Tests indicate that slowing traffic to 55 MPH max. it would save 5% to 10% in fuel.

[heidler1]

!. Why is this not discussed om DU?
2. This should cause an immediate step in lowering CO2.
3. This should lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
4. Over the long haul this would encourage people to shorten commutes.
5. Is speed a sacred cow?
6. If cities lowered the max. speed limit on streets to 35 MPH existing Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) could be safely and legally used.

[On the Road]

1. As Much as I Like Highway Driving

this is a good and necessary step, one of the few that would have immediate effects.

[tetedur]

2. Nixon did that in the 70's.

I'm not sure when the speed limit was raised.

[TheWraith]

7. In most places, it hasn't been.

There are only a handful of places where 55 isn't the maximum, and usually those are highways only.

[49jim]

11. I remember well the 70's and the reduced

speed limits.....didn't work then....won't work now.....no one follows the speed limits. I also remember buying a new car in 1975 (Ford Granda) and the ads said if you drove 50MPH you would get an increase in your gas mileage....didn't happen!

[Kolesar]

25. Nobody drove 70 mph where I lived when the speed limit was 55 mph

Motorists sheepishly drove at 58 mph with a foot over the brake and eyes peeled for troopers back then. Now, people routinely zip down the freeway at 5 mph over the limit.

[krkaufman]

31. Exactly. I had to howl when I drove from Michigan to Iowa a decade back.

As I crossed from the blazing highways of Illinois into Iowa, traffic slowed to a crawling 55. A different enforcement regimen makes all the difference.

As for me, I'll be doing it voluntarily. (But think I'll need a bumper sticker to get people to quit flashing their lights at me -- and I don't want them to think that the Prius can't go any faster. :))

[NNadir]

18. It must be said that in doing this, Nixon did good.

I remember his speech announcing this.

Nixon justifiably goes down as one of the worst Presidents ever, but this was one of his less odious moments.

[Make7]

3. RE: "Why is this not discussed on DU?"

I think it is....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=740642&mesg_id=740642

Over 200 replies.

- Make7

[Kolesar]

26. Over 60 replies to my thread a year ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=52256

[donco6]

4. No one obeys the speed limit now.

It's supposed to be 55 through town on I-25 in Denver. I rarely see anyone going slower than 70.

[heidler1]

8. I believe it depends on how it is sold. If the scofflaws were ridiculed for being anti green it coul...

work. Plus if the scofflaws were nailed for being pro oil war it could help.

[donco6]

12. Maybe in a blue state some would care. . .

Out here it's extremely doubtful. In fact, driving a big SUV is a badge of honor.

[krkaufman]

32. "55 Saves Lives!" has a whole new meaning ...

... what with Bush's bloodbath in Iraq solidly into its 4th year.

[Warpy]

5. That makes a whole lot of sense back east.

Here in the west, it is largely unenforceable because of the huge, barren stretches of road that folks want to get through as quickly as possible.

It's a great idea, though, and one that worked beautifully in the 70s until people just started to ignore it everywhere.

I would love to see such a limit obeyed. I hate doing even the overgenerous 75 here and having some jackass with an overinflated sense of his own importance to the universe trying to crawl up the car's tailpipe.

[heidler1]

10. The first time it was implemented we were in a real bind and the people knew it.

People obeyed the slower speed limit until the the Saudis lifted the oil embargo, but after that was over they began to ignore the law. We are now in a double bind with Global Warming and a very bad trade balance due to the cost of foreign oil. IMO this stupid war was caused by fear of running out of oil. Our troops are dieing over this shit.

[Fridays Child]

6. We should slow down for a number of reasons...

But I suppose that, even if everyone did, the oil companies would just raise their prices even higher. But, you're right, speed should not be a sacred cow. It should be on the table for serious discussion, along with every other reasonable measure, including regulating the oil companies.

[SCDem]

9. My Earth Day pledge this year was to consistently drive slower

We just have to remain vigilant with our own selves and habits. Sometimes we can get in a hurry or behind schedule and we just end up going faster than we plan because it is not up front in our minds.

A figure I have been told and tell others is that for every 5 mph you drive over 60mph it is like paying 20 cents more per gallon of gas. So if your complaining about $3 gas and you are driving 65 mph you really are paying $3.20 and if you are driving 70 mph you are really paying $3.40. That has helped me keep my speed down regardless the circumstances.

[KingofNewOrleans]

13. I'm willing to make an effort to drive less

especially cut down on short trips/use public transit, but I just can't drive 55.

[ramapo]

14. Speed is a sacred cow

It is deja vu all over again.

People bitched and moaned, then ignored the 55mph limit. It was safer and saved fuel. It is more difficult to get killed at a slower speed.

Finally the limit was abolished. Gas was cheap, nobody cared that it wouldn't last forever. Still don't. Here in the east it took longer for the speed limits to be increased to 65mph.

People are too stupid and self-centered to realize that a 55mph limit makes sense. Oh yes, business and truckers would again complain about how it is bad for business and the economy, and that the country will fall into ruin if a 55mph limit was actually enforced.

It might happen if the supply dries up and we go make into national emergency mode like in the '70s.

Short of that, don't waste your breath.

[Strelnikov_]

15. It will be implemented once we approach the 85th percentile driving it

in order to stretch out their 10 gal/month gas ration or $10/gal gas.

Recycled screed follows.

+++++

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% which is critical considering that the current shortage is in refined product.

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

Reductions in speeds during a fuel crisis can be implemented in many ways. For example, in the United States, during the 1970’s fuel crisis, a national speed limit of 55 mph (90 km/hr) was implemented. Initially, this policy was very effective, primarily because of altruistic behaviour and a determined enforcement regime.

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
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.

[Eugene]

16. It was done in the 1970's. It was very unpopular.

The 55 MPH national speed limit was largely repealed in 1987
as rural states fought against it vigorously. The measure
did save gas, but gas had become relatively cheap in the
mid 1980's. Those were the days of $11/barrel oil and
60 cents/gallon gas.

It will be a hard fight to convince motorists to slow down
or otherwise limit their lifestyles to fight non-obvious
threats like global warming or dependence on foreign oil.
Given the political history, I don't think anything short
of a 1974-style shock will make this happen.

[seemunkee]

17. What tests

Considering the amount of city driving most people do you could probably save that much by timing lights so cars don't stop and start so much. Also wouldn't engine power curves and transmission gearing have a big impact also?

[Nihil]

20. Biggest potential gain is in changing driving styles.

The top speed (55mph or 65mph) doesn't matter as much as the way the
vehicle is accelerated to that speed. If you accelerate gradually
and coast down to low speed before braking, you will use far less
fuel than if you're a heavy footed wannabe boy-racer type with
binary controls (full throttle then full brake).

Of course, that requires drivers to think, to look ahead at the traffic
rather than jabbering on a cell-phone and not to be an impatient asshole
whose time is *so* *valuable* that every second counts ...
... OK forget I said it ... let the f*ckers go extinct ...

[krkaufman]

34. Personally, on the roads with speed limits over 55mph ...

... I'm not doing a lot of 0-55+ transitions.

Driving style definitely matters overall, but your speed has a huge impact on fuel efficiency in highway driving.

Apples and peaches.

[Dogmudgeon]

19. It's a false economy

The 55 MPH was loved by the authorities and hated by drivers because its main use was to enhance the collection of revenue through ticketing. The fuel savings from speed reduction seldom met the expectation. In the early 70s, I was being told in Drivers' Ed class that the savings of reducing the maximum speed from 70 to 55 would be 25%! I don't think any of us really believed it, though. In reality, 5% turned out to be a good figure; some of the older cars got worse mileage, though that is not a problem these days.

There is a much better way to save fuel: start subsidizing mass transit to even half the degree that air and highway travel are subsidized. This will allow 40 years of expansion and missed improvements to be implemented, and "prime the pump" for passenger transit. Take some of the massive tax breaks from the oil industry.

In spite of all the fine-sounding rhetoric in support of speed schemes (and pre-emptive scolding about eeevil obese American speeders in SUVs eating burgers while talking on their cell phones on their way to Wal-Mart), it's still 5% savings and 95% ticketing. We need to get away from both the mandatory car culture and the all-seeing, all-punishing Panopticon society.

--p!
Disclaimer: I am NOT a fast driver; I drive as little as possible.

[pokerfan]

21. Seems to me that some of the worst commuter

metro areas are pretty much self regulating as far as a national 55 speed limit. Many commuters would probably love to get up to 55 mph. (I can't drive 55!) Traveling at 15 to 20 mph is probably as inefficient and polluting (or worse) as zooming along at 70 mph (assuming a standard IC engine).

One graph I found (your mpg may vary):

[CRF450]

22. Not all cars get their best gas milage at 55mph

My Trans Am gets its best mpg between 65 and 75mph in 6th gear. Any less than 63 in 6th, I'll start lugging the engine then I'll be forced to into 5th thus getting worse fuel milage. I'm not real sure about my Dodge Dakota, I use it for my job anyways.

That idea is not gonna work anyways, alot of vehicles now are comging with 5 or 6 speed auto's that help fuel milage at higher speeds.

[happyslug]

28. Most engines do there best when the car is going about 35mph

Thus during WWII this was the Speed Limit adopted. By the time of the 1970s most people were driving Automatic Transmissions which would NOT get into their highest gear till after 35mph (and at about 35-40mph switch between third and Second gears). Thus 55 was adopted to get around this problem.

I have traveled in a Five Speed Standard at 25 mph in Fifth, and my vehicle would NOT buckle until I came to any form of grade, at which point I have to downshift. The key is getting your Vehicle into its slowest speed while in the transmission's highest gear and keeping it in that gear even if you get some buckling. I notice when I stay at about 45mph I get about 25mpg, but if I go faster in my Jeep Wrangler the fuel economy goes down hill (I live in the Country and can put my Jeep in fifth gear and keep it in Fifth for 20-30 miles at a time, very few stops etc). In the early 1980s I once did 25 mpg in a three speed standard Chevrolet 3/4 ton pickup (I was going 25mph on a long stretch of flat Interstate just to see what fuel economy I would get, normally that truck get 12 mpg).

My point is you will get better fuel economy at the lowest speed when the Vehicle is in is highest gear. This is harder to do with Automatics since most will shift down WAY before you would have to if the transmission was Manual. When my sister was working in Detroit in the 1990s she was told by people in the Auto industry that the industry was using the new electronics in the newer Automatic Transmission to EXTEND the time the transmission would stay in second gear. This was to make the transition from first to overdrive smoother. The Down side was it wore out the transmission quicker, the upside it permitted such transmission to get higher EPA mpg ratings even as real mpg rating suffered do to the longer time in Second gear.

Today if you look at the EPA mpg estimates, the automatic transmission is rarely less then the standard transmission in the same vehicle. In real life this is NOT the case, and it is worse if you compare drivers of the Automatic and Standard Transmission if both drivers are trying to maximize mpg (And Hybrids do better on the test then they do in real life driving, through some drivers of Hybrids who try to maximize fuel economy do match the EPA tests).

As to the Five and Six speed Automatics, while they get better fuel economy at higher speeds than the old 3-4 speed automatics, to operate efficiently they MUST get to the speed where the vehicle stays in the highest gear. If that is 50 mph there must get up to that speed to get that fuel economy (and the EPA test occurs at 50 mph, thus auto makers tend to design their automatic transmission for max fuel efficiency at that speed).

People have been bragging about the new 5-6 speed automatics for years saying they get the same fuel efficiency than standard transmissions. The US Army even bought them for its trucks (But seems more to do with training time then fuel economy, even when I was basic the job of Truck driving went to people who ALREADY KNEW HOW TO DRIVE A STANDARD. The Army did NOT want to waste time training people to drive standard transmissions. Now the Army had a problem getting enough people who knew how to drive a Standard when I was in the Army in the early 1980s, it is worse now and for that reason, more then fuel economy, the Army has switched to Automatics in their trucks.

While the Army has converted to Automatics in their trucks, most civilian truckers still opt for standards, and the reason is greater fuel economy. The fuel economy difference still exists AND INCREASES IF YOU KEEP THE TRUCK AT ITS SLOWEST SPEED WHILE IN ITS HIGHEST GEAR. Now most truckers do NOT operate their trucks at the slowest speed in the truck's highest gear (Truckers make money by getting the shipment to the customers at the quickest speed, the price of oil is NOT so high that the truckers are looking at ways to get better fuel economy at the present time), but when the trucks are operated that way you get much better fuel economy.

My point here is given that the only fuel estimates people may use in the US, are the ones provided by the EPA, and since those tests since the 1970s have been geared to vehicles going at 50 mph, there is NOT a Small Car or Truck that does NOT get its best fuel economy at 50 mph or less (With the major exception being high end Sports car that go over 200 mph, but such cars are RARELY purchased by most Americans). No auto maker will make a car for general sale in the US that does NOT do its best fuel usage at 50 mph or less (The EPA test use slow acceleration and de-acceleration do to testing limitations of the test equipment first adopted in the 1970s, modern equipment can test at more normal speeds, but the equipment available in the 1970s could not, and the test adopted were set up by Congress based on what the EPA could do in the 1970s).

Given the slow acceleration and slow De-accelerations of the EPA tests, any car meant for the general public, will gets its best fuel economy between 35-55 mph (I suspect that Daimler's "Smart Car" only received a 47 mpg rating under the EPA tests, do to the need to over-rev the engines to get it up to 50 mph, the SMART car was design for much slower speeds than American cars). Since most people do NOT do gradual acceleration and gradual De-accelerations AND go over 50 mph, they fuel economy will be much less than the EPA test results. This also mean that I do NOT see any car, aimed at the General population, getting better fuel economy at speeds over 50 mph. If you believe you are getting better fuel efficiency at higher speeds I would check the calculation, something is wrong, for GM and the other auto makers are NOT going to put themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to getting the highest EPA mileage they can, and that is achieved at 50 mph.

Personally I suspect you are operating the Trans Am at high speeds (It is a Sports car), and as such NOT keeping it around 50 mph except for brief periods when the engine is accelerating or De-accelerating. Thus when you operate the Car at 50 mph your car is NOT going at a steady pace at that speed, by speeding up to a higher speed. Acceleration ALWAYS require more power than keeping a car at a set pace (And in a Trans Am, 50 mph feels like you are standing still). I suspect when the Trans Am was tested, it was tested like any other car by the EPA with slow acceleration and slow de-acceleration. Something no one driving an Trans Am does (and most drivers do NOT do no matter what car they are driving). Given the above if you want maximum Fuel Economy you should for the engine/Transmission combination as it was probably designed by GM for its best fuel economy, i.e. at 50 mph for at that speed, and only at that speed are you operating the car in the matter that reflects the EPA tests WHICH ALL CARS MUST GO THROUGH.

In simple term a speed limit, if obeyed by most people, will save a good bit of oil, but it will require the price of oil to be much higher than it is now, especially given the hostilely in this thread to the mean idea of reducing the speed limit.

[CRF450]

35. Its true that the EPA does their tests at 50mph,

And thats why the sticker mpg is rated lower than what these cars are capable of. You say "drive at the highest gear at the lower rpm" well, that would be between 60 and 65mph for my car, thats how its geared. If you ever drive an LS1 f-body, or a 97+ Vette with a 6 speed, you will fully realise how tall these cars are geared. I'v done 135mph in 6th gear and the engine was only running around 3000rpms! It couldn't really pull anymore because of the wind resistance and it wasn't quite in its powerband. The 4 speed auto's can get their good fuel milage at lower speeds.

"This is harder to do with Automatics since most will shift down WAY before you would have to if the transmission was Manual."

They do that mostly because of the torq converter. They have a certain stall speed at which the engine revs up to before it transfers power from the engine to the transmission. Usually its around 2000rpms for most vehicles, or a little bit more. Its like if your just moving along at 35mph constantly, it'll stay in 2nd gear, let off the gas, it'll drop into 3rd gear. Get back on the gas, it'll drop back down to 2nd gear. Thats just how it is with auto's.

[hunter]

23. It was loathesome.

I've only had two tickets in my life, both for exceeding the 55 mph speed limit. Both were in the Southwest on perfectly flat desert highways in good weather with no other cars either in front of me or in back for at least a mile, and far away from any cities or towns. In both cases I was going about 70 mph in small four cylinder cars that got at least 30 mpg at that speed.

It seems to me unfair that someone driving a small fuel efficient vehicle has to suffer the same irritation as a guy driving a monster vehicle getting half the milage.

What we really need to do is think of ways of getting cars and trucks off the road entirely. One of the first things we should consider is installing high speed electric rail service between large urban centers currently linked by highways and short flights. Downtown-to-downtown service between cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco would keep a lot of cars off the road and a lot of planes out of the sky. The electricity that powered the trains could be produced from entirely domestic energy sources.

We could also electrify much of the existing railroad network, and transport more by goods by rail and less by truck, which would also reduce oil imports.

A 55 mph speed limit is like trying to put a little band-aid on a big artery that's been slashed open. You're not going to slow the bleeding enough to do any good.

On edit: I very much like the idea of lowering the speed limit on city streets. It would make the streets much more friendly to everyone -- pedestrians, bicycles, mopeds, and small lightweight cars.

[lfairban]

24. Please, cue Sammy Hagar . . .

. . . I Can't Drive 55!

[Kolesar]

27. Lock him in the trunk where I can't hear him...eom

[krkaufman]

29. Ha! It just so happens that I decided to make my drive home this weekend at 55mph ...

... and averaged just over 55MPG for my test 114 miles, with my cruise control set at 56mph. (2006 Prius) (I was able to inch it up to 56.1MPG overall, by taking the last mile-ish of local driving at 22mph, in electric-only mode.)

Unfortunately, I haven't done any testing at the higher limits of 65 or 75mph, so the above isn't of much value. I was just happy to get 5MPG over the advertised highway rate of 50.

Barring some lack of planning, I'll be trying to max-out on the highway at 55mph from now on.

[krkaufman]

30. Like with replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs...

... it's a simple step that everyone can take to make an immediate difference.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.