Speier (D-Calif.) proposes national speed limit

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Congress is searching for ways to address rising gas prices, and one Bay Area lawmaker thinks she's found one: Lower the speed limit on highways.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, in her first bill as a member of Congress, is proposing a national speed limit of 60 mph for freeways in urban areas and 65 mph in less populated areas.

"There is no need to wait for OPEC or the oil companies to help us out," Speier said. "Every driver can effect change simply by easing up on their right foot."

The bill is already stirring objections from some motorist's groups, which fear it would slow traffic and increase speeding tickets and insurance premiums. Opponents said the law isn't necessary because drivers already have the choice of reducing their speed to save gas.

... Speier's bill is similar to the 1974 law, which threatened to withhold federal highway funds from states that refused to embrace the 55-mph speed limit. If a state refuses to comply under her bill, it would risk having its highway construction funds shifted to transportation safety and education projects. "It's a softer penalty," she said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/10/MNNP11N0G7.DTL&tsp=1

[whistle]

1. 60 mph is a start, 55 mph worked best as gas saver strategy as well as

...safer highway driving

[Yupster]

81. I drove to San Antonio last weekend

and was surprised to see an 80 mph speed limit on highway 10 around the Iraan-Sheffield area.

I cruise controlled at 75 and felt good that I was below the limit. It is a good highway with a flat stretch of nothing for 100 miles or more.

[aztc]

83. You wasted about 30% of the energy

Your trip wasted about 30% of the fuel you paid for. But who cares, you saved a few minutes and climate change is BS and the war is to keep us safe from WMD and YOUR time is more important than anything else, after all, it is YOUR time!

[MindPilot]

88. He didn't waste anything.

He used the fuel he paid for to get where he was going at a safe, comfortable speed.

[aztc]

93. Big oil loves you

Big oil loves you guys - keep it up.

[MindPilot]

95. It must be nice...

to be in a position of such superiority that you can decide for other people what is wasteful and what is not.

[MindPilot]

96. delete

[wundermaus]

2. A national maximum speed limit of 60mph makes sense...

on several levels:
Reduction of fatal car accidents.
Reduces gasoline consumption.
Increased local revenue from speeding tickets.
Constant, national reminder of need to reduce energy consumption.

[Art_from_Ark]

7. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work so well

In populated areas of the East 60mph might make sense, but in many of the sparsely populated areas of the West, 60mph is too slow. In the panhandle of Oklahoma, for example, where one can often see for miles in all directions and traffic is light, 60mph is like standing still.

[wundermaus]

28. Living in the panhandle of Oklahoma and traveling long distances...

is the trade off for not living in congested, polluted urban traffic jam such as Los Angeles where freeways average 20 to 30 miles per hour. You get no sympathy from me...

[Art_from_Ark]

33. I never said I live in the panhandle of Oklahoma

And where was I looking for sympathy? I was only citing that as an example. You lose perspective of speed when you're in a place where there is no visual Doppler effect. You can be going 70 and thinking you're going 55, easily. So the cops can pull you over out in the middle of Nowhere and stick you for a ticket when there's no one but you and the cop on the road. And when you've got a nice tailwind, you can actually sometimes get better mileage going at a speed faster than 55.

[wundermaus]

64. Nope , you just cited living there as an example...

for justifying wasting gas. There is no gain in gas mileage for going over 55 mph... physics dictate that reality. As for doppler effect... you lost me... coming and going.

[BearSquirrel2]

56. What you're saying is ...

What you're saying is there is so little stuff out there that 60mph doesn't feel very fun even though you're still travelling at 60mph.

The point of 60mph at this juncture is energy conservation. Myself, I've become accustomed to the marvelous views provided by the backends of the semis that I draft.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

43. I think #4 won't work because of budget cuts.

Increased local revenue from speeding tickets.

I've noticed around here since 2002 the amount of State Troopers have dropped. maby some went to Iraqn or just department cuts.
Hell as far as I know, they are all going to D.C. for "special training" :scared:

[high density]

3. How about 75mph

Is this woman driving some car out of the 1980s with a three speed or something? Wake up. My car is already getting 2x the mileage of some other vehicles on the road no matter what speed I drive.

[Hawkeye-X]

22. Funny you should say that..

I just happened to see a green 1973 Chevy Nova gas hog in Brooklyn that probably eats 10 miles a gallon in the city 15 in the highway YESTERDAY.

Driven by a old biddy, no less.

Hawkeye-X

[WriteDown]

52. Say what you will....

But that is one sweet car. Although I love the new trend toward electrics, I would love to pick one of these up just to turn a wrench on.

[CreekDog]

30. it's to save energy and even in efficient cars, the drag at 75 v. 65 is much greater

she's my congresswoman.

[peoli]

4. Uhhh......how about no?

[Redstone]

6. And how about further, "bite me?" A 55-mph limit is just a revenue-generating machine

for states and counties and whoever else gets to patrol the highways and write speeding tickets.

Though that particular TRUTH may not be popular here on DU, it is still a truth.

Redstone

[saigon68]

9. The Nanny State re-emerges

This idiot from CA has never driven through South Dakota or Montana lately

[Redstone]

11. Or Nebraska, or Wyoming, or...we could go on and on with this, couldn't we? It's a

big goddamn country out there, so although 55 MPH might work on the Jersey Turnpike, it wouldn't make sense EVERYWHERE.

Plus, I sense nanny-state-ism at work here. And we already have more of that shit than we need, or asked for.

Redstone

[Occulus]

21. But since they ARE so flat and you can see so far off,

why not... well, Autobahn those areas?

Abolish the speed limit altogether in areas possessing an average X degree slope or lower for at least one horizon from any location on the map (28 miles along the road in either direction the road runs). Oh, and hire a lot of good EMTs and give them souped-up ambulances ;)

Or would that negate the energy savings from a slower speed limit in populated or less flat areas?

[newfie11]

38. I live on the Wyoming/Nebraska border

and spent 15 years near Custer SD. I remember the outrage when Montana was made to post speed limits.
Yes our speed limits on interstates are 75. Some people drive that and some will always go over no matter what the speed limit is. I have noticed many are now driving 60-65 especially semi's.
This area is predominately truck country. Most people use them in their work and have no choice, farmers, rancher, oil companies, etc.
I think if the speed limit was lowered it would be as it is now. Some would comply and those that go over the speed limit now would continue to do so.

[Raineyb]

49. Why should New Jersey be subjected to the 55 mph speed limit?

The current speed limit on the Turnpike is 65 and when there's no traffic it's fine (especially if you are on the part of the road where trucks aren't allowed) The exits are miles apart. What 65 is only good for the Dakotas? I'm mad that NY won't raise the speed limit to friggin' 60mph. (Although let's face facts very few people are driving at that speed.)

Regards

[CreekDog]

31. i've driven across Nevada when it was 65mph speed limit

takes a while no matter what. :shrug:

[XemaSab]

65. Hey, when's the last time you drove down I-5?

450 miles of *NOTHING.*

Just *NOTHING.*

And no, Sacramento doesn't count. :P

[MindPilot]

86. And one would think California would be exactly the LAST place

from which such lunacy would spawn.

We will have perpetrator dealt with...don't worry.

[ReadTomPaine]

14. Agreed.

This one is going to cost Dem votes to boot. It plays right into negative stereotypes about the party. How they find time for vote losing nonsense like this and let important legislation slide is beyond me.

Is this what we took impeachment off the table for? What's next? Video game bans and flag burning amendments? How about taping together what's left of the Constitution instead.

[spag68]

20. speed limits

I'm with you on this one. I personally drive to Fla. from NY Twice a year and my bike gets 40 MPG at 75, I just won't go slower. I have another idea, eliminate the speed limits altogether. Think of all the money saved on highway patrol cars and cops. There would be many jobs created for tow truck drivers, body shops, funeral homes, hospitals and making new cars from recycling all the wrecked ones. After a while there would be many less drivers on the highway, so in the end it would save gas.

[michreject]

44. In my case, you're correct

I won't slow down. I drive 75 W/ cruise.

[Quantess]

67. Agreed! It's more nanny state legislation.

Fuck nanny-state highway monitors, of all creeds! I choose to drive slowly most of the time, and when I do, I am in the right lane. Sometimes I need to drive a little faster, and I accelerate gradually, to an RPM/gas pedal that is satisfactory. I'm not the lead-foot that I used to be when gas was cheaper, but I am still an aggressive driver. Most people pass me by, and I don't care, because I usually meet them at the next red light, and I pass them because I still have momentum.

[renaissanceguy]

68. EXACTLY!! Come on, we all know that traveling

at high speeds guzzles gas. We know that we can slow down to get better fuel efficiency. We don't need a law that punishes US. How about doing something to the gas companies, or better yet, how about moving our country AWAY from dependence on oil?


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/479862

[Owl]

42. I'll second that NO.

[CatholicEdHead]

5. Bring back nationwide 55

Maybe 65 in rural areas during the day.

[LibDemAlways]

55. If they did that people might actually slow down to 65-70 and

roads would be safer as a side benefit. I'm all for it.

[bossy22]

8. national speed limits today will not work well to save gas

with the different transmission choices each different type of car has a different optimum speed- for sporty cars that can be upwards of 70 mph- and for family sedans it can be as low as 50

[Tesha]

36. People believe the *MOST AMAZING* things when it's convenient for them.

Show me one vehicle that gets better gas mileage at 75 than
at 55. Just one. And show me real hard proof, not some lame
anecdote about how you once got better mileage at 75 on an
open road than at "55" in congested conditions.

Tesha

[snooper2]

47. Tell me what's better...

stats from my motorcycle...some friends and I did this last summer with our bikes. Used 1/2 gallon of gas for each run, and didn't touch the reserve...


46 MPG at 50 mph 27.6 minutes to go 23 miles

42 MPG at 70 mph 18 minutes to go 21 miles

[wvbygod]

104. How much would you be willing to bet?

My Kawasaki ZX-11 gets better gas mileage at 75mph than at 55mph.

Please take a physics and engine efficiency class before you take the bet.

[CRF450]

110. Bossy is right, it depends on the vehicle.

I own an 01 Tarns Am and a Dodge Dakota truck. The T/A has a vey tall geared 6 speed manual, 6th gear at 65mph is just under 1500rpm. The Dakota has 5 speed auto, 65mph is running the engine at 1700rpm. Taking wind resistance into account, the T/A still gets better fuel milage at higher speeds than the truck. I kid you not, the car got 31mpg going 75mph, other way back I tried 65mph, it wasent any better honestly.

[BearSquirrel2]

58. BULLSHIT!!!!

Wind resistance increases as square of your speed. Every engine does have an optimum RPM efficiency, but that doesn't take wind resistance into account. Your 70mph argument falls on completely deaf ears.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Gotta love it when Congress does a run around that pesky 10th Amendment

When did we stop being a republic of sovereign states?

[Redstone]

12. When the Feds started blackmailing the states with Federal highway money...

that's how we ended up with the "national" drinking age of 21.

The Federal Government threatened the states that they'd withhold highway funding (even though the states had already paid that money to the Feds in taxes) unless the states raised the drinking age to 21.

And we wonder why the tinfoil-hatters are so obsessive. They're not 100% nuts, given what actually happens out there. Maybe 95% nuts, but not 100%.

Redstone

[newfie11]

39. That is how Montana was forced to post speed limits.

[aztc]

89. When you accept federal money, you accept the terms

When states take federal money for highways they do so under certain conditions. They are always free to build their own roads, and have bloated Departments to do so, but they are also hooked on federal funding and we like the INTERSTATE highway system, so have to go along with what is best for the nation. Got a problem with that? I hear gas is .19 cents in Venezuela...maybe no speed limits on most of the roads there.

[Heywood J]

13. I'd be happy to have the local Interstate speed limits _raised_ to 60.

Still stuck at 55MPH posted limits. Only the more rural freeways are 65.


Anyone who says "you already have the option to drive 55 or 60 anyway" has clearly never driven on an urban freeway. Actually driving that slowly is usually enough to get you killed, either rear-ended or shot.

[Hawkeye-X]

23. Denver raised (very recently from 55 to 60)

Much to my pleasant surprise on I-25, but still 55 on I-70. I'm sure that'll be changing shortly.

hawkeye-X

[Tutonic]

15. Hey Jackie! With gas 4.79 a gallon, dropping the speed limit to

55 or 60 mph is going ot reduce that to about $4.56 a gallon. Can you and Nancy P. find something more useful to do?

[TommyO]

16. When I average 65mph, I get 32mpg in my 6-cyl Chevy Malibu

Dropping that to 60 gains me zip.

[salin]

17. I think it has to be demonstrated that this would make a difference

ala current cars - would a slower speed equal better fuel economy? If not, this is foolish, superficial policy. If so, then it is going to take a big public battle, as folks really don't want to be inconvenienced in this way.

I will say that in my Prius, the speed on the highway really does make a significant difference, but it engineered that way and I can't suggest making policy based on my car. But when I found the difference, I started allowing more time for the drive and I can get 10+ miles per gallon better mileage depending on how I drive. I go the speed limit, but I no longer have the lead foot that i once had. At current gas prices, for me it is worth changing my habits enough (getting up earlier to start the commute earlier; being more patient and relaxed while on the drive because I have allowed for more time). I would bet that if there were serious miles per gallon that were demonstrably to be "saved", that more people would be open to the policy (law) change. Or perhaps, I am an anomoly (ala I changed my driving habits after I found the savings).

[Zorro]

18. What an idiot

The national 55MPH speed limit was routinely ignored until repealed, and only led to a general disrespect of the law.

[ForrestGump]

19. This would suck

Especially for those of us out here in the Wild West and in similarly open country, like the prairie states. I wonder if it'd even save fuel -- as I understand it, many vehicles nowadays have peak efficiency at higher speeds (I suspect what matters is RPM, not actual speed/velocity), but everyone seems to play with the stats on this to suit their own agenda -- but it'd sure as hell not be safe to have people forced to dawdle along in these wide open spaces out West.



http://yeuanhso.com/gallery2/d/96242-4/Southwest+Desert+Road.jpg

THE WEST



THE EAST



Big difference...

[shawsheen]

27. Agreed. Let the speeders pay their fines at the gas pump!

Nice pictures, Forrest.

[Mz Pip]

24. Terrible idea

95% of the time I am stuck on a Bay Area freeway doing about 10 mph. So much for the idea of 60 mph in urban areas. Around here that would be a fantasy. On the occasion that I do get onto I-5 I sure don't want to be stuck doing 55.

Jackie, I know you're new at this but don't piss too many people off quite so soon, okay?

[Hekate]

25. Jackie Speier is new--she just replaced the late Tom Lantos. She'll catch up quickly though...

She's no dummy and is a good Dem.

Hekate

[aztc]

76. Leadership controls which bills get to the floor

House leadership has a lot of control over what bills are allowed to come to the floor. While a congressperson can bring a bill up on their own, it is politically not advisable unless simply naming a post office or congratulating the home town girls basketball team. For something as significant, and newsworthy, as this, you can trust the leadership was very much involved from the beginning. Welcome to congress Ms. Speier, please carry this window dressing because you have no political capital to lose. "Good" democrat that she is, Jackie smiled and said thank you.

[Psephos]

26. Right here folks, it's Pure Election GOLD! n/t

[w4rma]

29. sarcasm? I can't see how this proposal wins any elections or makes anyone safer. (nt)

[Psephos]

54. yes, big sarcasm - this is just dumb n/t

[LSdemocrat]

32. How about raising to 70 urban/75 suburban/80 rural and actually enforcing it strictly

Strict enforcement probably would still probably reduce overall speeds and cut consumption.

[newfie11]

40. 80 in my area will earn you a deer, cow, antelope etc on the hood

That would be crazy.

[LSdemocrat]

45. Really? On the interstate? I'm in Missouri and never heard of encountering animals on the highway

And yes, I do drive through rural areas on a semi-regular basis.

[mbperrin]

71. Here's one example of road kill on the Interstate...

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3781058


* Interstate Highway Road-Killed Animals: A Data Source for Biologists
* Ronald M. Case
* Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1978), pp. 8-13 (article consists of 6 pages)
* Published by: Allen Press

From the article:

Typical data analyzed for a 7-year period for Interstate-80 (I-80) in Nebraska indicated that monthly highs of road-killed animals occurred in May and October. For the nine species analyzed, high frequencies of road-kills apparently were associated with breeding activities and dispersal.....

Road-killed animals were not significantly correlated with average daily traffic (ADT) on an annual or monthly basis (r = 0.07, P 0.5 and r = 0.25, 0.5 P 0.4, respectively). Annual road-killed animals were significantly correlated (r = 0.92, 0.01 P 0.001) with average vehicle speed (AVS).

Travel I-10 between Fort Stockton, TX and Kerrville - plenty of roadkill there. Shining eyes at night had better keep you awake...

[mbperrin]

73. And I know that the data there is sort of old, so here's more...

http://www.grizzlybear.org/planning/y2y/index.php?cmd=lspbp




Bozeman Pass Roadkill and Wildlife Fencing Monitoring.


CERI began a study to assess the amount and nature of roadkill on Interstate 90 over Bozeman Pass in 2000. Data on roadkill locations and species has been systematically collected since 2001. Between 2001 and 2005 at least 1,336 animals were killed; over half were deer, but at least 34 elk, 48 coyotes, 18 black bears, 18 red fox, and 8 mountain lions, have also been killed.

Anyway, it can be Googled. 50,800 hits for roadkill on interstate highways.

[depakid]

34. Americans slow down to conserve?

:rofl:

Nope. They can't be bothered to do that.

[truthisfreedom]

35. Fast electrics are the answer.

Let's get them on the road instead.

[veness]

37. Drive 55 Conservation Project

Much more on the topic at http://www.drive55.org .

[newfie11]

41. I find it funny that many have their own reason not to go slower

but are the first to complain about the price of gas or the environment. I know my diesel does get better mileage at 60 than 75. From 21 mpg to 25.7 mpg. You bet I am driving slower. I know those of you in a heavily populated are have to travel along with the flow and have no choice but those of us out here in the rural area do have a choice and can do something. I see semi's traveling 60 now and they are driving on the long open roads. If they can do it so can everyone else.

[WriteDown]

51. As usual....

it should be "everyone else" who makes the sacrifice.

[Xenocrates]

60. No single drop of rain thinks its responible for the flood (nt)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. CAFE.

eom

[Tippy]

48. I know when I slowed down

I went from 18 miles per gallon to a little over 22 miles per gallon......I can do even better when I drive 55 miles per hour....

Most law makers don't want to touch this as a way to save gas, as their fast driving constituents will be screaming for their blood...But if everyone decided to do it on their own...we could make a difference...

[Endangered Specie]

50. I got better idea: 55 for trucks, 60 for SUVs, 70 for actual cars.

+5 for really rural stretches.

hummers and owners get shipped to iraq, of course.

[aztc]

53. Lead into Gold

This is modern day alchemy, change the lead in your right foot into gold in your pocket by simply slowing down to observe ALL speed limits, never exceeding 55 MPH. Stop funding petroleum warlords and use the money to pay your mortgage. Reduce climate change emissions by up to 50% - well heck, I have a whole danged website with all this and much more: www.Drive55.org

Up next: Jet Air Travel

YOUR travel choice matters.

We don't have time to not have time.

Trains use half as much energy and don't leave contrails.

Jet contrails and emissions double the greenhouse effect of burning fossil fuels on the surface.

Most locomotives in service now could readily run on vegetable oil pulling trains in excess of 100 MPH.

When you must drive, simply observing ALL speed limits and never exceeding 55 MPH saves 20-50%

This is modern day alchemy, change the lead in your right foot into gold in your pocket.

For Freedom from Foreign Oil, Energy Independence and Liberty to Travel, Go By Train and if you Must Drive Observe ALL speed limits never exceeding 55 MPH.

www.Drive55.org
www.PeaceTrainToDC.com

[aztc]

57. Time value vs. speed

When evaluating the value of time vs speed we must first recognize that as concerns energy consumption, the optimum speed for cars is about 35-45 MPH. After this peak efficiency falls off rapidly and a law of physics called "drag" states the power (energy) required is quadrupled when speed is doubled. This means the faster you go, the more you waste. A 55 MPH speed limit is a compromise between speed and efficiency.

The argument that the time saved justifies additional cost because of lost earnings fails for the following reasons:

First off, who gets paid for driving to work? But let's play along anyway to see where this goes.

Let's do the math! The average per capita income in America is about $36k for working about 1,800 hours. That works out to about $20 an hour. A commuter driving 30 miles per day will spend 10 extra minutes on the road when slowing from 80 to 55 MPH, but will save 28% for fuel, thus offsetting the potential loss in productivity. **

Assuming she could get paid for her time behind the wheel, it would work out to $3.33 she could have earned if she spent the extra $3.21 for fuel to save 10 minutes. This works out to a .12 cents per day loss in potential earnings vs. guaranteed savings of up to $1,200 year for those 10 minutes a day, again that is if she could get paid for driving to work.

Another way to look at it would be to use the IRS allowance for mileage at .50 cents per mile. If we reduce that cost by 20% the driver saves about .10 cents per mile, or $3.00 per day, $15 per week, $780 per year. Lost potential earnings IF the driver could get paid for the time behind the wheel would be .33 cents per day, $1.65 per week, $85 year vs guaranteed savings of up to $1,200.

What about people who drive all day from job to job? Alas, these drivers must share the roads with everyone else, so there must be a compromise for the safety of all. A mile-a-minute is reasonable. Every business has to include the costs for travel in their pricing, and in some cases perhaps the time value offsets the energy costs, but it is nearly a wash at todays fuel prices and as energy costs go up the equation continues to tilt in favor of moderating consumption.

What about congestion from slow drivers? Congestion will actually decrease due to reduced collisions providing an increase in productivity rather than a decrease.

Consider this metaphor from the Missouri DOT website; "If traffic slows down as they approach a congested area and all the drivers stay at a constant speed, traffic will get through the congested area faster. Imagine the highway as a funnel. Now, imagine the traffic which has to travel along the highway during a certain time as a container of rice. If you pour all the rice into the funnel at the same time, it gets congested at the bottom of the funnel and takes some time to work through the funnel. Now, if you slowly pour the rice into the funnel – keeping it at a steady pace – the rice moves through the funnel evenly and doesn’t cause congestion. In fact, even though the rice is entering the funnel slower, all the rice gets through the funnel (to its destination) faster."

Note: this metaphor is based on an idea from Paul Haase of Sammamish, Washington, in response to a challenge by Washington State Department of Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald.

It will be interesting to see the energy Secretary's response to Senator Warner's July 2008 letter asking "at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered."

Also important to note, it is the top speed that allowed that determines how much energy is used to accelerate, and how much is wasted in braking. If scientists are allowed to tell the story rather than political appointees this could be the foundation for significant change.

**
Fuel @ $5 gal, 28% MPG improvement from 80-55MPH
Speed Time MPG Cost/day Cost/year
55 MPH 33 min. 18.0 $8.33 $3,040.45
60 MPH 30 min. 17.5 $8.57 $3,128.05
65 MPH 28 min. 16.6 $9.04 $3,299.60
70 MPH 26 min. 14.9 $10.07 $3,675.55
75 MPH 24 min. 13.9 $10.79 $3,938.35
80 MPH 23 min. 13.0 $11.54 $4,212.10

[MindPilot]

98. Can you please explain how energy is wasted in braking?

Brakes simply turn the kinetic energy stored in the mass of the vehicle into heat and dissipate it. No additional fuel is used and the engine is at idle but the vehicle is still moving so during decel and braking the instantaneous fuel economy is very high.

So unless you are talking about the absence of some device to recover and re-direct that heat to another function, where is the waste?

[mikelgb]

59. They should post signs to remind drivers that driving at 55-60mph saves them money

much smarter than forcing it without explanation

[aztc]

75. Digital MPG readouts on every dashboard

Congress should mandate digital MPG displays on every new car dashboard that show the real time cost based on a daily download of the price of fuel from satellite or consumer input when filling up. We should subsidize the after-market devices available now for cars built since 1996. Consumers will make better choices given real time information. Meanwhile, to practice modern day alchemy, turn the lead in your right foot into gold in your pocket, simply observe ALL speed limits, never exceeding 55 MPH to save 20-50% Now, with NO new technology. Drive55.org

[Fumesucker]

61. Why not 45 or even 35?

Obviously, slower is better.

Really slow speeds help people stay awake on those long trips too.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

On my vehicle that has a real time mpg readout there is no difference at all between 55 mph and 65 mph and mileage drops by 1 mpg at 70 mph. The truly counterintuitive thing is that at 35 mph mileage drops by 5 mpg over that at 65 mph, the lockup torque converter unlocks and the overdrive drops out at 44 mph and efficiency plummets.

[happyslug]

106. I always like 35 mph, it was good enough for WWII it is good enough for today.

At 35 mph most cars are in their highest possible gear at the lowest speed. That is the point you get the best fuel economy. It was the reason 35 mph was adopted in 1942. You will see a good drop in oil usage at that speed, especially if you add confiscation of any vehicle going over that limit (During WWII, people exceeding the speed limit also lost their gas rations, thus making their cars unusable). Such a system would drop speed limits even today.

[Quantess]

62. I am opposed, and I think this is too "nanny state".

Although I personally believe in fuel-saving techniques, this is invasive and annoying legislation.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3600361&mesg_id=3600417

Many vehicles get as good or better mileage at 65 or 70 as they do at 60.

How about we ban excessive red lights instead? Think of all the gas wasted, braking and accelerating, braking and accelerating, braking and accelerating, for unnecessary stop lights, at places where drivers could be asked to use their brain, and not rely on a light. Think of how many red lights in the suburbs there are. I can think of SEVERAL places I'd like to see red lights removed.

[Taverner]

80. Agreed

[veness]

63. Please recommend this thread

The topic deserves more attention. Please don't let the thread sink. Thanks.

[Quantess]

66. Those were 4 recommendations too many.

I drive slowly, by choice. Not by legislation.
:thumbsdown:

Let's put a stop to unnecessary red lights instead!
I am completely serious.

Don't you ever get pissed off, having the lights turn red, one after another, when it seems like there is just ONE car waiting for all of you to stop.

As though, drivers are expected to be brainless witout a signal.

[aztc]

74. What? Stop the debate?

Don't talk about it! Having no reasonable argument to counter the mountain of proof, speed addicts whine the loudest about the price of gas but are so unwilling to even just slow down a bit. Let's bring civilization to the driving experience, take your need for speed to the PRIVATE roads and behave when on PUBLIC roads. I say we take all the cops off marijuana patrol and put them on traffic patrol.

[Taverner]

69. Um, I'm going to be the sore thumb here, but speed limits are fascist

I'm for Autobahn Style Speed Limits

Let's get the shift to electric cars already so we can hit 100 mph speeds without guilt!!!

[PM7nj]

72. Heh... Ironic. nt

[aztc]

77. Even electrics are better at 55 MPH

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.

Source: Wikipedia

[Taverner]

79. Well the Sun gives us more than enough energy

Like I said - - solar panels + electric car = no guilt

[aztc]

82. When will the sun power our cars? At what speed?

Many like to point to wind and solar as the answers but reality is that these fall far short of the amount of energy we consume daily. Far short. Even if there was more solar and wind power, the vehicles that run on electricity are most efficient under 45 MPH - after that a law of physics called DRAG doubles the energy required every few MPH and more is WASTED - just like we are doing now racing each other to the next stop light.

[Overseas]

70. She's asking for so much suffering just to save gasoline?

Why don't we just invade another country, kill hundreds of thousands more foreign civilians and waste trillions of dollars more to secure our next ten years of gasoline?

If we do that then poor darling Dick Cheney and the Bush family could continue making money by their traditional family business of war profiteering.

[aztc]

78. Cheaper to invade Iran

Some peoples think their time is so valuable it would be cheaper to invade and occupy Iran than to slow down a few MPH. This is not rational thought.

[tinrobot]

84. OK, speeders, do you want to stop using mid-east oil or not?

I find it very hypocritical that so many people here defend their right to drive fast, then in different threads complain about how the war is for oil or the insane profits of the oil companies or the high price of gas.

If you drive fast, you are part of that problem. You are creating higher demand for oil. Period.

If you want to solve this problem, you have to stop using oil. That's not easy in our automobile based economy, so the first step is to use as little oil as possible.

Driving slower (or not at all) is the single easiest way to less oil, it's been proven time and again. Lighten up on the accelerator and less money goes to Dick Cheney and his friends. Simple as that.

[aztc]

91. Well said, thanks

It is heartening to see at least some rational thought here...thanks!

[okieinpain]

85. great idea, dems will give the nation 55 and the repugs will have

mcsame and a repug majority. beautiful...

[aztc]

92. Drive 55 Political Scorecard

Well let's see, Nixon was president in 74 when the first National 55 MPH speed limit came to be, Republican John Warner was the first national leader to call on the energy secretary to define how much we could save, Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger was among a handful of State leaders to ask people to slow down, Fox News is the only national network that has interviewed me for Drive55.org and Dem Speiers bill is a toothless wonder designed to appease conservationists but filled with loopholes that make it unenforceable. It seems clear to me, as the founder of the Drive 55 Conservation Project, that Republicans have done more to further the debate and it is dems saying "shut up" and trying to pull a fast one in congress.

Political Support: http://drive55.org/content/blogcategory/14/28/

Speiers toothless window dressing in congress (para 'c'): http://drive55.org/content/view/66/28/

[MindPilot]

87. Really, really stupid idea. It was stupid in 1974 and even stupider now.

Gas is not expensive because it's rare--it's expensive because some businessmen have made it so.

No one is stopping you from driving slower if you want to save a little cash. I think we all know that sweet spot in our own vehicle where fuel consumption and speed both maximize. Give people enough flexibility to operate their vehicle in the most efficient manner. Sometimes you have to drive fast and get there; sometimes economy is more important.

I'm sick of the attitude we have in this country where every problem can be solved by making it illegal.

[aztc]

90. Speeders Kill

The problem is speeders kill, ask a paramedic. We need traffic at a consistent pace and speeders darting around us going a-mile-a-minute make the road unsafe for all. Please think about it :)

[MindPilot]

94. Speeders? "A-mile-a-minute" is 60 mph--not exactly speeding.

A few facts: There are only about 2% of the nation's roads which currently have speed limits over 55. Of those, many are urban freeways which are frequently congested to the point that speeds above 55 are impossible. So assuming that EVERYONE obeyed the 55 limit--which we know is not going to happen--the effect is minimal right from the start.

As for the "speed kills" mantra, the statistics just don't bear that out; the traffic fatality rate has trended down since the early 60s and continues to do so despite the repeal of the 55 limit.

The real hazard is the guy going 55 when the majority of the traffic flow is faster. Ask any traffic engineer; the safest speed is the one 85% (95% on a limited access road) of the other drivers are traveling.

[aztc]

99. When I'm doing 60 and you blow by doing 80-85, speedERS kill

It is the differential in speed that causes the problems here. When I am traveling a thrifty sixty and you come racing up on my bumper at 80-85, that creates this unsafe situation, see? Is your answer that I should "get out of your way"? In kindergarten we learn we must all stand in line sometimes and we can all get through the door quicker if a few don't clog it up with their reckless speeding.

[MindPilot]

101. "It is the differential in speed that causes the problems here."

Exactly and if you are the slow one, then you are the problem, see? Who gave you the power to dictate everyone else's speed? If you are in the right lane with the slower traffic and I'm going faster in the left lane, I passed you and my speed did not endanger or affect you in any way.

I'm not sure how you get from standing in line to people doing something faster being responsible for holding things up...but whatever.

[CRF450]

112. This is propaganda bullshit

A huge majority of accidents happen in conggested areas, usually at intersections! I dont worry much about speeders on open roads or highways. Slowing speed limits for means of safety is almost nothing but bullshit. As for energy use, I suppose it could lower fuel consumption some as whole, but keep in mind, alot of cars now get their best fuel economy at higher speeds than before, due to better aerodynamics, taller gear ratio's in the transmissions, and more powerful engine

[tuckessee]

97. It'll be good for the little people.

Rep. Speier will have his special legislator plates and since he has such important business to attend to I doubt he will have to obey the speed limit.

[aztc]

100. Now I remember

It took me a while, but now I remember why I stopped posting on DU. It is an absolute waste of my time and energy.

[MindPilot]

102. Yep, it's the self-righteous authoritarians

who think that every problem can be solved with a just a little more government intrusion, just one more law to micro manage people's lives in the name of safety, conservation or "the children" and everything will suddenly be all puppies and chocolates. That attitude does progressivism and liberalism a grave disservice.

[Snarkturian Clone]

116. Unfortunately, LOTS of DUers think exactly that

Authoritarianism is OK as long as the Authority is the left.

[tuckessee]

108. If you stopped posting on DU then what the heck am I replying to? n/t

[wvbygod]

103. He should change his party

We don't need this moronic crap again.

[Jack_DeLeon]

105. Fuck that shit...

I drive 60mph myself because I choose too. I dont support the government using force to tell others how to make their choices though.

[sofa king]

107. One more law to be flaunted.

Just like marijuana, huge swathes of the population will elect to take their chances and break the law. Unfortunately, when people find themselves breaking bullshit laws all the time, they find it that much easier stop observing the rule of law as a whole.

And when that happens, then everyone starts acting like Republicans.

[Speaker]

109. Cool

We can hand the House and Senate back to the pubbies.

[KillCapitalism]

111. Lower speed limits move us closer to a true police state.

Q: Who will be the biggest winners with lower speed limits?

A: The tax collectors with badges and guns.

[depakid]

113. Yep- we really had a police state last time around, eh?

I have news: speed traps are going to be in place regardless of any national limits. That's how some communities raise money. It's been like for as long as most here can remember-

[KillCapitalism]

114. There should be a problem with it.

It's taxation without representation.

If community can ONLY get funds through traffic tickets and STILL have insufficient funds, they should go bankrupt. We are already raped enough through exorbitant property taxes.

[yurbud]

115. the speed limit here in CA is 70, I drive 80, and other cars STILL blow by me

why does anyone think lowering the limit will change how people drive any more than having a minimum drinking age keeps teens from drinking or making pot illegal keeps people from smoking it?