How low should we make the national speed limit?

[Kolesar]

Oil is priced in the $70/barrel range.
$3.00/gallon gasoline is common.
It is time to conserve.
No one should be above a little sacrifice.

[kedrys]

1. I hate to say this, but

my 2004 Honda Accord EX gets *much* better gas mileage if I haul ass than if I keep my foot light on the pedal.

[rkc3]

2. I've been trying to keep it under 60 for the past few weeks.

It's awfully hard not to get sucked into the 70-75 MPH crowd. Especially when you're used to driving that way.

[Bill McBlueState]

3. at what speed do cars get the best gas mileage?

[etherealtruth]

5. I love these guys and their rationale works for me ...

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=101517&ran=44674

[seemunkee]

6. Wrong

"That speed range is where the car is in its highest gear, while the engine is simultaneously running at a fairly slow speed."

I don't shift into 6th until ~60. At 50-55 I would be inbetween 4th and 5th. The answer would depend on the cars gearing.

[etherealtruth]

11. OK

I shift into 5th by then ...

A search revealed a general consensus around 55 ...

[Massacure]

20. It depends on what the engine is optimized for.

Most get it in the 55-60 mph range.

[happyslug]

54. At the point you stay in your highest gear.

Generally about 25mph, if you can keep the car's transmission from switching from high gear (on an automatic) or bucking (if the car has a standard).

[XemaSab]

4. I'd rather see CAFE standards applied to light trucks and RV's

:shrug:

[shenmue]

7. My car...

is much more of a light sipper when I go faster.

The way to solve this problem is not to change the speed limit, but expand public transportation, and encourage purchase of hybrid or electric cars.

[vademocrat]

8. During the '70s, speed limit was lowered to 55 to conserve fuel -

after the "crisis" passed, one of the side effects - fewer fatal crashes - was touted as a justification to keep the speed limit at 55. I've read that at fuel is really wasted at over 65 mph so figuring that most of us these days are comfortable going 10 mph over the speed limit, 55 = 65...

Over the last couple of months, I've seen drastic gas savings in 2 regular long trips when I go as close to 55 mph as I can. On 95 north between Richmond and Northern VA, it's not always possible to go that slow but I get in the right lane and try and keep the speed as consistent as possible. I save over a quarter tank on each trip. I don't notice a drastic improvement in short, stop and go trips..

[bigbrother05]

9. We should raise the speed limit

We could go with the european standard, in town driving 30mph, interstate driving, as fast as your car can go, unless otherwise posted. You very rarly see a cop on the interstate, they are in town taking care of business. The high price of gas, goes for infrustructure. Your insurance rates are not any higher than here, but if you kill someone in an auto accident, you go to jail. We should be making laws that benefit us, not the oil industry.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. That's just the German Autobahn...

...the rest of Europe gravitates towards ~80 mph as a limit for safety reasons. (In fact, if you have an accident on the German Autobahn when you're going over 80 mph, you probably find your insurance payment reduced.)

[ClevelandSportsCurse]

10. 55 would be painful

I think most people are accustomed to driving 65-70 MPH as a fast speed. 55 tends to be a bit on the slow side.

As for mileage, I question the studies that say that 55 provides the maximum efficiency. When I drove from Ohio to Arizona a few years ago, my best efficiency came when I was driving in NM and AZ, both of which have 75 MPH limits. My worst efficiency was in OH, IN, and IL, which have 65 MPH limits. I typically drove 5-10 over the posted limits. In NM and AZ, there was a lot of wide open areas with very little traffic, so I had the car locked in cruise control most of the time. In OH, IN, and IL, there was more traffic, more cities, and more speed limit changes. I was not using cruise control all that much in those states.

Also, when the speed limit is 55, there are plenty of motorists who will still insist on driving 65-70. Others will strictly follow the limit. The greater disparity increases tension, road rage, and stop-and-go type driving, which then lowers efficiency.

The only way a 55 MPH limit would work if it is rigorously enforced.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. There never was a national speed limit

A national speed limit would have been a violation of the 10th Amendment. Rather, Congress placed a requirement on federal highway funds, saying that the money would be available only to states with a speed limit of 55, with the states being responsible for passing their own individual laws. If I remember correctly, a few states tried to hold out until the feds actually did withhold the highway money. They caved almost immediately.

And anyway, that requirement went away a few years ago. Now, states are free to set their own speed limits.

[pnwmom]

14. How can a DU'er, in the face of an oil crisis, not be in favor of a

simple measure that would significantly increase AVERAGE gas mileage? And that measure would be to lower the speed limit again to 55 miles per hour.

Suppose your car gets better mileage at a higher speed. Doesn't matter. Because the speed that should be selected is the one that causes the highest OVERALL savings, based on millions of drivers. There's no way to give us all individual speed limits -- based on the efficiency of our individual vehicles -- so the the only reasonable option is to set a mileage limit with the best AVERAGE efficiency.

Isn't it hypocritical for a progressive to advocate against a change in speed limits that would conserve oil?

[pnwmom]

17. Are we all progressives -- or are we NASCAR dads?

Seems like we're all progressives until it comes to driving more slowly to save on gas. Then we turn into NASCAR dads.

Is that right? We're all for blaming the "other guy" but driving more slowly ourselves is just a sacrifice we're not prepared to take.

Whatever your particular car's efficiency may be, maintaining an average highway speed limit of 55 has been proven to conserve oil. And we're in the middle of a crisis that's not going away anytime soon.

[dcfirefighter]

23. are we progressives, or authoritarians?

A National Speed Limit may improve average gas mileage, but:

1) as noted, it really is overstepping federal bounds
2) it would be detrimental to the established living patterns of millions
3) it may not significantly affect overall fuel consumption because
4) people tend to adjust consumption to a 'comfortable' out of pocket expense. IOW, saving $5/wk in gas on the highway would probably lead to an additional $4/wk in around-town driving.
5) generally, trucks already have a lower highway speed limit. What proportion of fuel is consumed by passenger cars on the highway. I doubt it's a very significant portion.

Similarly to #4, many people who buy efficient cars wind up driving them more often.

IMO, the ONLY way to significantly reduce fuel consumption is through higher out-of-pocket prices for fuel. I think the only way to make this 'fair' and less painful for the poor & working class is to raise gas (Carbon?) taxes on each gallon to pay for a universal rebate to each person. Such a rebate should cover the average cost increase due to tax, noting that the poor consume much less than average.

For example, if such a tax & rebate system were used with Carbon, at ~$0.25 a gallon, would allow a universal rebate of ~$50 a MONTH per PERSON. (e.g. $2,400 a year for a family of four). Of course the costs of many things would increase as well, however, those that consume less or conserve would wind up keeping more than they spent.

Another issue to keeping transportation affordable vs. encouraging conservation is to shift the roadbuilding taxes (~$0.38/gallon) off of gasoline and onto 1) mileage x weight of vehicle or even better 2) the value roads add to property. I'll note that in Maryland, and in many other states, it's actually ILLEGAL to use homebrew/recovered biodiesel, because it hasn't been taxed.

[Bill McBlueState]

29. "generally, trucks already have a lower highway speed limit"

I agree with your other points, but I'm pretty sure this is the case in only a few states. Generally, it seems like a bad idea to have dual speed limits on a given road. Congestion and collisions will be more likely as faster-moving traffic piles up around vehicles that are legally required to move more slowly.

[XemaSab]

21. I have to drive to Santa Barbara next week

It's 534 miles one way.

Most of the distance is on Interstate 5, which has a working speed limit of 80.

Assuming an average speed of 70, it's about 8 hours one way, not counting potty breaks and stops for food.

Assuming a speed of 55, the time spent in the car creeps closer to 10 hours.

I'm sick of being in the damn car. I just got back from a trip to BC on Saturday, tomorrow I have to drive 2.5 hours to Susanville (one way) followed by the return trip the next day, and then I have this trip next week.

What can I say? I'm selfish and I want to spend less time in the damn car. :shrug:

[depakid]

22. I used to drive I-5 from Eugene to LA

5 or 6 times a year when the speed limit was 55. Aside from a couple of tickets, it never bothered me that much.

[rustydad]

41. Train

Take Amtrac. Bob

[Strelnikov_]

24. That Is Why I Am A Kunstlerian Doomer

Even at a 'progressive' board, selfishness and myopia seem to be the rule of the day when it comes to the easy motoring fast food lifestyle.


And the 'Better Mileage At High Speed' is a rationalization that defy's physics. Drag forces are 85% higher at 75 mph vs 55 mph. The energy required to overcome drag comes from somewhere. Overdrive simply allows the engine to run closer to its maximum efficiency rpm range.

For my car, a VW TDI, the maximum mpg occurs at a speed of 46 mph. I suspect that it is similar for most cars.

I am going to post a previous post regarding this issue later in the thread. Let the denial of the findings of major research institutions, because it is inconvenient, begin.

[One_Life_To_Give]

15. National 90

Put the limit at the design speed of the roads. 90MPH!

A place as diverse as North America really should not have a single maximum speed limit. What makes sense in one area is nonsense in another.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. Agreed

I voted for 70 since it is as high as the poll went.

There are roads in the west designed for 75 and up and we should be able to use them to that limit.

[Bill McBlueState]

30. this is a good point

If we're going to spend billions of dollars to build roads that allow for safe travel at >75 mph, it's a waste of money not to use them for their intended purpose.

[hunter]

18. 35 MPH. If you want to go faster, take a train.

:evilgrin:

That's probably the way it's going to turn out whatever we do.

Anyone driving faster than that is sure to die because the roads will be so bad.

The roads won't be maintained because most people won't be able to afford fuel, much less road taxes.

Interstate trucking will fade away because people won't be able to afford stuff that's shipped by truck.

I think the magnitude of our problems is such that 55 mph speed limits won't amount to much in the long run. In twenty years, success or failure, this poll will be wildly irrelevant -- a "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" kind of proposal.

[pnwmom]

19. Sigh. You could be right. But I'd still rather do something positive

that is do-able now.

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. Lineing up at the Soilent factory then

Given your picture of the future.

[hunter]

35. Such a world might be a better place.

We have to figure out how to make it so.

A world of thirty hour work weeks and six week vacations might be possible. The end of oil could be made into a good thing.

[One_Life_To_Give]

36. But still stuck in this Gravity Well

Yes but I will still be stuck having to live a insignificant existence stuck in this pathetic gravity well.

[Strelnikov_]

25. Reduction To 55 mph Could Reduce Oil Consumption By 3.4%

The following report estimates a 3.4% reduction in oil consumption.

The more significant impact is that it would reduce transport fuel consumption by 5.1%.

Of course, this will be disputed, since it is inconvenient. We can't expect to change our behavior, after all.

Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures for Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport
International Energy Agency
28 February 2005

http://www.objectfarm.org/Activities/Publications/SolareWeltwirtschaft/Energiekrise/IEA-Saving_Oil_In_A_Hurry_2005.pdf (.pdf)

The tables below are from the report and summarize fuel savings from speed reduction to 55 mph.


Table 2-35: Consensus estimate of effect of reducing speed limit to 90 km/hr

US /Canada

Thousand barrels saved per day 727 (672 US 2001 data)
Percent transport fuel saved 6.2% (5.1% @ US 13.1 M bbl/dy)
Percent total fuel saved 4.7% (3.4% @ US 19.5 M bbl/dy)


Table 2-29: Fuel Economy by Speed, based on ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratories)
Percent Change In Fuel Economy

55–65 mph 11.0%
65–75 mph 17.7%
55–75 mph 30.6%

Note: Based on Model years 1988–97 automobiles and light trucks, based on tests of 9 vehicles.

[Nihil]

27. Come back to us when you have some meaningful data.

> Note: Based on Model years 1988–97 automobiles and light trucks,
> based on tests of 9 vehicles.

If they examined more than 9 vehicles then they would find what your
opponents have tried to point out to you ... the argument is *not*
as clear cut as "55 good, >55 bad".

The optimum speed varies greatly between vehicles.

It also varies with the conditions at the time.

Trying to hand-wave a blanket 55mph limit on such foundations is
not a good move.

(FWIW, I drive at 55-60 for most of the time so don't have an axe
to grind with respect to my personal time vs efficiency trade-off.)

[Strelnikov_]

31. Sorry. I Will Accept The 'Meaningful Data' From A Peer Reviewed

study from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the conclusions of the International Energy Agency.

Or do you think the IEA would have published their recommendations based on flawed science, as you suggest? Kind of reminds me of the debate over global warming being 'settled science'.

You want to conduct your own research project, go for it.

It is up to the public to decide if a 5% reduction in petroleum consumption is worth increased travel time. Right now, it is probably not worth it considering the decreased demand would probably only lower prices a few cents anyway.

When the shortages begin this summer, however, that 5% will loom large. It seems, however, that we will still continue to ration by price when the shortages hit, as evidenced by the responses in this thread.

[Nihil]

33. Ah ... the good old "Appeal to Authority" ploy.

I don't care who claims it, a study based on NINE vehicles
is pretty damn trivial and incapable of extrapolation to the
extent that you (and others) have been attempting.

FWIW, why are you only addressing the "reduce speed" option?

Why not put all your weight behind their recommendation for
free public transport ("set fares to zero")? I can't imagine that
anyone (short of a director of a bus company) would fight this
option and it would save more than 500,000 barrels per day according
to that report.

More to the point, why not address the problem that it isn't the
maximum speed per se that is wasteful but the method of achieving
that speed:

> The US driving cycles tend to have higher maximum acceleration
> than those for Europe and Japan, while the European cycle has a
> higher maximum speed level.
+
> A typical family sedan (horsepower/weight of 0.04) was found to
> have a 6% increase in fuel consumption for the more aggressive
> driving cycle.
+
> They found that the more aggressive driving cycle led to
> a 25% to 48% increase in fuel consumption. ... The two driving
> cycles measured had about the same average speed, so this
> result is clearly due to changes in maximum speed and acceleration
> and deceleration behaviour.

Perhaps it isn't so much the report that's the problem as the people
who are using it to support their personal crusade against speed?

Even the writers admit that this is a big hand-wave (a.k.a. guess):
> In any case, this shows the difficulty of measuring average fleet
> fuel economy levels. ...
> At the high end, however, we suspect that percent reductions
> would be fairly similar across different countries and thus
> the figures in Table 2-29 could form a basis for estimates
> of the effect of speed reduction policies.
> ...
> Approximately one-half of the data points for registered vehicles
> were unavailable or problematic. In particular, data regarding the
> number of goods vehicles were problematic, with data for heavy
> goods vehicles, light goods vehicles, and light duty passenger
> trucks (e.g., numerous SUVs, pick-up trucks, and vans) intermingled
> and characterised inconsistently or erroneously. These were
> estimated or adjusted by interpolation and extrapolation from
> the available data ...

GIGO.

Like I said, perhaps it's the people who are using this report (and
the corresponding appeals to authority) to support their personal
crusade against speed that are the real problem here ...

[Strelnikov_]

34. How Is It Implied I Am Only Presenting The 'Reduce Speed Option'

as a solution to our energy woes?

I simply posted to highlight the estimate of savings from the only authoritative study I know of.

And what is with this 'appeal to authority' bullshit?

The cited report is by the International Energy Agency. Am I to defer to personal observation over a scientific study by an impartial resource management agency?

And what study of as diverse of population as the deployed transportation fleet would not require some 'hand waving'. Should I give preference to 'hand waving' by personal observation, or 'hand waving' in a study by, again, an impartial resource agency.

My only agenda is to present the best estimate, in the viewpoint of the IEA, for fuel savings to be expected by a reduction in speed.

And I would have to say it is self-interest that is the problem here.

[Nihil]

38. Apologies for assuming I understood your agenda

> I simply posted to highlight the estimate of savings from the
> only authoritative study I know of.

Sorry if I was too personal in my criticism - my dispute is with
the use of untenable logic, not with you as the poster of the study.


> And what is with this 'appeal to authority' bullshit?

"Appeal to authority" is a term used when an invalid argument
(e.g., unproven hypothesis, a lack of factual evidence, or
wild extrapolation) is supposed to be accepted because of the
name of the person or organisation promoting that case rather
than the content of the argument.

If someone had posted a study from a GOP think-tank involving nine
vehicles and supporting a change in the law, half of the forum would
(rightly) be jumping on the error. Similarly if it had been from a
school project - generally a source of good science - we would be
questioning the extrapolation and requesting further study but somehow
when the SAME unscientific argument is associated with a "reputable
organisation", the bad science is supposed to be ignored in favour
of the name.


> Should I give preference to 'hand waving' by personal observation,
> or 'hand waving' in a study by, again, an impartial resource agency.

What you should do is recognise the invalid basis upon which all of
the "reduce speed to save fuel" arguments seen so far have been based.
In this particular case, there is no difference between an "impartial
resource agency" conducting a non-scientific study and a bunch of
people in the pub conducting a non-scientific study. To claim
otherwise is to attempt to bluff one's way through on the strength
of an organisation's name rather than on the strength of any
meaningful evidence.

Fine, use this argument to *encourage* people to drive sensibly - not
only with regard to maximum speed but, more importantly, with regards
to accelerating gently, braking gradually and not driving fuel-thirsty
heaps of junk for vanity reasons. Don't use it to draft laws that will
be abused by both the revenue collectors and the car industry ("Well,
it's not our problem that engines are inefficient, it's the driver!").

There is no question that any particular vehicle's fuel consumption
varies according to speed (and conditions). This is a given, as is
the consumption difference between engine sizes, rolling weights and
driving styles. The point is that the efficiency curve for each
vehicle (i.e., combination of body shape, power plant and working
weight) is *different* and so using a dataset of NINE vehicles out
of the tens of thousands of combinations is totally unscientific.

The study also highlighted the bad consumption at *low* speeds (due
to stop/start traffic and urban behaviour) but no-one is recommending
that a minimum speed limit is raised with fines and penalties for
people driving *below* their optimum speed!

Engendering unnecessary and unsupported laws is not the way to save
the planet.


> And I would have to say it is self-interest that is the problem here.

Thanks for being honest :P

(It's ok, I know what you meant!)

I agree that self-interest is a big problem for the implementation of
any energy-saving activity across a wide population. Trying to get
people to be rational is always going to put one at odds with the
(large) irrational & selfish segment of the population. What I don't
want to happen is that improvements (e.g., "drive sensibly") will be
perverted into unnecessary laws (there are already speeding laws) in
the name of "environmentalism" as when the ignorant population finally
grasp the truth, it will cause even more of a backlash against science
and environmentalists.

In the meantime, I will continue to drive sensibly, get reasonable to
good fuel consumption from my vehicle and encourage others to do the
same ... and fight against any additional laws that will have no true
benefit to the planet at all.

[Strelnikov_]

39. And How Is Drag Increasing With The Square Of Velocity An Unproven

hypothesis?

I am more than willing to consider the results of any other studies. Until that time, this study provides the best estimate I have seen of the probable savings in fuel, just to place one more option on the plate.

And, yes, if the study was from a source with an agenda, like an environmental group, I would be much more suspect of any extrapolation. I am assuming that the IEA, in a study entitled 'Saving Oil In A Hurry', has made their best estimate of fuel savings expected.

It seems the 55 mph speed limit is to Liberterians what Global Warming mitigation is to oil companies.

[Nihil]

40. Apples & oranges (again)

> And How Is Drag Increasing With The Square Of Velocity An Unproven
> hypothesis?

You're the only one claiming that this relationship is unproven ...
(cf. "straw man").

The "unproven hypothesis" is that the blanket imposition of a 55mph
speed limit for all vehicle types in all conditions is somehow
justified by a study involving a grand total of nine vehicles.

> It seems the 55 mph speed limit is to Liberterians what Global
> Warming mitigation is to oil companies.

Whist I could reply in like manner with "Up yours, troll" I will
restrain my comments to clarification.

:hi:

It is telling that you admit your bias in that you automatically
consider an environmental group to "have an agenda" whilst eagerly
hanging onto a few extracts from an "authorative source", regardless
of their validity - indeed even after their validity has been shown
to be lacking.

[Strelnikov_]

43. Yes, I Do Have An Agenda

That is conserving petroleum by all means practical.

I have stated my position, that an IEA report estimates a 5% fuel savings, therefore a reduction in speed limit may be something we want to consider if TSHTF.

You seem determined to spin the issue.

And, yes, I would be more suspect of a study from an environmental group, or an oil company, over that of a quasi-public agency, that on face value, is supposed to be acting in the best interests of the public.

Again, this whole diversion reminds me of the debate over global warming.

[Nihil]

45. Fine

> Yes, I Do Have An Agenda
> That is conserving petroleum by all means practical.

Sell your car then and save 100% of your personal fuel.
That's practical but I forgot, as you said in .25,
"we can't expect to change our behavior, after all".

Better still, sell it to Oak Ridge National Laboratory so that,
if enough people do the same, they will be able to perform and
publish a statistically significant study that can be used to
support widescale economic measures with science.

The IEA were not being totally unscientific in that they passed
on the severely limiting scope of the study to their readers.
Unfortunately, they seem to be over-estimating the ability of
their readers to understand the impact of that limitation.

> Again, this whole diversion reminds me of the debate over global
> warming.

Sadly, you appear to be playing the part of the Religious Right
who swallow whatever piece of scripture is handed down to them,
failing to grasp the meaning and merely repeating the words.

Keep your car but drive sensibly, accelerate gently, brake gradually,
save fuel (and encourage other drivers to do the same - by example).

[Strelnikov_]

46. Oh, I Have No Problem With Understanding The 'Impact Of That

limitation' as you note in your sideways insult. You, on the other hand . .

I presented an estimate of fuel savings, I presented the source.

Sadly, you seem to be playing the part of the corporatist right who, when presented with a study that collides with their agenda, discredits such.

[One_Life_To_Give]

28. Not much gain

We could get 50% reduction in motor fuel use. Just by switching to more efficient commuter cars.
I am always surprised at how people think cars like the Prius get good mileage? When what we should be asking is why does it's mileage suck!

We should be encouraging people to have Commuter/Errend Cars as well as their "Family" vehical.
Over the road truck size should be increased to reduce fuel use per Lb-Mile.
Greater use of electronic controls to reduce collisions. Hence allow us to maintain a level of safety while cutting the weight of commuting vehicals.

[klook]

32. Maybe driving something that weighs less

than 7,000 lbs. would also help. Maybe it would also help if the government wasn't squandering so much fuel on military operations overseas, and overpaying Halliburton for the privilege.

[Dogmudgeon]

37. Such nonsense arguments

The main reason to keep speed limits low isn't to conserve fuel; it's to institute fines and "points" that allow insurance companies to increase insurance premiums. And if cars are an endangered technological species, then so is car insurance. Get while the gettin' is good.

If there was a real desire to save fuel, the private passenger vehicle would be completely redesigned -- and mostly eliminated. And monkeys would fly out of my ass.

Safety? That's secondary. Fewer crashes mean fewer and lesser insurance pay-outs. If there was a real concern about safety, there would be laws requiring roll-bars to be integrated into the cabin frame, water-filled "rubber" bumpers and/or a comprehensive horizontal shock-absorption system, and compulsory engineering of safety enhancements -- not the slow-down-and-ticket-everything system that the 55 MPH national speed limit instituted. Detroit and the Insurance industry compromised. And what's left over, they hope "Tort Reform" will take care of.

And the moralizing, hectoring tone used by the slow-down proponents is especially disturbing. Once again, moral entrepreneurialism has broken out. We must drive slower because otherwise, we're being selfish. We're bad people. Several people here seem to have a major itch to do some spanking. Kunstlerisms ("easy motoring" and "fast food culture") have been invoked. And if you don't drive slower, you're not a real Progressive! So there!

Do you have any idea how absurd that is?

When we're off the Peak Oil Plateau, the dropoff in petrochemical energy sources will be on the order of 5% per year. Every twelve years or so, our oil supplies will be cut in half again. We'll have all the fuel we had in 1960, but with twice the population. Drive 80 or drive 50 if you want, it won't make any difference at all. The world will change overnight, and all the ritual stomping of the well-intentioned liberal foot won't amount to piss. And James Kunstler may have to rant about "easy motoring" and ugly architecture on an empty stomach (something he's probably well aware of).

Incidentally, I'm a slow driver. For two years, I had to commute 130 miles a day on the Pennsylvania Turnpike where the drivers customarily go at 85 MPH. Worst two years of my misguided life. Yet I've only gotten two traffic offense tickets in 31 years of driving, so I'm not exactly a psycho on wheels.

But let's face facts. Slowing down is only a marginally effective way to save fuel. And sooner than any of us will ever be ready to accept, we're going to be facing the biggest crash in history. The moralists might as well go scold the birds for the flu.

--p!

[Kolesar]

42. The laws of physics are "nonsense arguements"?

Then you postulate that lower speed limits are implemented to raise insurance premiums!?
How can you argue that slowing down does not save gasoline?

[Dogmudgeon]

48. The Laws of Physics? Postulation?

Egads, it's not like I whipped out a Radionic Paradigm Energy Potentializer at the annual CSICOP convention. The laws of physics support nuclear power, too, but when I mention that, I likewise get jumped on. It seems like Science is used quite selectively -- but that's the Internet for you.

I'm talking about human greed, and manipulating "the laws of physics" to justify official larceny. It's far more extensive than the amount of energy and/or money that may be saved. Cranking up sanctions, punishment, and fantasies of endless petroleum is regressive in the extreme. Think about how many people get speeding tickets over a ten-year period -- the stats indicate lots of people and tons of money are involved, all over violations in the 10-15 MPH range. We did this in the 1980s, and while it saved a little gasoline, it was a windfall for state and local governments and fattened mainly Republican-connected construction and finance businesses. Why not just require that all drivers make a direct $1500 donation to the GOP every year?

The substantial savings in fuel use come from raising CAFE standards and better engineering -- but these require that the powerful spend money, not make money, and it cuts the states out of the deal, too. How is it that demanding changes in industries and local planning are so onerous, but ratcheting up punishment for the masses is "progressive"? The fines and insurance premium increases are extortionate, far beyond any calculations of risk and savings, and it's money that does NOT go toward any kind of energy or public health amelioration. It just makes a fat and juicy cash cow, paid for by an ever-poorer working/middle class.

If we are serious about saving gasoline, then why not require that speed-contol units be built into cars? Or send out pace cars to slow down the speeding on highways? The pace cars could also be stocked with paramedic supplies, provide rides to stranded motorists, and their drivers could be empowered to stop and arrest drunk or dangerous drivers. Better yet, why not institute rationing right away? It's simple. It's not about safety or savings, it's about the politically low-risk extraction of money.

Meanwhile, the idea that we ought to shame people's behavior over such trivialities is no kind of liberal or progessive agenda I support. I strongly oppose cigarette smoking, too, but harassing and fining smokers has done nothing but to give rise to a "Smokers' Rights" movement and a renewed effort to glamorize smoking. And need I detail the effects of our Quixotic and sociopathic War On Drugs?

The end of the Oil Era is immanent. It's not going to give us the choice to slow down, it's going to make driving quickly unaffordable. We need to rally people to effect positive change, not hector them into obedience to trivial, symbolic behaviors while we weep for the sins of the masses -- all the way to the bank.

I understand the desire for such solutions as fining our way out of trouble. But it's not just unworkable, it's not just corruptible -- it's also not nearly sufficient. There's nothing to be gained by spanking the children of the highwaymen to avenge our insulted pride, while claiming that the highwaymen themselves must be allowed to pillage at will because they are essential to our way of life.

--p!

[Strelnikov_]

44. -

Not worth the effort.

[Quantess]

47. Bear with me.

Shouldn't we be focusing on stop-and-go driving behaviors? That's what really burns up gas.

maintaining a speed of 65 or 70mph, consistently, gets better mileage than driving 35mph and having to stop at every red light.

I would rather see fewer stoplights than having a reduced speed limit on freeways.

[PaulaFarrell]

51. and how's that going to work in the middle of town?

just askin...

[Quantess]

52. Well, I don't think the OP was concerned about people zooming

through intersections at 70 mph, or anything.
The original question had the intent of asking: what is a good way to get people to conserve fuel?

Maybe I am alone here, but stop & go traffic gets on my nerves. Not only does it give me road rash when I see that nobody is waiting on their green light, but I also get irritated to see vehicles idling on the red, wasting gas, for no legitimate traffic-related reason.

Wasting gasoline makes me mad, believe me.

(edited for clarity)

[Quantess]

57. Fewer stoplights is the answer!

In my community, there are far too many stoplights.
I know a dreaded route (Carmen Drive in Lk.Oswego) where all the lights are timed to turn red just as you approach them. No matter how you drive, fast or slow. And usually no one is waiting on the other side. I don't think the synchronicity of having to stop for every single light could be an oversight. I'm not sure what the city of Lake Oswego gets out of it, maybe revenue from traffic tickets?

But- I am even more irritated by new suburbs, and their SLOWNESS-BY-DESIGN. Does anyone else agree?

Suburban by-ways are built around incompetent drivers. Suburbs have all sorts of dumb barriers designed to make everyone put on the brakes, go around in circles, and waste our gas!

Everything is spaced so far apart, and the lanes are twice as wide as they need to be, to accomodate for shitty drivers. If you have ever driven on urban city streets, you can make the comparison. Why do suburban drivers, with their extra-wide vehicles, get the allowance to drive shitty, as well, with their extra-wide lanes? Fostering shitty driving skills is playing to the lowest common denominator.

[Strelnikov_]

49. There Seems To Be Much Concern Over The Impact Of High Fuel Prices

on the poor. Oh why oh why don't the politicians do something.

Yet, there seems to be reluctance to make any change in personal behavior to reduce consumption by those who can afford the fuel, as evidenced by the innumerable posts about not changing their driving habits, form of transportation, or distance traveled.

So, one wonders what these stalwart yet empathetic consumers think happens to the price of fuel, in the 'rationing by price' system we are under, when those that can afford to maintain their consumptive behavior bids up the price of a finite commodity.

[One_Life_To_Give]

50. The unfortunate truth

is that little can be done to reduce the price of fuel.
The only real help for low income people would be a subsidy to offset the cost of their fuel.

The real changes that will have significant impact are those technoogies that will carry us beyond the current crisis. Alternative sources of energy and vehicals that can travel in excess of 100 miles on the equivalent of a gallon of gas.

[happyslug]

53. Why not 35 mph, the First National Speed Limit?

When we had a real war between 1942 and 1945.

[midnight armadillo]

55. 70 mph: 20 mpg 65 mph: 25 mpg

'98 subaru legacy l wagon

[4dsc]

56. Wrong question to ask here

Instead of asking how low the national speed limit shoudl it would better serve people to ask what kind of future they want in a post carbon world and how do we get there with a minimum of disruption..

We need to start a different thought process as to how we look to the future and what it holds for all of us..