55 MPH Movement Is Gaining Speed

The less government the better. If people want to drive 55 to save gas then they can choose to do so. I think that it is a good idea but that should be up to the individual.

I'd go for 60 or 65.

"The less government the better." I call bull. The market canNOT move at the speed it needs to to solved our problems, and it's very reactive - after the problem is around, it reacts, slowly. Too late, we lose.

We didn't go to the moon on market forces. If we can go to the moon (and Mars with those incredible long-lasting rovers) than we can solve this crisis. But it takes private AND public forces to do so in a manner that will actually help. If we wait for the market, we'll have lost our oceans (acidification), our climate (global warming) and quite possibly, our very civilization before long. Government has to set the incentives correctly, and carefully invest in infrastructure (from education and research in new energy, to building out the hydrogen fuel stations if that's the way we go, to helping homeowners afford to put solar and wind power on their property with subsidies). And the 65 MPH IS a government speed limit already - to say "don't let the government choose" is to ignore that it already chooses 65. Duh. That wasn't an arbitrary spontaneous decision, but a government one.

RE slowing down: I used to drive very, very fast (75 or so) because it's all highways around here. But lately, I've been teetering between 60 and 65 - and I can see the gas savings already. I don't know if I could see myself doing 55, but hey, stranger things have happened...and it's worth it. I think my car (a '96 Toyota Corolla, the best freaking little car ever, even though it's 12 years old, it still gets 27-30 mpg) loves me for it...I think it'll last longer, too.

It helps that my husband commutes by train, and I work near my house and sometimes even bike, so most of the time, we're not in any hurry to get anywhere anyway, because we don't really drive (or drive far) to work.

Driving 55 is about as fun as a listening to a Steve Jobs keynote when a person has NO intention of buy/selling stock.

My husband has a notorious lead foot, and drives for work 30-40k miles per year.

This weekend, while on a family outing, I noticed the man set the cruise control on the speed limit and left it there as much as possible.

Absolutely freaking amazing.

Even old, lead-footed v-6 loving dogs can learn new tricks.

I offered to buy him the ScanGauge and he didn't laugh at me.

There's hope for us all!

First, the purpose of traffic laws are safety and expediency of travel. I will concede that driving 15 mph will use less gas per hour than driving 70 mph. However, you can always buy more gas; you can't buy more time. If driving takes longer you start wasting time. And time is more valuable than money.

Second, government micromanagement of traffic laws are detrimental to drivers everywhere. Instead of trusting drivers, governments have mandated all kinds of rules and regulations for the road. The consequence is the death of common sense. Drivers blindly follow the traffic rules while at the same time turning off their brain. Obeying every law isn't always the safest or the best thing to do. Commonly individuals obey all the laws but yet violate the intent of the law: safety.

The NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization) Manual states "It provides the best available operating instructions for most circumstances but no manual is a substitute for sound judgment." This refers to an Aircrafts operating procedures manual which is exponentially more detailed and restrictive than any traffic law. And because this manual was written in the blood of all the pilots that died; it recognizes that blindly following the rules is the wrong answer.

If our government ever mandated 15 mph speed limits I'd leave the country. I raced in a sprint triathlon last week and I averaged 18.4 mph on my bike for 16 miles and I wasn't going that fast.

"Once again our attention has been focused on the evil car and what can be done to stop it from going around clubbing baby seals to death." JC

Move to Phoenix, AZ and go 55, you'll get shot on the road...

Drive 35 and you won't make it to the store to feed yourself...

Go 15 or ban cars and the entire city collapses...

While i won't disagree with the benefits of smaller cars, doing the speed limit, coasting to red lights and accelerating slowly, i think it is important to note the economic impact of this speed limit change as it would relate to unemployment, delivery of goods and services, price implications, etc.

Instead of citing the hard-hitting source that is the bumper sticker industry...

"The less government the better."

I completely agree! Let the people decide. If they want to drive 55 and save on fuel consumption, well, that would be in their best interests. I don't do much highway driving lately, but when I do I'm usually coasting at 60-65 on cruise control. I used to drive 75+ mph, but I've slowed down and with the help of some common knowledge, have gotten smarter about ways to cut on fuel consumption.

People will catch on... slowly, but surely.

When I set my cruise control at 55, indignant drivers who are in some hurry to be somewhere (read: everyone) tailgate, flash their brights, and then try to get around me. I'm glad that there are bumper stickers that will spread the message that 55 is optimal for safety and fuel economy while alerting obnoxious people to pass because we're not speeding up for them. Of course, some will think it's a form of "eco-smug" to do so, but at $4.29 a gallon, they'll have to learn to deal with people obeying the law in the name of less waste.

Just by lowering my speed from 65 to 55 on the Long Island Expressway, my fuel economy improved by 15%. Combined with the cruise control, coasting down hills, accelerating slowly (keeping the RPMs under 3k), and maintaining good tire pressure, I've been able to squeeze 32mpg out of a very un-aerodynamic PT Cruiser. Imagine how good your mileage would be in a streamlined car! You don't even need to do any serious hypermiling in order to notice a difference.

I live in Texas, 55 mph is downright ludicrous in most areas here, as it is in many other rural areas. It certainly is a near term immediate benefit possibility, but let's look at other more potent changes, before universally penalizing people that would be severely impacted by an mph change.

- the use of fossil fuels!! HELLO?
- timing of stop lights
- why commute in the first place, tele-commute where possible
- better lane accommodations to encourage use of motorcycles, mopeds and bicycles
- jack-rabbit intersection starts

I'll repeat the good comment above - the less government the better.

And a correction to the other comment, which gets it completely backward: the market moves faster than any government could ever hope too. It's the market which is proactive and the government reactive.

As far as speed limits, roads should be privately funded/owned, and any rules for access or use ( such as speed limits) should be set by the owner and no one else. Much better than enforced limits is a strict 'keep right' policy.

Last, people get all the conservation signals they need when they trade cash for oil at the pump. It's all getting burned anyway - if they choose to economize time instead of distance, it's their oil and their choice, and that's how it should stay.

By James Baxter, NMA President

Anyone who endured the last 22 year long “experiment” with the “folly of 55” knows that this proposal goes beyond being absurd.

The only likely beneficiaries are insurance companies (ticket surcharges), local governments that live off speed traps, P.R. firms (the genius creators of public service ads like “Save Gas Save Lives, Drive 55”) and perhaps the radar detector industry. In return, the driving public is treated to aggravation, maddening traffic flow, tickets, bloated insurance premiums, and billions of hours of lost time.

As in 1973, the justification for a snail’s pace speed limit on major highways is that it will save gasoline (and now reduce global warming).

It didn’t work then and it won’t work now. The reasons are many.

For starters only two percent of the four million miles of streets, roads and highways in the US have speed limits in excess of 55 miles per hour (approximate numbers). Of those there are many that suffer congestion and construction on a regular basis such that traffic is lucky to maintain a 40 MPH pace, let alone 55 miles per hour.

It’s true that our Interstate system carries about one third of our daily traffic volume, but here too congestion, construction, and bad weather frequently limits traffic to sub 55 speeds. In many urban areas the Interstates are already posted at 55. Granted, when conditions allow the actual speeds might be 70 or 75 MPH, but clearly the speed limit is not the controlling factor.

That brings us to point #2, public compliance.

After 22 years of propaganda, millions of tickets, and billions in insurance surcharges, actual motorist compliance on Interstate type highways ranged between five and ten percent. Those in compliance were typically mechanically unable to exceed 55.

Did it save fuel? In 1984, in what started out to be a promotional “study” of the “Benefits of the 55 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit” the Transportation Research Board (Part of the National Academy of Science) determined that keeping the 55 MPH speed limit, versus allowing the states to raise the limit to 65 MPH, would result in a 0.18 percent (less than two tenths of one percent) fuel savings (Source: TRB Report, 55: A Decade of Experience; page 176)

This is not an amount that will devastate the oil economy of the Middle East. The same study did determine that the 55 MPH national speed limit was wasting approximately one billion man hours a year (page 123). This did not include state trooper man hours being burned up enforcing an arbitrary speed limit on the safest highways in the nation.

Along with misallocating enforcement resources, the federal law forced the states to play games with their highway monitoring data, gaming the numbers so it appeared that traffic was moving slower than it really was. The states were supposed to maintain 50 percent compliance with the federal limit, they couldn’t come close, at least not honestly.

Safety? Today the national and the interstate highway fatality rate is far lower than at any time during the “55 era.” In fact, the last time the fatality rate increased from year to year was in the mid 1970’s when compliance and enforcement were at their highest levels (see chart below).

High fuel costs are certainly a burden. As individuals we can drive less, use more fuel efficient vehicles, and even drive slower, if we wish. But no sane person should wish another 55 MPH speed limit on the country. We already have a dysfunctional aviation system, let’s not allow the same thing to happen to our highways.

Source: NHTSA 2006 Traffic Facts (page 32)

I'd go for 55 or 60

It is not less government = good, more government = bad. It is that we would like an intelligent, thoughtful, sensible government.

Blackwater is awful and expensive. The marines are effective and cheap. Which would you rather have defending the country? Countries that have more government than we do typically enjoy a higher standard of living. Visit Iceland for a few days to experienced the benefits of a good modern socialist democracy in action (the oldest existing democracy in the world). Their gas cost ±$8/gallon.

Private ownership of the roads is an awful idea. It would screw up our roads as badly as it has screwed up our health care. It is also the biased in favor of the rich. Much better to place a slightly higher tax burden on the wealthier citizens, who have been fortunate in their lives, and have them help the less fortunate/privileged.

Rather than reduce the speed limit, why not make speeding fines proportional to income, increasing revenues and encouraging safer driving. Or increase the gas tax, which would encourage a free market response to many of the ills of cheap gas while reducing the debt. And yes, rich people tend to drive gas guzzlers.

Has anyone got a quick calculation to work out MPG to KPL Miles per gallon to Kilometers per Liter.

Over here in Ireland the government is destroying our past to build a new road network (hill of Tara) they have double taxtation on the fuel so I'm just wondering how green is my driving.

LA: To convert mph to kph multiply by 1.6093 (for kph to mph multiply by 0.62140). To convert gallons to litres multiply by 4.546 (for litres to gallons multiply by 0.22). To convert bhp to PS multiply by 1.0139 (for PS to bhp multiply by 0.9863). To convert PS to kW multiply by 0.7355 (for kW to PS multiply by 1.3596). To convert lb ft to Nm multiply by 1.3558 (for Nm to lb ft multiply by 0.7376). To convert mpg to litres/100km divide 282.481 by the mpg figure (for litres/100km to mpg divide 282.481 by the litres/100km figure). To convert inches to millimetres multiply by 25.4 (for millimetres to inches multiply by 0.0394).

An intelligent, thoughtful, sensible government only arises among voluntary actors with complete respect for personal rights - in other words, the market.

Health care is not private, it's a terrible example to use. Medical labor is tightly regulated, as are drugs; care is unevenly subsidized; the patent system continues to encourage rent-seeking in the form of treatment instead of cure; etc. Terrible example, please stop using it to showcase 'capitalism gone wrong'. Health care is the very opposite of a free market.

War is a government activity. Blackwater lives purely off tax money; it is a de-facto state agency (as are in fact all 'giant evil corporations') and should not be mistaken for anything else. Bad example.

Best way to run a highway - unconstrained or very wide limit a-la autobahn, pass-on-the-left and a keep-right rule for slow traffic, but most importantly it should be 100% commuter funded (tolls).

We'd save alot of fuel by keeping our military closer to home...

As for the speed limits - keep the gov't out of it. Let the humans paying the bills (ME and YOU) make up our own minds. Put the Nanny State on pause and people will likely get a little smarter after a year or two of $5 gasoline.

Frankly I'd rather see a smarter America!

For the record, I drive 45mph when no one is on the road, 50-55mph when there is more traffic. That's how I get 160% of EPA ratings. You can whine about slow drivers all you want, but I am still following the law, while using much less gas. Slow down and enjoy life.

Well said James Baxter

"Go 15 or ban cars and the entire city collapses..."

Good.

Why does Phoenix even exist in the first place? It's in the middle of the desert. The only natural resources it has are sunshine and sand. It has to import everything - water, food, oil, plastics, wood, steel, - any raw materials it needs to survive or produce goods for sale. Maybe it used to mine silver and gold, but I understand those industries haven't been around for a while.

The way Phoenix was built in the first place was cheap oil. And guess what? Those days are over. What will Phoenix do when the price of gas doubles over what it is now? Or triples? It's a town completely unprepared for that inevitable day. A house of cards.

What a killjoy.

Bring back 55? When did it leave? Near where i live in upstate NY, all the highways are 55. I only have one highway within 2 hours drive that has a 65mph speed limit.

Saving money @ 55 is preposterous. Like all enviros, you think it sounds good to save money by going 55. With a very simple analysis, this can be proven false:

Define f(b) as the benefit function of driving 55 versus 70:

f(b) = value of gas saved-time value = (D/mpg70-D/mpg55)*ppg-(D/55 - D/70)*tv

Where D=Distance traveled ppg=Price/Gallon tv=value of your time
mpg70=mpg @ 70 mph mpg55=mpg @ 55 mph

Simplified:
D*(ppg*(mpg55-mpg70)/(mpg70*mpg55)-(15/(55*70))*tv)

Simplifying to Benefit/mile:

f(b)/d = ppg*(mpg55-mpg70)/(mpg70*mpg55)-(3/770)*tv

Assume 20% gas saving by driving 55 vs 70

ppg*(mpg55-.8*mpg55)/(.8*mpg55*mpg55)-(3/770)*tv
ppg*(.2*mpg55)/(.8*mpg55^2)-(3/770)*tv
ppg*.25/mpg55-(3/770)*tv

So we can see from this that the cost of driving 55 is directly proportional to the price of gas, and surprisingly, inversely proportional to the gas mileage. Meaning that as cars get better gas mileage, it makes even less sense to drive 55.

Example: mpg55=35 ppg=4 timevalue=10
4*.25/(35)-30/770
.0285-.0390=-.105/mile

You lose ~10 cents for every mile you drive 55 vs 70. So for a 200 mile trip, traveling 55 costs you over $20, if you value your time more, the diff goes up. If you have a family of 4, like me, that’s $80 of time value lost (it’s $160 at $20/hr). And just think of the truckers driving thousands of miles. 55 mph would cost them $1000s per year.
Yes, there are other variables that enter the equation, but they are negligible. It has been shown by many studies that the lives saved by going 55 is non existent. So people claiming that driving 55 saves money are just spouting enviro poppy cock...

Jim, do you bill your family for the time you spend with them, since your time is so precious?

Make your morning time QUALITY time. And leave at a sensible time to go to work so you beat traffic AND get to drive a sensible speed.

I can hop on the closest highway, drive speed limit...and guess what? The stoplights are all timed so that you hit green lights if you DRIVE SPEED LIMIT. I don't know how many people I see zoom out of the gate, take off on a tear at 90MPH, and I putt up to them at a leisurely pace...and they never learn! Their time is too valuable to realize they're getting to their destination no faster than I am.

And I'm sure they have no idea that I'm spending half as much on gasoline as I did just four years ago.

Why not just enforce the current limits a little closer, say within 2-3 mph over might not get you a ticket, but 4-5 def will.

But with the possibility of a Barack Obama presidency, or "Jimmy Carters second term", I wouldn't be surprised to see a nationwide 55 limit, among other idoitic ideas like windfall profits taxes and really wide lapels.

I apologize for not having my paper peer reviewed properly. Like all "global warming" proof papers there was a math error. My savings at $10/hour is -.0105, not -.105, leading to a savings of $2, not $20 @$10/hr. That kinda stuff happens when yu do quick back of the envelope calcs. There was also another error. With multiple members in the car, there is only one benefit value, and multiple cost values (the value of your family time), so the savings really add up if you add more family members (or carpool for all you enviros). And yes, I value my family time, previous poster, that's why 70 makes SO MUCH sense. Thank you.
Jim

Jim, you math is bunk. I save $6.10 per hour by driving 55 instead of 75. Take that. My drive from college to home dropped in price to less than half the cost because I drove more efficiently.

Ban cars.

Government can't say which gender you have sex with, but it sure can dictate limits to the market which are externality systems. Move out of surburbia before you get burned.

Go back to 55 MPH? This is a joke right? It's virtually impossible to enforce the 65-70 MPH limits now as most motorists are doing 80+ MPH.

Only HIGH fines and possible vehicle confication will teach the 90% who speed a lesson!

This is ludicrous! If I want to drive 65, please let me. If Treehugger wants to max out at 45, so be it!
What next? Government will require a minimum 5 mile trip in a car or you have to walk? We got rid of this back-ward thinking when the 55mph limit was repealed. It's a shame that instead of helping the American consumer, Congress wants to make quality of life worse! Ask anyone who has a 1-hour commute at 65mph what 55 would do to them! I've blogged about today:
http://dave-lucas.blogspot.com/2008/07/we-have-seen-enemy.html

I am coming in real late on this debate, and the price of oil is dropping a bit because we all, all over the world, cut back on gas consumption. But I am very pissed off at the tone people take when the 55 mph speed limit is proposed.

I bought a ScanGuage, so I can see for myself that my mileage at 55 mph is much better than at even 60 mph, much less 75. Actually it seems to max out at 45 mph, but that is a bit slow even for me. And we all know you have more time to react and you hit things with less velocity at 55 mph than at 75 mph. Even the SUV's would be less likely to roll at 55 mph.

But of course because of the arrogant attitudes of so many American drivers, like some of the commenters above, it will take the government, handing out big fines, to enforce 55 mph. We could listen, with an open mind, and decide to drive slower ourselves. But so many of you say “let someone else sacrifice”. “I’m a better driver than most of you out there, I can handle 75 mph, my car is *more* efficient at that speed, and my time is more valuable than yours”. All so much BS. One guy on another website suggested reeducating or removing incompetent people from the road rather than a 55 mph speed limit, which apparently meant anyone driving a car he considers inefficient, or driving in an inefficient manner.

All cars hit their most efficient fuel consumption point somewhere around 45 mph, maybe a little lower for three speeds. That appears to be an engineering fact. So 55 mph is a good compromise between saving gas (and saving lives) and allowing people to get where they need to go in a reasonable amount of time. I hope it passes Congress.

For newer cars, lowering the speed limit will probably have a negative impact. Here is a hypothetical example: Let's say that at 50mph, your car burns 1.6 gallons per hour (gph). At 75mph, your fuel consumption increases by 25% to 2 gallons per hour. On a 150 mile trip, at 50mph you will burn 4.8 gallons of fuel vs. only 4 gallons at 75mph. Not only did you burn more fuel, but you also increased the amount of pollution emitted from your car by 50% since you were on the road that much longer to travel the same distance.

How can this be you ask? Many newer cars have 5+ gears, lower coefficient of drag, optimized fuel MAP, lower total weight... you get the picture. Because of the advancements in technology, the point of diminishing returns is higher with ALL newer vehicles.

Now I wouldn't apply this argument to semi-trucks or older cars. But no one can argue that older vehicles emit substantially more pollution than newer cars.

With that in mind, we must ask ourselves is lowering the speed limit really going to help the environment? I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion on the matter. My intent is to get everyone to look at the entire forest before condemning the removal of a few trees.