforcement will always be unpopular. The answer is on the supply side -- simply mandate mpg requirements, but enforce those requirements across all speeds. That way, if a gas guzzler can't meet the requirements when going 70mph, make the car companies put a speed limiting device on the car to make it impossible to drive faster than 55mph. On the other hand, if an electric car can go 120mph with zero emissions and no gasoline, more power to it. It would be the ideal incentive for people to buy electric cars -- the ability to drive faster.

I'm sure law enforcement wants it... more tickets!!! $$$

What about a less noticeable, less extreme (to the general populace and politicians, that is) limit of 70 mph or 65 mph. Sure, it wouldn't save nearly as much fuel, but it would save some, and it would ease the public into conserving more than the drastic shift to a 55 mph limit.

I think smart urban design and smart car design and smart transportation design are more important than speed limit.

randykato's triplepost argues the need for a better comment system. Are you listening, treehugger?

LA: people who have the typekey accounts can do their own approval. When I get around to it I remove the duplicates, and have done so.

Rob says:

People are wired to drive at 75-80. 55 if fatiguing and irritating for me.

No they're not. If they were, then the fatality rate wouldn't go up 38% at that speed. If anything, people are wired to drive at about 20 MPH. Maybe 35. Beyond that, our slow reflexes and enormous capacity for making mistakes becomes dangerous to ourselves and the people around us. Otherwise freeways wouldn't even be necessary, we could just build roads however we like and not worry about the consequences of putting that many cars driving in opposite directions in such close proximity.

Something else that people are wired for, is impatience. *That* is what you're complaining about. If we could teleport ourselves instantly over thousands of miles like in Star Trek, travelling interstate at 80MPH would seem astoundingly tedious. People always *want* to go as fast as they can, whether or not they can actually handle it.

Driving 55mph is stupid and I am all for green, but time is money and we don't have enough of it. Adding 10 or 20 minutes to my drive home is time I give up with people and things I care about. My car gets better or equal gas milage at 55-70 anyway so what am I saving? Not Gas, Not Money, Not Time
I'd use public transit if it was economical, efficiant, and on time. Not likely to ever happen with the idiots running it in Orlando.

If it is illegal to speed, why is it legal to build and market cars that do? You can't expect people to drive at or below the speed limit, they simply aren't mature enough to handle driving slowly - a side effect of the 'instant and disposable' culture. I would love to see the speed limit and the top speed of cars both reduced. I'd even favor more draconian punishment. 3 strikes, bye-bye car and license. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Not enough time to drive slowly? That's almost original, but everyone has the same amount of time. It's how we manage it that differs.

Don't mix your data... Raising speed limits may increase the number of fatalities PER accident, but it lowers the actual number of accidents:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

"Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent."

"Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent."

Furthermore, our road systems are significantly more crowded now than they ever have been. By reducing speed limits, they will become even more congested.

Trains... we need decent frigg'n trains... and we need to stop shipping so much stuff via trucks. Its cheaper to ship by train but shipping companies are forced to use trucks because of regulations enforced by labor unions. It's nuts...

How about updating our highway system? Having a consistent speed limit throughout the day seems inefficient. There needs to be better infrastructure to allow for a continuous update of traffic conditions around urban areas.

When roads are less congested, say during 7pm-6am have the speed limit be 65-75mph. During heavier traffic times, decrease the speed limit to 30-45mph.

Think about how traffic works in regards to congestion. During rush hour times drivers usually drive bumper-bumper in a white knuckle stress period trying to get home with the rest of the crowd. This usually involves heavy acceleration and when the car in front of them brakes they are forced to brake heavily to slow the car in time as to not cause an accident.

Now what if there were a gap between these drivers? More gap means more reaction time to slow down in time to prevent hitting the driver ahead of them. Creating a gap between two drivers means not mashing down the gas pedal thus saving fuel.

If drivers could go in this way there would be less bumper to bumper traffic and an increased flow. Instead of driving at 60mph to 5mph to 35mph there can be a consistent 30-40mph driving on a highway. Less traffic and less stress results in happier drivers and lighter feet on the pedals.

If we mandate our speed limit back to 55mph then we could be moving back technologically! The trade off in fuel economy is less efficiency in transportation and nobody is happy when their UPS/FedEx truck does not come when scheduled. What's the balance between fuel economy and our normal economy?

Our vehicles have come a long way in regards to safety and speed. Let's keep pushing forward with updated, reliable, and efficient technology.

I've always wanted to see a toll road that charged people by the kinetic energy they realized during their trip -- that is to say, by some function of their vehicle's size and speed. But now that I think about it, isn't that exactly what a gas tax would do? And why isn't a gas tax a reasonable alternative to a 55mph speed limit. Lord knows 55mph is the one proposal that makes a gas tax seem appealing.

I think anyone who has the view "I don't want/need/believe in consensual activity X, therefore X should be illegal" is far, far more dangerous than a >55mph speed limit.

First, I'd like to comment on the statements of some saying that they get the same gas mileage whether they drive 55 or 75. That is simply IMPOSSIBLE. It goes against the laws of physics as we know them. A mass moving at a certain speed has a certain energy. That same mass moving at a higher speed (even if it is just an itsy-bitsy higher speed) has a HIGHER energy. And that higher energy means higher gasoline consumption (and more serious car crashes). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a car to get the same gas mileage at 50 as at 70. It is IMPOSSIBLE ALSO for a car to get 'basically' the same mileage at 50 as at 70.

Second, I'd like to second these comments:

'When you're traveling locally (as most people in their cars do) you'll only get somewhere 1 to 2 mins faster. Not worth the effects on the environment (or my wallet with gas costs) if you ask me.'

'Cars that can do an easy 150mph accelerate effortlessly to 70-80-90, which would explain why drivers get so frustrated at the thought of going a bit slower. '

'Something else that people are wired for, is impatience. *That* is what you're complaining about. If we could teleport ourselves instantly over thousands of miles like in Star Trek, travelling interstate at 80MPH would seem astoundingly tedious. People always *want* to go as fast as they can, whether or not they can actually handle it.'

'Driving is a privilege, not a right.'

'Not enough time to drive slowly? That's almost original, but everyone has the same amount of time. It's how we manage it that differs.'

The last four quotes are in my opinion the only things worth remembering about all the comments posted here - the only nuggets of wisdom. Most of the rest was just unabashedly self-serving BS.

55 mph

ahahahahah

no way

this is the year 2008 there is no way we should or will lower driving speeds

cars are designed to go very fast very safely these days

there are many many other ways to reduce fuel consumption but slowing down drivers is insane. Has the poster ever driven on a modern highway ????
If anything we need to abolish speed limits and raise CAFE standards past the pathetic 35 mpg puhlease!

I drive a 1984 car that gets better gas mileage than most cars today.

the pace of life has not slowed in the last 25 years

Sure newer cars are made to handle the speeds but one also must remember that wind resistance (drag) increases with velocity.

So you are likely only getting similar millage from 55-70mph because of your car's design not because you are not expending more energy! (In other words, you're wasting gas going 55 in a car made to go 70.) Cars made before 95, like mine, are designed to go 60 so I get about the same millage from 50-60 and I get half that if I drive 65-75.

FYI: Roads built for higher speeds and weights cost significantly more. Perhaps we shouldn't have undermined trains for shipping stuff?

Really, if you think about it, the speed limits should be RAISED. This is from a purely civics stand point, not environmental. In democracy's the laws should be set at what the citizens desire, not dictations by a higher authority. Every second a HUGE percentage of of drivers are speeding, well aware of the consequences of breaking the law. In other words they are continually committing civil disobedience. Since such a great percentage of citizens obviously disagree with the speed limit by driving faster then it, the laws should be changed to reflect the will of the public they are supposed to be made for/by. Safety, insurance premiums blah, blah, blah, the people practicing civil disobedience are surely aware of the consequences of accidents in the form of death or raised insurance but continue to disobey the law anyway. Government shouldn't take the role of parent or protector making sure we are "safe."

One way I've always postulated speeds could be reduced was through the use of "Pace Cars". Literally a car would be driven by a civil servant (perhaps a police officer) at the speed limit with poles extended from the car to prevent other cars from passing.

About commuters: lowering the speed limit would actually reduce their commute time. Its a weird phenomenom but I'll try to explain it:

In computer chips, there is a phenomenon whereby the time it takes to address an operation increases exponentially while the number of operations in queue increases linearly. Researchers at Bell Labs first noticed it in the late 60s if I recall.

A similar effect happens in traffic, and I've witnessed it personally. You'll be cruising along at say 60mph in dense (but moving) traffic. Someone ten cars up brakes lightly and then the car after that brakes and then the car after that and so on. Each car brakes slightly harder (human nature to over react) until the whole freeway has suddenly slowed down dramatically. This is similar to forcing too many operations (cars) and a computer chip (road) at once. The address (commute) time increases exponentially (sorta).

Dropping the speed limit to 35mph on the Stevenson expressway in Chicago (I90) or on I4 in Orlando would, IMO, cut commute times in half.

"Dropping the speed limit to 35mph on the Stevenson expressway in Chicago (I90) or on I4 in Orlando would, IMO, cut commute times in half."

First off the Stevenson is I55. Secondly, what good would a 35mph speed limit be @ 10pm when there is virtually NO traffic?

"Dropping the speed limit to 35mph on the Stevenson expressway in Chicago (I90) or on I4 in Orlando would, IMO, cut commute times in half."

First off the Stevenson is I55. Secondly, what good would a 35mph speed limit be @ 10pm when there is virtually NO traffic?

It's easy to confuse efficiency with economy. In a modern car, it is entirely possible to get the same MPG at 55 and 70 MPH. This is because gasoline internal combustion engines are least efficient at low throttle openings. Since the horsepower wars of recent years have yielded cars that are ridiculously overpowered for day-to-day driving, a steady cruise at 55MPH has the engine working near the bottom of its power curve. At 70MPH the throttle is wider and the engine is working harder, breathing better, and making more power per unit of fuel. So even though aerodynamic drag has increased exponentially with the increased speed, it's quite possible that the increased engine efficiency (power output per gallon) compensates, resulting in similar overall economy (miles per gallon).
All of this argues for smaller cars (less mass, less drag) powered by smaller engines (which will tend to operate higher up the power curve, i.e., more efficiently), all of which will yield better fuel economy.

I would however respectfully disagree with people who think we can tax our way into lower fuel consumption. Americans have proven that our thirst for gas is a pretty inelastic demand; otherwise we'd be using 50% less gas than when gas was $1.50. What would happen is that poor and working-class people would just get shafted even harder, since they're the ones with fewest options as to where to live and where and when to work.

Also -- if you're driving a steady 70 on a highway where everyone is driving a steady 70, you can maintain good fuel economy. But if you're weaving and dodging, sprinting and braking to do 55 where everyone's doing 40, then your mileage will suck. Fuel economy has more to do with driving style than absolute speed.

Proposals that are likely to be percieved as inconveniencing people are a bad idea as they are likely to cause major setbacks in the perception of the green movement. Environmentalists must avoid lengthening people's work commutes or risk being completely marginalized.

It would however not be so bad to limit vehicles weighing over 6,000 pounds to 55mph, as those are work vehicles, not commuter vehicles so the limit would not effect anyone's daily commute. Furthermore the chances of killing someone in another vehicle increase dramatically with the weight of the vehicle. Thus any federal restriction on speed should be limited to heavy vehicles. Truck drivers might even benefit from such a restriction by decreased fuel costs while remaining competitive in shipping speed with other truckers.

For an example of unintended consequences, a while back they decided to regulate the amount of water consumed per flush by toilets. The result was that for several years it was impossible to legally buy a new toilet that didn't need to be flushed multiple times do do its job, wasting a lot of water. These sorts of regulatory steps do far more harm than good by creating ill will towards environmentalism at large.

The 55 mph speed limit could have similar unintended consequences. Lower maximum speeds mean more cars on the road at a given time, which means an increase in the frequency of gridlock traffic, which could ultimately result in a great deal of wasted gas.

The ideal solution is actually an oil import tariff, as it targets the nonrenewable portion of fuel in a straightforward manner. This would result in the heavy vehicles that damage the roads the most being taxed in proportion with the damage that they do. With an oil tax no fuel could masquerade as renewable while actually using substantial oil inputs, nor would a truly renewable fuel be taxed simply by virtue of not having been popularized at the time the tax code was written (ie. biobutanol or oil from TDP). Increasing the costs of oil in a predictable and permanent way would greatly encourage the development of renewable sources of both fuel and materials. Any such oil or fuel tax should transparently be given back to the people evenly, for example by using the money from a $10/barrel import tariff to exempt the first $20000 in income from social security taxes. This way people who don't drive a lot will see the new oil tax as an opportunity to actually lower their tax burden.

John B got it right, houston was half right. When 2 bricks are traveling at 50mph, the force to move them is equal. when one increases to 70mph, the force to move it also increases based on friction (wind, rotational mass, and others).

However, if an egg and a brick travel at 50mph, the force to move the egg is far less due to a lower air friction co. Let's apply this:

My '90 Protege at 60mph will net 35mpg. My '02 Grand Prix at 60mph nets 30mpg. Seems a crock doesn't it? let's increase the speed.

At interstate speeds (70mph) the Protege nets 31.6mpg. At the exact same time I tested the Protege, my girlfriend was driving the Grand Prix. It obtained 34.5mpg over the same stretch. The GP was in front, breaking the wind for the Protege, which followed 3-4 car lengths behind over the course of 500 miles; Portland to Cour De' Lane.

Can we assume that Houston's other statements are bunk because he/she didn't understand physics in complete? no. But I do wish they hadn't claimed to understand the "law of physics as we know them." I'm afraid that makes you seem ignorant, because "we" as in "we the car manufacturers" understand them in a greater detail than you.

The radio button states "Post an intelligent and civil comment." Please be sure to follow both criteria next time. Thank you for your understanding.

1) What about stricter driver education and testing first? We all know there are people out there who should not be behind the wheel. Sure, they can pass a computer test and parallel park a Dodge Omni, but can they handle typical speeds and situations? It's a serious endeavor.

2) Go Autobahn style and get the slow folks out of the fast lane and enforce left lane passing. "Drive right, pass left."

3) Enforce lane signaling. Basic communication.

4) Breathalyzers on all cars.

It's pathologically insane how people drive faster because they're in a hurry to get to work to make money to be able to afford things like their car and gasoline so they can drive faster. So they work harder, spend less time with family, pay taxes to support our defense spending so that our troops who are separated from their families can secure our oil interests and die or get injured in the process so that we can drive faster and die or get injured in the process. Count the fatalities on our roadways and I'd say it's War out there!

I love the delusion some people live in.

I don't mind driving slower. Hell, I don't mind walking when the weather is nice. There are a lot of nice places to see.

I say make roads and cities pedestrian friendly. Heck, put in a bike path or two.

I'm a strict vegetarian who doesn't drink sodas. So, I don't need an SUV or Hemi to cart around my fat ass around with my burger, fries, soda and ice cream.

You can't legislate sense into people (although they try). People will still drive as fast as they fell they can go. And it will be dangerous for those who obey the 55 mile/hour law because everyone will be zooming past them

The better alternative is to build more mass transit and more fuel efficient vehicles. I welcome the price of high gasoline because that will spur these developments.

"First, I'd like to comment on the statements of some saying that they get the same gas mileage whether they drive 55 or 75. That is simply IMPOSSIBLE. It goes against the laws of physics as we know them. A mass moving at a certain speed has a certain energy. That same mass moving at a higher speed (even if it is just an itsy-bitsy higher speed) has a HIGHER energy. And that higher energy means higher gasoline consumption (and more serious car crashes). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a car to get the same gas mileage at 50 as at 70. It is IMPOSSIBLE ALSO for a car to get 'basically' the same mileage at 50 as at 70."

Others have addressed this so I'll just skim this. Mileage is affected by driving habits but also by vehicle design. I used to have a 1972 Oldmobile Delta 88 (Land yacht, longer, wider, and heavier than a Chevy Suburban) and the faster I went the better the mileage. Why? Because the engine how more effeicent at higher speeds and at low speeds I was just wasting fuel, you'll find the same issue with most SUVs and trucks today where there is very little mileage difference between 55 and 70 because at 55 energy is just being wasted by the larger motor.

Now I speed, I will freely admit it, in fact I was just pulled over for 80 in a 65 the other day. However I do find that I get much better overall milage when I'm not having to constantly jockey to maintain a speed limit with dozens of other inattentive cell-phone idiots. Keeping out of the pack makes for a much smoother drive. If a heavily enforced 55 limit comes in to play, all you are going to do is increase congestion. Most places don't pull over speeders in certain corridors because it causes 'gauker blocks' and accidents.

Speed doesn't kill people anymore than guns kill people. It is the lack of responisibilty that results in death, the actions of the person, not the item itself. Place the blame where it belongs, stupid careless people.

The economic impact of a mandated 55mph speed limit would be huge in the US where truckers are already in short supply and you want to reduce their driving by 20% per day. (Commercial operators can only drive for a certain number of hours per day, 10 hours at 70 is 700 miles. 10 hours at 55 is only 550 miles.)

Good luck with another 55mph limit.

-Lego

houston said: 'First, I'd like to comment on the statements of some saying that they get the same gas mileage whether they drive 55 or 75. That is simply IMPOSSIBLE. It goes against the laws of physics as we know them. A mass moving at a certain speed has a certain energy. That same mass moving at a higher speed (even if it is just an itsy-bitsy higher speed) has a HIGHER energy. And that higher energy means higher gasoline consumption (and more serious car crashes). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a car to get the same gas mileage at 50 as at 70. It is IMPOSSIBLE ALSO for a car to get 'basically' the same mileage at 50 as at 70.'
Craig said: 'Can we assume that Houston's other statements are bunk because he/she didn't understand physics in complete? no. But I do wish they hadn't claimed to understand the "law of physics as we know them." I'm afraid that makes you seem ignorant, because "we" as in "we the car manufacturers" understand them in a greater detail than you.'
houston responds: Obviously my quick simplified explanation was not to your liking; I hadn't planned on posting a precise physics reasoning here, but since Craig became so thoroughly confused with what I was saying I feel I have no choice. Furthermore, since he questions my 'intelligence' on this matter, I will quote from some other source so that he doesn't once again go out of his way to claim that I have incomplete understanding: (Words in capitals are my emphasis)
'The power to push a car down the road VARIES with the SPEED the car is traveling. The power required follows an equation of the following form: road load POWER = av + bv2 + cv3 The letter v represents the VELOCITY of the car, and the letters a, b and c represent three different CONSTANTS:
The a component comes mostly from the rolling resistance of the tires, and friction in the car's components, like drag from the brake pads, or friction in the wheel bearings.
The b component also comes from friction in components, and from the rolling resistance in the tires. But it also comes from the power used by the various pumps in the car.
The c component comes mostly from things that affect aerodynamic drag like the frontal area, drag coefficient and density of the air.
These constants will be different for every car. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF YOU DOUBLE YOUR SPEED, THIS EQUATION SAYS THAT YOU WILL INCREASE THE POWER REQUIRED BY MUCH MORE THAN DOUBLE. A hypothetical medium sized SUV that requires 20 horsepower at 50 mph might require 100 horsepower at 100 mph.
You can also see from the equation that if the velocity v is 0, the power required is also 0. If the velocity is very small then the power required is also very small. So you might be thinking that you would get the best mileage at a really slow speed like 1 mph.
But there is something going on in the engine that eliminates this theory. If your car is going 0 mph your engine is still running. Just to keep the cylinders moving and the various fans, pumps and generators running consumes a certain amount of fuel. And depending on how many accessories (such as headlights and air conditioning) you have running, your car will use even more fuel.
So even when the car is sitting still it uses quite a lot of fuel. Cars get the very worst mileage at 0 mph; they use gasoline but don't cover any miles. When you put the car in drive and start moving at say 1 mph, the car uses only a tiny bit more fuel, because the road load is very small at 1 mph. At this speed the car uses about the same amount of fuel, but it went 1 mile in an hour. This represents a dramatic increase in mileage. Now if the car goes 2 mph, again it uses only a tiny bit more fuel, but goes twice as far. The mileage almost doubled!
In effect the efficiency of the engine is improving. It uses a fixed amount of fuel to power itself and the accessories, and a variable amount of fuel depending on the power required to keep the car going at a given speed. So in terms of fuel used per mile, the faster the car goes, the better use we make of that fixed amount of fuel required.
THIS TREND CONTINUES TO A POINT. Eventually, that road load curve catches up with us. Once the speed gets up INTO THE 40 MPH range each 1 mph increase in speed represents a SIGNIFICANT increase in power required. Eventually, the power required increases more than the efficiency of the engine improves. At this point the mileage starts dropping.' http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm'
'While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.' Take a look at the graph at their website. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

'The power to overcome air resistance increases roughly with the cube of the speed. Thus, ABOVE ABOUT 30 MPH (48 km/h), wind resistance becomes a dominant limiting factor. By driving at 45 rather than 65 mph (72 rather than 105 km/h), the power to overcome wind resistance is about one-third, and much greater fuel economy can be achieved. Increasing speed to 90 mph (145 km/h) increases the power requirement by 2.6 times, and DRASTICALLY decreases fuel economy. IN PRACTICE, RATHER THAN DOUBLING OR HALVING THE FUEL ECONOMY, THE DIFFERENCE IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 40-50%, since rolling resistance, which is broadly proportional to speed, is also a factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon

EPA data: Gas Mileage vs. Speed

Model Speed = 40 MPH Speed = 50 MPH Speed = 60 MPH
Gas Mileage (mpg) Gas Mileage (mpg) Gas Mileage (mpg)
Sub-Compact 35 36 29
Compact 28 30 27
Midsize 21 22 20
Van 15 17 13
Luxury 13 14 12

http://library.thinkquest.org/4116/Trip_Planning/speed.htm

houston says: I will reiterate what I stated before. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the same gas mileage when one is going at 50 as to when one is going at 70 IN THE SAME CAR. And Craig, the button states to post an intelligent and civil comment. Please do go out of your way next time to do BOTH. It's not too much to ask. And I would much appreciate it.

Sorry. Didn't work before. Won't work now. Might as well bring back prohibition. You just end up with more emissions from people who are backed up in traffic and increasingly frustrated by not being able to get around effectively.

It is best to concentrate on emissions requirements and aerodynamic vehicle bodies.

Stop allowing vehicle manufacturers to get away with selling trucks to people who should be driving cars by removing the financial advantages of doing so.

Bring back trains. They get way better mileage. Improve the tracks. Resolve the issues that keep them from running on schedule. Ship freight by train whenever possible. And even better, make it possible for people to drive onto a train the same way they can drive onto a ferry. If I could get from NY to FL at speed I'd be more than happy to let someone else drive.

Get past the chicken-or-egg status of hydrogen. Fuel cells have been powering the space shuttle for decades, and there is more than enough proof of concept on the ground by now. Are all the engineers asleep out there? Get off your butts and get it done for the good of humanity!

Put 1/10th of what the US paid for the Iraq debacle into fusion research and that much again into renewable energy. It does bear fruit. Look at the modest investment by the US during the Clinton presidency in hybrid vehicle technologies -- can anyone say that didn't work out?

Oh, and stop giving drivers licenses to people who can't drive safely. And ticket severely when people don't allow two seconds of space in between. Driving while intoxicated and driving while tired are deadly. Those are the real culprits when it comes to speed killing.

Perhaps there are city dwellers who don't really know or want to know what's on the other side of the river, but the rest of us have places to go, things to do, and people to see. I can't drive 55 because I would cost me way too much time. Five miles per hour over the course of a five hour trip costs me almost another hour. Add that up for someone who isn't just out sightseeing and it's lost money and time with family because the job still must get done.

FWIW I consider myself very green in almost every other respect, including making sure I'm driving a vehicle that gets very high gas mileage, keeping my tires at the right pressure, and keeping the engine running right to limit consumption and emissions. My calculations show that I'm still using way less fuel than most.

You've got to be dumber to drive a bummer. Let's just try to get those and similar atrocities out of our way and we can all be safer and greener together without having to slow down the wheels of progress.

Flame away....

Truck speed limits are already 55.

I aim for 45mph when I can because I have an instantaneous fuel economy gauge in my car that proves to me that I get the most mileage for my money around that speed. I get 40% better fuel economy than EPA ratings on average because of my driving style and speeds.

When I do use the highway, I drive around 50-55mph. In my area (upstate NY) this is possible and easy, but I have been other places where I travel faster out of safety because everyone else is braking the law by speeding.

Why should I have to worry about my driving habits because others brake the law?

Secondly, if I had the absolute power to make laws, I would not allow single-occupant vehicles on the highway without paying $1 per mile. You want to use the highway? Sure, carpool, or pay for it.

Why is it that Americans (and probably many others) feel a right to own a car, drive on highways, and constantly brake the law by speeding, yet we despise paying taxes to support the system, paying high prices for gas to get somewhere, and whine about slow traffic when some other means could be used to avoid it?

I could not agree more. I actually do drive slower to conserve on gas. Also, if we had a train system like Europe's I would use it all the time! We need to move building roads aside and bring light rails and steam trains to the top of the list. There was a guy who invented an engine that was able to get 100 miles to the gallon - but he was bought out by a car corporation....

I would love to drive 55 in a electric car if I can find one that I can afford. Until then I will risk a speeding ticket and pollute the air here in the central valley of California

If we go back to 55mph the car companys will go back to big is better then look for small and better mpg

houston said: 'First, I'd like to comment on the statements of some saying that they get the same gas mileage whether they drive 55 or 75. That is simply IMPOSSIBLE. It goes against the laws of physics as we know them. A mass moving at a certain speed has a certain energy. That same mass moving at a higher speed (even if it is just an itsy-bitsy higher speed) has a HIGHER energy. And that higher energy means higher gasoline consumption (and more serious car crashes). It is IMPOSSIBLE for a car to get the same gas mileage at 50 as at 70. It is IMPOSSIBLE ALSO for a car to get 'basically' the same mileage at 50 as at 70.'
Craig said: 'Can we assume that Houston's other statements are bunk because he/she didn't understand physics in complete? no. But I do wish they hadn't claimed to understand the "law of physics as we know them." I'm afraid that makes you seem ignorant, because "we" as in "we the car manufacturers" understand them in a greater detail than you.'
houston responds: Obviously my quick simplified explanation was not to your liking; I hadn't planned on posting a precise physics reasoning here, but since Craig became so thoroughly confused with what I was saying I feel I have no choice. Furthermore, since he questions my 'intelligence' on this matter, I will quote from some other source so that he doesn't once again go out of his way to claim that I have incomplete understanding: (Words in capitals are my emphasis)
'The power to push a car down the road VARIES with the SPEED the car is traveling. The power required follows an equation of the following form: road load POWER = av + bv2 + cv3 The letter v represents the VELOCITY of the car, and the letters a, b and c represent three different CONSTANTS:
The a component comes mostly from the rolling resistance of the tires, and friction in the car's components, like drag from the brake pads, or friction in the wheel bearings.
The b component also comes from friction in components, and from the rolling resistance in the tires. But it also comes from the power used by the various pumps in the car.
The c component comes mostly from things that affect aerodynamic drag like the frontal area, drag coefficient and density of the air.
These constants will be different for every car. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, IF YOU DOUBLE YOUR SPEED, THIS EQUATION SAYS THAT YOU WILL INCREASE THE POWER REQUIRED BY MUCH MORE THAN DOUBLE. A hypothetical medium sized SUV that requires 20 horsepower at 50 mph might require 100 horsepower at 100 mph.
You can also see from the equation that if the velocity v is 0, the power required is also 0. If the velocity is very small then the power required is also very small. So you might be thinking that you would get the best mileage at a really slow speed like 1 mph.
But there is something going on in the engine that eliminates this theory. If your car is going 0 mph your engine is still running. Just to keep the cylinders moving and the various fans, pumps and generators running consumes a certain amount of fuel. And depending on how many accessories (such as headlights and air conditioning) you have running, your car will use even more fuel.
So even when the car is sitting still it uses quite a lot of fuel. Cars get the very worst mileage at 0 mph; they use gasoline but don't cover any miles. When you put the car in drive and start moving at say 1 mph, the car uses only a tiny bit more fuel, because the road load is very small at 1 mph. At this speed the car uses about the same amount of fuel, but it went 1 mile in an hour. This represents a dramatic increase in mileage. Now if the car goes 2 mph, again it uses only a tiny bit more fuel, but goes twice as far. The mileage almost doubled!
In effect the efficiency of the engine is improving. It uses a fixed amount of fuel to power itself and the accessories, and a variable amount of fuel depending on the power required to keep the car going at a given speed. So in terms of fuel used per mile, the faster the car goes, the better use we make of that fixed amount of fuel required.
THIS TREND CONTINUES TO A POINT. Eventually, that road load curve catches up with us. Once the speed gets up INTO THE 40 MPH range each 1 mph increase in speed represents a SIGNIFICANT increase in power required. Eventually, the power required increases more than the efficiency of the engine improves. At this point the mileage starts dropping.' http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm'
'While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.' Take a look at the graph at their website. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml

'The power to overcome air resistance increases roughly with the cube of the speed. Thus, ABOVE ABOUT 30 MPH (48 km/h), wind resistance becomes a dominant limiting factor. By driving at 45 rather than 65 mph (72 rather than 105 km/h), the power to overcome wind resistance is about one-third, and much greater fuel economy can be achieved. Increasing speed to 90 mph (145 km/h) increases the power requirement by 2.6 times, and DRASTICALLY decreases fuel economy. IN PRACTICE, RATHER THAN DOUBLING OR HALVING THE FUEL ECONOMY, THE DIFFERENCE IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 40-50%, since rolling resistance, which is broadly proportional to speed, is also a factor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_per_gallon

EPA data: Gas Mileage vs. Speed

Model Speed = 40 MPH Speed = 50 MPH Speed = 60 MPH
Gas Mileage (mpg) Gas Mileage (mpg) Gas Mileage (mpg)
Sub-Compact 35 36 29
Compact 28 30 27
Midsize 21 22 20
Van 15 17 13
Luxury 13 14 12

http://library.thinkquest.org/4116/Trip_Planning/speed.htm

houston says: I will reiterate what I stated before. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get the same gas mileage when one is going at 50 as to when one is going at 70 IN THE SAME CAR. And Craig, the button states to post an intelligent and civil comment. Please do go out of your way next time to do BOTH. It's not too much to ask. And I would much appreciate it.

first time hear and looking for practial info, dint find it hear. But did find a bunch of people that are not very relistic. One I have worked in law enforcment and I hated writing tickets, mostly a big waste of time. With the exception of safety tickets, example 15 mph zones are there for a reason. Highway speads only matter depnding on the roadway, some are safe at 100mph some are not. On the money side I never saw any of it, it dint eaven come back to our department. On vehicles some people do need big trucks, such a construction, farmers, and other heavy industry. I have worked in all and they are invaluble. ON ppersonal transport they are not requred but I leave that up to the individual, same about speed, after all this is the USA we are FREE. Those who want these things pay at the pump and thay pay more taxes at the pump. If you want to do something constructive do it your self and dont point fingers. Oh yeha also think about your comforts do you enjoy delivery of good to your home, thats tractor trailors, with out them products would take months not a week. As I said I came hea looking for info that I could use to do MY part not my nighobors part. Found little and probably wont be back, but I had to put my 2 cents in.

55 was great back then. But if we look at the issues at the speed vs. economy vs. pollution you'll find that we have advanced technology to take care of this.

55 MPH was set way back when - when cars were not very aerodynamic, tires were to stickey.. etc..

With the aerodynamically designed cars and better designed tired - you can get more efficiency at hight mph than before.

The 55 mph speed limit is absolutely essential and makes sense for a multitude of reasons.
First off, it is undebateable that an increase in vehicle speed increases the likelyhood of a severe injury or fatality in the event of a crash. In spite of the fact that cars have become dramatically safer over the years, the highway death and injury rate has remained constant or increased. When one thinks of the uproar caused by a few kids being shot in a school or even the 3000 deaths of 911 it is surpizing that it is totally acceptable that 40000+ people die every year on highways.

It is also clear that in view of diminishing fuel supplies brought on by peak oil, it is absolutely essential that everything possible must be done to stretch our current oil supplies until viable alternatives can be found. Reinstating the 55 is an easy solution that will produce instant results.

As far as enforcement is concerned: the only reason why speed limits in general are so widely ignored is because the consequenses of getting caught are not severe enough.
I propose a minimum fine of $500 dollars for a first offender. License suspentions after a second offense in a year. Additionally, withdraw the ability to remove "points" by attending driver school.
Require violators to be retrained/attend school, but make them keep the violation in force on their record.

Speeding has to be treated as the serious crime that it really is. A crime that causes 40000+ people per year to die and millions to be injured.
A crime that causes billions of dollars in property loss.
A crime that contributes to environmental degredation including possibly global warming.
A crime that increases our dependency on foreign oil and squanders what little we have left.

BRING BACK THE 55 AND ENFORCE IT THIS TIME!

The 55 mph speed limit is absolutely essential and makes sense for a multitude of reasons.
First off, it is undebateable that an increase in vehicle speed increases the likelyhood of a severe injury or fatality in the event of a crash. In spite of the fact that cars have become dramatically safer over the years, the highway death and injury rate has remained constant or increased. When one thinks of the uproar caused by a few kids being shot in a school or even the 3000 deaths of 911 it is surpizing that it is totally acceptable that 40000+ people die every year on highways.

It is also clear that in view of diminishing fuel supplies brought on by peak oil, it is absolutely essential that everything possible must be done to stretch our current oil supplies until viable alternatives can be found. Reinstating the 55 is an easy solution that will produce instant results.

As far as enforcement is concerned: the only reason why speed limits in general are so widely ignored is because the consequenses of getting caught are not severe enough.
I propose a minimum fine of $500 dollars for a first offender. License suspentions after a second offense in a year. Additionally, withdraw the ability to remove "points" by attending driver school.
Require violators to be retrained/attend school, but make them keep the violation in force on their record.

Speeding has to be treated as the serious crime that it really is. A crime that causes 40000+ people per year to die and millions to be injured.
A crime that causes billions of dollars in property loss.
A crime that contributes to environmental degredation including possibly global warming.
A crime that increases our dependency on foreign oil and squanders what little we have left.

BRING BACK THE 55 AND ENFORCE IT THIS TIME!

Good Idea. Lets piss off the entire state of Texas. Have ANY of you travelled the immense distances in TX, NM or AZ. When it is miles and miles of nothing? My car can GO 100 and it does. Last time I average 35mpg in my Maxima going that fast.

Hippies. UGH.

It seems like the problem that many people have with this idea (which is a great one) is reflective of a bigger problem within the environmental movement. It seems like many environmentalists think that our current climate/energy/food/water/air crisis is the result of bad policy, bad planning, and bad technology, and that if we simply have more efficient cars and better politicians everything will be A-OK.

However, these problems are really just a reflection of larger cultural problem, and unless we address the failings of our culture (instant gratification, overly busy lifestyles, hyper-individualism to name a few) the security and prosperity of our environment (and by extension, our society) will never be certain. Wendell Berry writes extensively about this in his collection of essays "What are people for?," and I highly recommend that book to anyone interested in environmentalism.

last post just say, people need to stop being suv, cutting everyone off, crash causing,in a hurry to get to the next redlight the fastest, assholes

The way to lower oil prices is to create an oil glut.
Bush, Chaney and his cabinet have been putting on this act of going to Saudi Arabia and asking them to increase production to create an oil glut which would lower oil prices, no big secret it’s in all the press.
The Saudi’s say, “It’s not our fault and we are not going to do it, it’s the market forces”. Then Bush and Chaney shrug their shoulders and say, "There is nothing we can do, it’s the market forces".
Bush was on the radio 3/16/08 and said "There is nothing I can personally do about high oil prices in the short term". Chaney was in Saudi Arabia on 3/20/08 again asking his buddies to raise production again, answer, NO. He said “It’s the market our hands are tied’.
They are LIARS!
You mean Bush could not lower the speed limit in the states to 55 with a signature on a piece of paper tomorrow? How about 8 months ago, 14 months ago? Remember 9/11 (16 Saudis and Osama and the planes) 10 days later Bush was sitting with the Saudi king and all his men laughing and smiling, all smoking big fat cigars in front of the cameras for the whole world to see, great allies, friends and our bonds are Strong, Strong, Strong.
The Bush family has been close personal friends with the kings of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain ever since they saved them from loosing everything with orders to drill off shore oil wells for them in the late 70’s early 80’s. This is FACT and anyone who knows the Bush family history knows they have been the ones the Bush family has done most of there oil business with for the past 40 years.
DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY ARE PUSHING THEM TO LOWER OIL PRICES?
The profits are pouring in and no one party has to take responsibility for the ultra high prices. Talk about GENIUS!
It’s all a big act. Wake up. Use your brain. Think, Think, Think.
The Bush family and the Chaney family and all their friends are in the oil business. These two guys’ are HERO’S to the oil community. They just shrug their shoulders, “We can’t do anything”. They should both get Oscars.
The US economy is going down toilet and Bush does nothing. Why? He is getting filthy rich by the second from all of this. Even if the economy goes south people will still have to use oil. Win, Win for Bush and his oil buddies club.
You know it’s true and there is not a damn thing you or I can do about it other than to slow down and conserve. I personally drive 60 on the highway and 55 on county roads.
Just remember “A signature on a piece of paper”.
George Bush, “Leader of the rich!”.

The solution is simple. Install a governor device that prevents any car from going over 60MPH. An emergency override button could be installed. Make it so that the car could not be restarted once the emergency override button was used. The only way to reset the button would be to go online and either pay a fine, or go to court and provide proof of the necessity of its use.

While it may take a little longer to travel long distances at 55 vs 70, overall the driving experience would be much more pleasant.
It is very clear, speeding promotes agressive driving. Speeding on highways leads to speeding in other areas as well, like residential neighborhoods and parking lots.

A device built into the engine management computer of new cars would be a simple and cheap fix to the problem. it would not be necessary to increase enforcement in this case.
Compliance would be automatic.

The 55MPH speed limit is not one of humanity's better ideas. First of all, a five percent decrease in fuel consumption is not a lot, especially considering that automobiles only count for about 20-25% of all carbon emissions. Furthermore, all the good of the 55MPH speed limit will be negated by the fact that it will cause more traffic and blocked up highways. All this creeping will cause a drop in overall fuel economy.

There's much more smarter ways of being green than a hyper-oppressive 55MPH speed limit. You could raise the fuel efficiency of cars for one. I personally like driving fast on the highway. My school's about 30 miles away from my house using the highway, about 23 of which are highway miles. I use about one gallon for those 23 miles doing 80-85 steadily. When I know there's I speed drop coming, I let gravity slow me down, it's much more efficient than making the car slow you down.

The return of the 55mph speed limit would be a fantastic development! People's time is far to overvalued at this juncture, and the chaos created by people traveling at speeds upwards of 75mph on our interstates must stop, and soon. Although vehicles have much improved passive and active safety systems over vehicles 3 decades ago, imagine how safe we would be if we only traveled at a more sedate pace now?

The economic cost of lowering the speed limit (estimated at 1 billion man-hours annually by the National Academy of Sciences), pales in comparison to the safety, fuel savings (estimated by the Department of Transportation's Dr. John Eberhardt at 1% annually), density promotion and carbon emissions reduction attributes of a lower speed limit on our nation's freeways.

Safety is actually the most important thing, as people's lives are utterly irreplaceable. As such I would much for an even lower limit, approximately 80km/hr (50mph). At that rate of travel, the incidents of accidents and their severity would be drastically reduced. The fact that such speed limits would promote extreme urban density and allow municipalities and states to generate vastly increased revenue that could be used as they see fit, would be only icing on the cake.

Drivers have demonstrated the fact that they have difficulty maintaining such low rates of travel, so naturally increased numbers of law enforcement officers would be necessary to police the nation's roads and issue the greater numbers of citations speeding drivers would deserve in this new scenario. The greater revenue would allow more public transportation projects be funded, and no new taxes would have to be raised, because the monies would be appropriated from speeding motorists.

In time, the automakers would realize the futility of building such over-powered monstrosities, and begin to build the sensible transportation appliances they should have been building all along. This would have positive effects on our environment and our nation's social fabric. We need 50mph and we need it soon!

Abolish the limits and stop paying police officers to screw up traffic and cause accidents just by their presence.

Ever wonder why there a so many clips on TV shows where you see a police officer has someone pulled over along a busy interstate and suprise another vehicle crashes into them?

Police cause as many or more accidents than speeding and I'd even venture to say possibly impaired driving as well.

If we want to save fuel we need to force automakers into it by demanding efficient vehicles as we are seeing now with Ford's truck division nearly closed down.

The argument of 55 saving gas is the typical argument always presented. People think just because they save at the pump on a personal level this must mean that if everyone does it will lower the actual price people pay per gallon. It’s easy to believe because people see the savings and feel like they are making a difference.

I looked for the best number I could find and came across the claim of a 5% fuel savings per year here at treehugger.com if we brought back 55. So I took this unsubstantiated number blindly at face value and did some analysis.

According to the latest statistics available from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, a subsidiary of the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 2006 the U.S. consumed 174.93 billion gallons of motor fuel (includes personal passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks). A 5% savings would have equated to a savings of 8.747 billion gallons.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html

Being that a barrel of crude oil produces 19.6 gallons of motor fuel, this equates to a 446 million barrel savings.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/gasoline_faqs.asp

According to OPEC, in 2006 the world consumed 78.3 million barrels a day of crude for a year total of 28.58 billion.

http://www.saudinf.com/main/z001.htm

Therefore the total reduction in world consumption that would have resulted from our alleged 446 million barrel savings would’ve equated to 1.56%. This is also assuming all other factors constant (i.e. other countries like China and India would not buy up the reduction in consumption).

As of April 2008 crude oil represented 73% of the price you payed at the pump for regular gas which further reduces the effect to 1.14%.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gasdiesel.asp

Apply this to the current average price of gas of about $4.00 and the reduction is down to about $3.954 a gallon.

The best you can say is that the resulting savings would insignificantly slow the rise of the price you pay for gas at the pump. Basically, the speed you drive is insignificant other than a savings on a personal level.

Remember, this is using an absolutely inflated number from treehugger.com and the real savings would be no where near 5%. This is assuming everyone drove 55 religiously and discounts any negative effects such as an increase in congestion, a decrease in demand for more fuel efficient, safer, better performing cars, and billions of lost man hours. Also, any small savings that did result would be easily eclipsed by a growing world market.

We already tried this for 21 years and it was absolutely ineffective in controlling gas prices. The savings were more in the realm of 1-2%, if that. Today cars make even less gains by slowing down because of improvements in engine efficiencies and overdrive gears. Expect a savings even more pitiful than the first try.

While it is very fair to say that, depending on the car you drive, you can save some money by slowing down, to extrapolate this into the idea that if everyone does it the world price of oil will go down, hence the price at the pump, is silly. You really have to put these numbers into perspective.

The real reason why oil is going up so fast is because our dollar is weakening and even more so we are cutting off our own oil supply at the worst time possible. From 1970 to the present our oil production has gone from 9.64 millions of barrels per day to 5.14, a 47% decrease. Consequently, our imports have gone from 1.32 Mb/day to 10.10, a more than 7 fold increase. Despite this our own government refuses to let us drill for oil, artificially reducing supply, while trying to keep the spotlight off themselves through circus senate hearings attacking oil companies. Oil company profits represent about 4% of the price of gas. The government makes about 15% off the price of gas through tax. Maybe the government should be investigating itself since it make over 3 times as much money.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_01.html

This graph also show our decline:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_6.pdf

We are starting to transition to other forms of energy but it is going to take decades and if we keep trying to force it to happen overnight by cutting off our oil supply we will deep-six our economy. Oil prices are high enough and the market is already responding, but in the meantime we should drill as much oil as possible to soften the landing, or run the risk of a major recession.

Thank you, John on June 11, 2008 for a well written article. I remember driving at 55 mph and although selfish it made for the worst vacations or trips. In reality you where always trying to get to 60 or 62 mph without getting a ticket and the police were not playing with the speed limit back then. I feel and know on our personal vehicles that 65 mph does save 5% more fuel than 75mph. I know that 55 mph will not help with the overall cost of oil. What will help is the overall reduction on our dependency of oil. If we lower the consumption of oil for cars and for generating electricity then overall we win and while cheap oil may never come back at least we will remove the economic uncertanty and political ramifications from the equation.

Me drive 55??? NOT IF THEY SHOOT ME ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAUL THE REST OF MY FAMILY TO A CONCENTRATION CAMP AND SEND THEM TO THE ''SHOWERS''!!!

I think 55 mph is safer,everyone would save gas, money and less stress. On any interstate you can drive 45 mph if you want to. That is the law.
I have been driving 55 on the interstate and 50 on county and state two lane roads. I am doing what I think is best for me. I have been doing this for three years.

Ray Brown