Forget the political tussle over Corporate Average Fuel Economy legislation. Business Week's Ed Wallace has the solution to all our energy problems: lower the speed limit. Wallace says if we dropped the highway speed limits to 60 mph and "rigidly enforced them," America "would save 96,135,846 gallons of gasoline each and every week." The scribe also states "this single action could resolve our energy problems in seven working days." Mr. Wallace only mentions Ye Olde National Maximum Speed Law of 1974 in passing, even though the legislation introduced the term "double nickel" into the lexicon and put Richard Nixon and Sammy Hagar at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum. Maybe that's because the national limit didn't save gas. The [admittedly conservative] Heritage Foundation reckons the law reduced gas consumption by one percent, although God knows the ticket revenue was (is?) phenomenal.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Wallace hosts a call-in radio show, er, program in our area every Saturday. He really seems to be a big shill for several car dealerships in the area…somebody will call in and ask for advice and Wallace will tell them to go see my good buddy @sales_manager at @car_dealership. I can hardly stand to listen to him any more. The only sensible thing that I’ve heard him say was that E85 was pretty much a sham.
*snort* The speed limit on all of the interstates in/around Atlanta is 55 already. I don’t see many people “conserving gas,” if you catch my drift. Cops have better things to do than write speeding tickets all day long.
Cars are much more efficient at 55mph than at 70mph. If you could get people to drive at that speed, it would save gas.
You can argue that rigid enforcement is too expensive, or that it’s worth it to our busy lives to get there faster even at the cost of more gas.
But let’s not pretend that slower speeds wouldn’t save us a significant fraction of gas. I don’t know where Heritage Foundation gets its 1% figure — maybe using 1986 car technology, or maybe they assume that people really didn’t slow down that much from the new speed limits — but it’s more in the neighborhood of 10%.
I don’t know where Heritage Foundation gets its 1% figure
I’m not normally inclined to turn to the Heritage Foundation for guidance, but in this case, they are slightly understating how ineffective the speed limit was.
In 1973, the year before the imposition of the 55 mph limit, Americans drove approximately 1.313 trillion miles and used 99.58 billion gallons of gasoline, resulting in one gallon being used for every 13.2 miles driven. In 1975, the first full year of having a 55 mph limit (states spent the early part of 1974 transitioning), Americans drove 1.327 trillion miles and used 99.83 billion gallons of gasoline, resulting in a national mpg of 13.3. The resulting improvement: a whopping 0.9%. (You can get the vehicle mileage info from NHTSA, and gasoline usage from the Energy Information Agency.)
Undoubtedly, cars get better fuel economy if driven at 45-55 mph than they do at higher speeds. But that doesn’t mean that a speed limit would be effective. People don’t obey it, and they find ways to evade it.
In any case, many urban areas in the US either already have 55 mph limits or else experience so much traffic that very few drivers are traveling at speeds anywhere near 55 mph during their commutes.
The only results of a lower speed limit would be to generate more ticket revenues for various state and local governments, and to turn more normal citizens into criminals. Ironically, this revenue would be generated largely by guys driving V-8 Crown Victoria’s.
All the “double nickel” did was turn the entire nation into scofflaws. In plain English-there is NO point in trying this because lowering the speed limits won’t work when 99.9% of the driver’s don’t obey the current speed limits, okay?
I read a 1956 road test in an old car magazine where the editor told the testers – go the speed limit, drive the new 1956 Continental Mark II between Chicago and New York on the new throughways/expressways and report.
The testers kept track of how many cars passed them at the speed limits (which varied from 35 to 65, mostly the higher range) and until they got into New York City, I believe they had some 15 people overtake them. New York (ever being an entity into itself) was different. In 5 miles, they had 19 people pass them.
Remember, they were obeying the speed limit. Repeat: Over the vast majority of the trip, they had FIFTEEN PEOPLE pass them.
Get the drift?
The only drift I get is that they weren’t in fact obeying the speed limit… Is that your point?
Everybody seems to be missing the point, which is that if the speed limit were rigidly enforced and obeyed, the fuel saving would be substantial. The only reason the 55-mph limit didn’t save much fuel is that nobody obeyed it.
Everybody seems to be missing the point, which is that if the speed limit were rigidly enforced and obeyed, the fuel saving would be substantial.
The point is that such a level of enforcement is impossible. Drivers tend to drive at speeds at which they are comfortable, irrespective of the speed limit. Speed limits have virtually no effect on driver behavior.
The only way to have this level of enforcement would be to create a police state that no decent freedom-loving people would possibly want.
You could achieve a lot more simply by getting drivers to drive smaller vehicles, and to drive them less often. Find a way to get workers to telecommute 1-2 days per week, and couple that with incentives to buy more efficient vehicles, and you could actually accomplish something.
Average mpg in the US increased over time not because of the speed limit, but because people swapped their land yachts for smaller, lighter vehicles.
I just love having efficiency rammed down my throat. CAFE regulations determining that I don’t need a full-size work truck, California crazy EPA trying to put a catalytic converter on my lawn mower, and now, again people suggesting the government mandate that I putt to work, because other people are complaining about gas prices. Wouldn’t it make more sense to offer incentives for more efficient/less environmental impacting cars and trucks, rather than having bureaucrats guessing at what they think the manufactures can do?
The only way to have this level of enforcement would be to create a police state that no decent freedom-loving people would possibly want.
Then we could be just like Mother England.
I have no interest in discussing whether or not the speed limit can be enforced–that something else entirely–I’m simply saying that there’s a difference between saying, “speed limits don’t save gas” and “going slower doesn’t save gas.” The first is true, the second is false.
I have no interest in discussing whether or not the speed limit can be enforced–that something else entirely
But that’s what the Business Week article suggested — a law. Why propose a law if there’s no way to make it workable?
Further proof, as if any were needed, that no bad political idea, no matter how stupid, useless, or unworkable, ever goes away.
This government is obsessed with take, take, and more take. More fines, higher taxes, harsher penalties. The beatings will continue until compliance is acheived. Resistance, futility, and something about a British frenchman man named Locutus.
But that’s what the Business Week article suggested — a law. Why propose a law if there’s no way to make it workable?
To make yourself feel better and believe you made a difference.
Yes, dean, that was exactly the point.
I obtained a nice 5-over ticket about 6 years ago, and was so incensed (because obviously 5 over is well within “the norm”) and also truly PO’d because at the time I was not “flush” with money, and had to pay out a couple hundred dollars doing something everyone else did – I said – FINE. I can obey the speed limit and the “random tax” of several hundred dollars won’t trouble me again.
So, for more than 1/2 a decade, I’ve tried very hard to obey the speed limit. (Except near Detroit where 80-85 is either what you drive, you you die).
Well, you’ve never seen so many p*ssed off people in all your life.
I truly think that 99.9% of the U.S. population “CANNOT” obey rules of the roadway, and I don’t just mean speeding, brother.
Tailgating is rampant (and it is virtually the same as when I drove 5 over; if someone’s a jackass tailgater, they tailgate EVERYONE no matter the speed they’re going).
Nobody seems to realize what stop signs mean any longer.
Perhaps it isn’t only that the morals of drivers 1/2 century ago were better than now – my uncle told me he got nabbed by a speed trap in a (ahem) southern state which shall go unnamed, in the 1950’s, and it was a $200 fine. He was literally hauled in front of a “judge” and jailed until he could come up with the money. $200 1/2 century ago is kind of like $2000 now.
As for driving fast, I prefer the track, thanks.
Speed limits are the most frequent traffic law. Most roads are littered with many speed limit signs.
If the most common traffic law is obviously grossly conservative, what will drivers think of all other traffic laws, including the rare speed limit that really does mean “maximum safe speed under ideal conditions”?
glenn126 answers my question perfectly:
I truly think that 99.9% of the U.S. population “CANNOT” obey rules of the roadway, and I don’t just mean speeding, brother.
Mass obedience will never happen when the #1 law, and the #1 enforced law, is usually bunk.
As for driving fast, I prefer the track, thanks.
No need for pejorative comments. It is almost always perfectly reasonable and prudent to drive faster than the limit.
It’s interesting, novasource, that at one point in our nation’s past – probably 99% of the drivers not only “could” but “did” obey the speed limits as well as humanly possible. We’re talking as late as the 1950’s and early 1960’s here, okay?
Hence my point that I believe part of the reason we have become a nation of scofflaws, is because the 55 mph speed limit put into place in the 1970’s was too big of a change, too fast, for the public to accept and instead, people began to disregard the law en mass – which meant the police could not possibly ticket everyone – which meant respect for the law went straight out the window. Because, “nobody” obeyed speed limits.
Also I think that the general malaise of the populace and cynicism of the Nixon era also had something to do with it, as well as the culture change that came about starting in about 1963, commonly known as the era of hippies, drugs, sex and rock and roll.
A culture can change, and generally does with time – but not always for the better. How it changes in one area usually has some effect elsewhere. Kind of like squeezing a (filled) balloon.
My other point is this. There is no point in putting a 60 mph speed limit, as nobody obeys the limits now out there which are higher than 60.
If the ruling elite want to control us and make us obey “their rules” (which they always exclude themselves from somehow), they’ll have to go about it with governors on cars controlled by GPS, which only allow cars to go the speed limit. I’ve actually seen that this is technically possible while reading car-stuff on the web, and
-it’s probably only a matter of time-
By the way, novasource, what gives you the idea that “It is almost always perfectly reasonable and prudent to drive faster than the limit.”
From a legal perspective, neither you nor I nor anyone has any right to go over a speed limit, period. From a moral perspective, ditto. From a state licensed bureau and police perspective, same. When we sign on our driver’s license, we’re indicating that the license is valid within the rules of the state and other states – in other words, we are making a signed sworn statement that we’ll obey the rules of the road – which includes the speed limit.
Technically speaking, that is.
Yet virtually none of us are capable of doing so in reality. But this does not mean we have the right to break the law, nor does it really truly make it “prudent” or “reasonable”. Sorry.
Just saying something doesn’t really make it so. Or we could all just say “I’m a millionare now” and shazam…. money galore. Right?
Of course this point out another fatal flaw in our culture. Virtually all of us now thinks that we can do whatever we please without taking responsibility for our actions, and that there is no ultimate truth – just everyone’s versions of what they want to think is “their” truth.
It’s interesting, novasource, that at one point in our nation’s past – probably 99% of the drivers not only “could” but “did” obey the speed limits as well as humanly possible. We’re talking as late as the 1950’s and early 1960’s here, okay?
Says who? Where’s the data? I don’t believe it.
Texas had a 60 mph speed limit until 1963. My dad remembers one of his middle school teachers complaining how ridiculously slow that was.
But say it was true. Could it have something to do with wheezy carubreted engines on tank-like cars that could barely get out of their own way, and an appetite for speed temepred by nonexistent safety equipment or mushy banana-like handling?
…we have become a nation of scofflaws, is because the 55 mph speed limit put into place in the 1970’s was too big of a change, too fast, for the public to accept…
It has nothing to do with 1974. One of the facts that finally killed the 55 was that New York was measuring 95% noncompliance on some roads with 55–in the early 1990s.
There is no point in putting a 60 mph speed limit, as nobody obeys the limits now out there which are higher than 60.
We agree on something. :-)
By the way, novasource, what gives you the idea that “It is almost always perfectly reasonable and prudent to drive faster than the limit.”
Ever notice how in many states, almost all 2 lane roads are 55, almost all 4 lane non-interstate roads are 65, and almost all interstate class roads are 70? (And if it’s not those exact numbers, it’s pretty close.)
That’s because virtually every rural speed limit in this nation exactly matches a number set by a state legislature.
Legislators are not scientists, nor are they engineeers. They cannot possibly determine the safe speed on every road in a state, and even if they tried, they are not competent to do it. But they do it anyway.
The best way to set speed limits is _usually_ to legalize the flow of traffic and only tax the fastest, whose speeds are demonstrably dangerous.
Instead, virtually all modern speed limits cut somewhere in the lower end of the “flow of traffic”, making scofflaws out of half or more drivers. Yes, even 70 mph rural interstate speed limits do this.
But this does not mean we have the right to break the law, nor does it really truly make it “prudent” or “reasonable”. Sorry.
Likewise, a legislator declaring something does not make it so, either.
As for the right to break a law, I’m glad you don’t apply that principle to American revolutionaries or civil rights marchers.
Ever heard the quote “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly”? I think it was Abraham Lincoln? That quote was certainly not given in the context of a society that perfectly followed the letter of the law.
We should never feel we have the right to drive imprudent or unreasonable speeds. But at the same time, we should never feel that arbitrary, uniform speed limits, especially ones not set by qualified traffic engineers, have any real relationship to safety.
It’s interesting, novasource, that at one point in our nation’s past – probably 99% of the drivers not only “could” but “did” obey the speed limits as well as humanly possible. We’re talking as late as the 1950’s and early 1960’s here, okay?
I don’t know where your 99% figure comes from, but assuming that the spirit of the comment is accurate (which it probably is — compliance rates declined with the 55 mph limit), the answer is simple: Highways and cars have improved, which allows for higher speeds to be driven safely, but the laws have not kept apace with the technology.
Since the elimination of the 55/65 limit, compliance with speed limits has increased. Meanwhile, improvements in highway design and vehicle safety equipment make it possible to go faster without repercussions, but US legislators are slow to respond to these real-world changes.
Speed limits are generally best when set based upon the flow of traffic. If limits are being widely violated, the likely culprit is that the limits are too low, not that drivers are going too fast.
Re Pch101:
Speed limits are generally best when set based upon the flow of traffic. If limits are being widely violated, the likely culprit is that the limits are too low, not that drivers are going too fast.
Speed limits are best for the state when they are set to maximize revenue. Everyone is a potential criminal and a revenue source.
Re Mr Wallace at Biz Week…
I really don’t care how much more gas I consume at 75MPH instead of 55MPH. My TIME is worth it.
The whole joke of speed enforcement would be transparent if cell phone companies put info showing average speed on roadways. It would be useful real time traffic jam and safety information.
I’d like for Mr. Wallace to drive from his home in Dallas to El Paso on Interstates 20 and 10 doing 60 mph all the way, then report back on the experience. That is, if his sanity survived the abject boredom that would overtake him after the first hour of the eleven or so hours it would take him at that speed. There’s a good reason some highways have 70 or 80 mph speed limits!
I’d like for Mr. Wallace to drive from his home in Dallas to El Paso on Interstates 20 and 10 doing 60 mph all the way, then report back on the experience. That is, if his sanity survived the abject boredom that would overtake him after the first hour of the eleven or so hours it would take him at that speed. There’s a good reason some highways have 70 or 80 mph speed limits!
Being a Dallas resident and having done much of that journey several times, I can robustly assure you that the current 70 mph limit much of the way is ridiculously slow.
Aside from the boredom and fact that many interstates and cars are designed for speeds in the range of 80-100mph there is the issue of what is your time worth.
As an example driving from Northern to Southern California say 300 miles. At 75mph (the posted speed) it is a 4 hour trip using 12 gallons at 25mpg of $3/gal gas for fuel cost of $36. At the proposed 60mph it is a five hour trip using 10 gallons of gas at 30mpg of $3/gal gas. You saved $6 and lost one hour of your time. Here in California that is less than minimum wage (but more than you are paid for jury duty).
Yes the nation would use less fuel but at a very high cost in lost man hours and productivity. The same type of analysis can be used to demonstrate that more hours of life are lost with lower speed limits than lost through slightly higher fatality rates associated with higher speeds.
As an aside I personally feel that in the western parts of the US Speed limits are to low on limited access roads (interstates) and are too high on many surface streets. No I am not against reasonable speed laws but as someone else stated try driving from Reno to Salt Lake city at the posted speed.
Aside from the boredom and fact that many interstates and cars are designed for speeds in the range of 80-100mph…
htn is actually right. When we say “design speed” of, say, 70 mph, we’re talking about a design speed anticipating really old automotive technology.
One guy found that, strictly interpreting design speed regulations, Interstate highways have a night time design speed of something like 35 or 45 mph due to headlight illumination properties.
If 70 on a given road was safe on cars from the ’60s or so, certainly 80 or higher would be safe today?
Another thing to keep in mind is the design speed of a road is generally the maximum safe speed of a road’s worst feature. So if a nice, long road has a hideous curve in the middle, the road’s design speed is that of the hideous curve.
Yet another scheme to steal from the productive and give to the bratty parasites…Another attempt at achieving material well-being with zero productive effort…Transforming local police into armed IRS agents. Period.
The article and the following comments don’t account for the substitution effect of a 55 MPH speed limit. There are quite a few reasons to believe people will change their behavior when faced with a 55 MPH speed limit. Those changes might further reduce oil (for example: hopping on a train rather than facing 55 MPH highways). However, the 55 MPH limits might increase oil consumption:
* People might drive on the non-highway rural roads which are still at 45 to 50 MPH. The non-constant speeds when dealing with dangerous curves, oncoming traffic, and traffic signals might actually consume more oil than driving a steady-state 75 on highways.
* Out here (Bay Area), many people avoid rush hour, which is a highly-inefficient 35-60 MPH on the highways. But, if you can’t go 80 MPH after rush hour (much more efficient), you might as well join the inefficient mess we have for about 8 hours a day.
* A 4-person road trip from Bay Area to LA consumes 16 gallons of gasoline total in a typical USA sedan. Driving now takes two extra hours. Might as well fly and consume 13 gallons of oil-derived jet fuel per person. Short-distance commercial jets are lucky to get 30 miles per gallon per passenger; many cars going 80 MPH can achieve better than that for the whole vehicle.
On the other hand, the sheer extra waste of time that the slower speed will cause might get people to live closer to work, drive less, or carpool.
I’ve found that you do save a lot of gas driving 65 vs. 80, but last vacation I experimented with 55 over a stretch of road that yielded me 29.3 mpg in 2005 @ 65. The result–29.3. Why waste time going 10 mph slower?
Every car is geared differently; some hunt back and forth between direct and overdrive @ 55 while some stay in overdrive @ that speed. The “hunter”
will actually be less efficient @ 55 than at 65.
One size fits all looks good to no one but intellectually-lazy zero-tolerance types in government.
Hey, our ancestors traveled at three miles per hour, used zero gasoline, and they liked it just fine!
I used to make occasional business trips that took me on a few miles of the original Route 66. The pavement had been kept patched, but otherwise was just like it was in the 1930’s. The limit was 55, which I can assure you was plenty: two-lanes, less than twenty feet from curb to curb (no usable shoulder) and narrower on bridges, and hilly enough to constantly surprise you with intersections, no-passing zones and blind curves. Much better for Model A’s going 30-35 mph.
The truth is that people don’t obey the speed limits. They drive at what they believe to be a safe speed.
To try to force them to en masse is tantamount to reenacting prohibition.
Heck no. I run 70mph down the interstate twice a day for 20 miles and I wish it was 75. I wish the turnpike was 80 considering we pay to drive on that road.
I would certainly support a 55 mph speed limit. It’s safer, easier on the car, easier on gas, easier on tires, and I like my car, so I don’t mind spending a couple of extra minutes in it. It usually doesn’t add much time anyway. I liked to drive 90 mph when I was 20, but I have a considerably better attention span and appreciation for more simpler pleasures now that I’m an old guy (28)!
Enforcement certainly changes behavior. California has some of the most lax traffic law enforcement of the highly populated states and our roads have become lawless anything goes areas. Any day on the local highway 9 a driver is certain to be passed on the double yellows on tight mountain roads by motorcycles doing at least 20 MPH over the limit. I’ve never seen one of these folks ticketed.
Forget lowering the speed limits, just enforce the existing ones!
I have a VW Golf 4 cyl engine car – good on gas to begin with. I get about 30 mpg in mixed driving, including highway driving up to about 80 or 85 hph.
When i drive at 55 on the highway, my combined milage improves to about 38-40 mpg. So it works.
However, it is difficult to travel at 55 in a little car when huge SUV’s and pickups are flying past you at 90 mph.
I cannot imagine that folks in these monster vehicles are not going the speed limit and saving gas- they must be nuts. Of course, you must be nuts to get one of these vehicles in the first place.
I say let the marketplace decide. I would prefer more gas taxes, but thats never gonna happen. If folks insist on getting 10 miles per gallon, good for them. I prefer to spend my money other ways.
and…
some of the arguments here about speeding sound like the arguments about smoking. Thats it’s a smokers god given right to poison the air i breathe because its a free country.
Speeding is already against the law, whether it’s supposed to be or not is another question. But there is no god given or constitutional right to go at breakneck speeds on public highways. It is dangerous, most people cannot drive worth a damn (as evidenced by all the tailgating i see at 85mph). We should want our highways to be safer, not more dangerous. I think we loose about 40,000 people a year to accidents? We might also reduce that number by slowing down a little.
So two good things, less fuel and safer roads. No wonder there’s so much rancor there. Who in their right mind would want that? I suppose it makes more sense to use all the fuel everywhere and endanger the lives of everyone on the road so you can get to your destination 10 minutes early.
Well said, jerseydevil.
Just last evening on my 15 mile commute (no interstates, mostly 2 lane) my wife and I had some idjit woman in a Ford minivan pulled RIGHT out in front of us, crossing traffic (us) to make a left turn in a 55 zone. I “tested” my horn and brakes, and of course – she simply leaned on her horn as we (barely) missed her. Like, she’s mad at me for honking her ignoramus move?!
Then on the way to work just this morning, I had some woman in a Jeep Cherokee tailgating so close that I figured she would simply run over the top of our Prius if I had to hit the anchors. Say, for a deer (we DO live in northern Michigan, you see).
She finally gave up trying to intimidate my cruise control, passed me, and tailgated the Prius in front of us, who in turn tailgated the guy with a trailer in front of him. Real smart move, huh? The guy in the pickup with the trailer was so unimpressed that at the next red light, he took off and only drove 45 until these morons passed him finally, then went up to 60.
Finally, Canada is clamping down on street racing and extreme speeding (about time – I’ve driven the 402 and was passed like I was standing still by Canadians because I was following THEIR speed limit).
http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=06e8318a-d98c-4523-b4d9-6126179476a8
As a final final note, if folks want to go faster on the roadways, why not elect people who promise to raise the speed limits? I’m sure you’ll have the same good luck as the rest of us with politicians and political promises.
At what point will big brother start using the technology readily available (RF tech and electronic governors) to not limit but control our speed. Then there would be no need to enforce (except for the occasional old car, which they will outlaw to keep the greenies happy) They could easily use existing EZ Pass or other automated toll taking technology to limit the speed on sections of highway. You enter a section and governor is set to speed, you leave and it is reset. Don’t think it can’t or won’t happen, just when.
Speeding is already against the law, whether it’s supposed to be or not is another question. But there is no god given or constitutional right to go at breakneck speeds on public highways.
You’re badly missing a point.
Yes, driving an unsafe speed is not and should not be legal.
However, few speed limits indicate the maximum safe speed. There is a zone–sometimes a gulf–between the maximum safe speed and the speed limit.
Be careful with the distinction, otherwise, you reinforce the validity of arbitrary government restrictions.
There is already a mechanism in place to offer incentives to people who drive slower and therefore (in theory) more efficiently: the price of gasoline. People that really care about how much they spend gas should jump at the chance to save a few bucks by driving more efficiently. However, while most people complain about the price of gas, it doesn’t bother them enough to drive slower. Put another way, they make the decision that the extra time it would take to get anywhere is not worth the savings.
I suppose you could argue that there is another, related mechanism in place that does the same thing: gas taxes. I live in the tax-hell known as Wisconsin, where the gas tax is the highest in the country ($0.329 per gallon). It doesn’t seem to have slowed people here down any (all the idiots doing 55 in the left lane notwithstanding). The gas tax could double and people wouldn’t slow down. But hey, it would make Al Gore happy, anyway.
Not that I’m suggesting the government do any such thing, since they have no business messing around in the marketplace anyway. I’m just saying that there are already measures in place which should be encouraging people to conserve fuel, but so far haven’t reached the point where enough people really take notice.
There is already a mechanism in place to offer incentives to people who drive slower and therefore (in theory) more efficiently: the price of gasoline. People that really care about how much they spend gas should jump at the chance to save a few bucks by driving more efficiently. However, while most people complain about the price of gas, it doesn’t bother them enough to drive slower. Put another way, they make the decision that the extra time it would take to get anywhere is not worth the savings.
The problem, as someone else already pointed out (and which I independently calculated a long time ago), is even with $3 or higher gas, the value of time saved far exceeds the cost of extra gas unless your time is worth much less than the minimum wage. People who save time by speeding up could be making rational choices.
Wow, not even the speed limit set by Einstein is safe any more.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml
I appreciate all of you that took the time to write and post your comments. I should also point out that in my article I said that I would not care for this solution either.
A couple of quick points.
1. There is a great deal of “quiet” discussion going on today that suggests the only way to lower our gas consumption is by taxing our fuel in a European manner. Not to mention all who believe that “congestion” pricing is the best way to get people out of their automobiles.
2. As for the stats on how much gasoline was saved by the first laws passed in 1975, the figure of saving 1% in overall fuel usage is not entirely accurate. -Because it fails to account for anything but a static amount of automobiles on our highways. In fact, 1975 marked the first year of an improved economy after a devastating recession caused by the first energy crisis. Additionally, we also had another year of a large mass of Baby Boomers entering the workforce and buying their first automobile. At the same time, the suburbs expanded in major cities. Therefore, we had more cars on the road, driving more miles and a 1% savings in gasoline usage. Finally, using that 1% savings on the amount of gasoline we use today—that is a substantial number.
3. What is long forgotten is that today our GDP is twice as large on a per barrel of oil used, so we are incredibly more oil efficient in our economy. That being said, ethanol has not solved anything. In fact, it seems to have made the pricing of gasoline even more erratic and while I don’t believe that Peak Oil has happened, there’s little doubt in my mind that a decade from now the volatility of oil pricing is going to get worse.
Then where are we going to be?
Thanks again for everyone who cared enough to join the debate on what we should do next.
Ed Wallace
As for the stats on how much gasoline was saved by the first laws passed in 1975, the figure of saving 1% in overall fuel usage is not entirely accurate. -Because it fails to account for anything but a static amount of automobiles on our highways. In fact, 1975 marked the first year of an improved economy after a devastating recession caused by the first energy crisis.
Mr. Wallace, I do hope that you realize that it is impossible for your comment to be accurate.
The figure that I provided above was derived simply by calculating by dividing total miles driven by total fuel usage. That’s it.
For your comment to be accurate, you’d have to be suggesting that the entire pool of vehicles that were on US roads in 1973 had been replaced by 1975 with vehicles that were, on the whole, at least 20% more inefficient than the ones in 1975. Assuming that the composition of the pool of cars on the road in 1975 wasn’t all that different from the ones two years before (surely, not everyone in 1975 tossed out their old cars and bought new ones), you’d have us believe that the new cars added to our roads in 1974-5 were getting about 2 miles per gallon in order for them to pull down the numbers that much, while the overall fleet was getting 20% better fuel economy thanks to your speed limit. Obviously, that’s absurd.
And since 1973 was the beginning of the gas crunch, when small cars sales began to increase, it’s actually more likely that the 1% improvement came largely from a few gas guzzlers being replaced by smaller cars, and not from travel speeds. So it’s quite possible that the speed limit reduction saved no fuel at all.
There are several problems with your suggestion. I’ll just mention a few basic ones:
(a) Most vehicle miles are not driven on highways at cruising speeds. Most of the country’s mileage is already driven on roadways and streets with speed limits of 60 mph or less. So a speed limit reduction, even if it was honored, would not impact most of the driving that consumes gasoline in the US.
(b) Drivers don’t tend to obey speed limit reductions, particularly on highways, as most drivers will drive at a speed which they find to be comfortable and prudent. Given that design speeds of interstate-level highways are typically 70-80 mph (based upon 1950’s vehicle technology), that comfort level is not at lower speeds such as 55 mph, so those limits will be universally ignored. Compliance with the 55 mph limit was often as low as 10% during the 1970’s and 80’s, one doubts that it would get any better today. Lowering the limits simply makes it easier to give tickets (and the tickets end up being random, as everyone becomes a violator), but doesn’t change actual driving speeds.
(c) Targeting enforcement on Interstate-grade highways simply pushes more traffic onto secondary roads where enforcement is lighter. If some traffic is diverted to using secondary roads which require more braking, starting and stopping, than the end result of a lower speed limit may be to encourage some drivers to use the types of roadways that lead to inferior fuel economy.
What ultimately increased average fleet mpg in the US was the move during the 1970’s and 1980’s from large, heavy cars to smaller, more efficient cars. More consumers will respond to higher fuel prices than they will to lower speed limits.
edwallace: Thanks for joining us on this forum Mr. Wallace. You're always welcome to post your comments here on this and other topics. "I should also point out that in my article I said that I would not care for this solution either." Now, the above comment clearly suggests that we misrepresented your editorial. That your article was merely a theoretical exploration of the possibility of a reduced national speed limit, which you oppose. After re-reading the article carefully, it seems pretty clear that it was a lot more more than idle speculation (so to speak). To wit: "These two programs alone would go a long way toward furthering our energy security, while giving most individuals a better lifestyle. Implementing them would end the charade of the ethanol promise, allow people to buy whatever vehicle they felt most comfortable in and push back the date of peak oil for our children and grandchildren. Not to mention that lowering the speed limit would save lives." That 'graph (second to last) doesn't sound like a refutation of the original thesis to me. What's more, you conclusion says you wouldn't like the limits, not that you oppose them. "On the downside, futures traders won't like it, the corn and ethanol lobbies won't like it, and I sincerely doubt that at first the public will like mandated and enforced lower speed limits. In fact, I won't like them either. But in the end they'll get us where America is going anyhow; and moving faster toward the future has always been our driving national passion." If you've backed away from the idea of a [reduced] national speed limit, why not simply say so clearly and without equivocation? In case you haven't noticed, we here at TTAC value candor above all else.
Robert,
First, let me say you are very gracious to have posted my article on your site and it’s obvious that the success of your website brings a spirited debate to this issue.
However, I was not backing away from my position on reducing the speed limits by saying, “I won’t like it either” in my Businessweek article.
I was simply saying that I am personally as guilty as anyone for driving above the posted speed limits.
As for the comment from another reader that the 1975 cars were 20% more efficient than their 1973 counterpart, not true.
I know, as I was in the business during that period. The Oldsmobile Cutlass was then rated at 8.9 mpg in town, while the Toronado was rated at 5.9 mpg. (Lowest mileage of any volume vehicle sold in America in those years.)
GM’s started their downsizing programs in 1977 and while Ford introduced a few new vehicles in that period, they were primarily stuck with the same full sized vehicles they had sold in prior years.
I am also interested in the argument that only higher priced gas will alter our driving habits. However, gas has doubled in the past four years and so far—reduced gasoline consumption has not materialized.
Like you and your readers, I too have a passion for the American way of life and our personal mobility—I simply want to buy us some time for oil supplies to better catch up with demand so we can keep our personal automotive freedoms alive.
Finally, if one recalls all of the media reporting from this summer on our refinery problems and so on as the primary reason for the continued high price for gasoline and oil, even a small percentage improvement in our overall national fleet’s fuel economy during this summer driving season likely would have been enough to roll back the futures market for these products.
Let me reference my May 10th article on the then upcoming summer driving season.
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/may2007/bw20070510_630346.htm?chan=search
One will notice that article took a lot of negative hits also. Now that the summer driving season is over—my position was not off the mark at all.
Robert, thanks again for your website and your readers for enlarging the national discussion on how we should proceed forward. I wish others had the love of automobiles that drive you and your audience.
Ed Wallace
As for the comment from another reader that the 1975 cars were 20% more efficient than their 1973 counterpart, not true.
That is not at all what I said.
Once again: You are trying to claim that it was possible to simultaneously have seen a 20% increase in fuel economy due to the speed limit decrease in 1974, yet see an actual gain in overall fuel usage of less than 1%, because the cars purchased in 1974 were drastically more inefficient than those sold in prior years.
Your claim is statistically impossible and cannot be true. A simple exercise with a calculator makes it clear that it is simply not possible for your argument to be true. There is no way that the cars purchased in 1974-75 were so much more inefficient than the cars that preceded them that it would have been possible to offset a 20% less fuel usage gained from the speed limit reduction. Absolutely, utterly impossible.
If you are going to make such a claim, I’d like to see how you calculated it. An anecdote about an Oldsmobile will not cut it.
What’s even worse is the naivete behind this proposal. For this maybe 1% gain, what are the costs?
-Decreased respect for all traffic laws, which in turn could cause increases in dangerous, aggressive driving, increased disrespect for the entire body of law, and increases in dangerous speeds in areas where the speed limit may really mean it (if one becomes accustomed to x mph undermarked rural speed limits, what’s to prevent him from assuming that non-undermarked speed limits really aren’t undermarked?)
-Decreased respect for traffic enforcement and affiliated personnel.
-Societal acceptance of arbitrary behavior restrictions.
-Unilateral focus on speed enforcement, at the detriment of enforcing more important traffic laws.
-Use of photo ticketing. (Just watch!)
-Theft of personal property (in the form of revenue generated from traffic tickets).
Etc.
No, thank you.
If we really need to reduce gas consumption, we need to shift income taxes to gas taxes and keep doing it until consumption is where we want it.
To follow on to the earlier point, perhaps a numeric example would be helpful here.
Let’s pretend for a moment that the speed limit reduction led to a 20% increase in average fuel economy. Let’s pretend further still that 20% of the cars on the road in 1973 were completely eliminated by 1975 and replaced by gas guzzlers that could offset the fuel economy gains from the rest of fleet. (This is a scenario similar to what Mr. Wallace is effectively claiming.)
This is what the math looks like:
-80% of the fleet used to get 13.2 mpg. With the 55 mph limit, it is getting 15.8 mpg.
-But the average overall fuel economy was 13.3 mpg.
-Backing into that 13.3 mpg figure, the remaining 20% of cars would need to be getting 3.1 mpg.
This scenario of 20% of Americans suddenly driving cars getting 3 mpg is obviously a fantastic, impossible scenario, particularly when you remember that small cars became increasingly popular beginning in 1974 because of the fuel crisis of that time. Are you asking us to believe that the increased sales of Vegas, Pintos, Datsun 510’s, Corollas, etc. further offset by other cars getting 1/2 mile per gallon?
Again, a speed limit reduction this is disobeyed and not applicable to most of our roadways will do nothing to help overall fuel economy. While individuals can achieve some savings by reducing speeds, the overall benefit will not be that high and cannot be imposed by law. Getting people to drive less and to drive more efficient vehicles are the only viable solutions.
I.C.E. designs, operational efficiencies, gearbox ratios, and vehicle body aerodynamic profiles have changed markedly since the early 1970’s. What made sense then, from an efficiency standpoint, is no longer true. A new 4 cylinder 2007 Honda Civic is actually most efficient at 64 miles per hour, not the 45-55 mph range typical for a 1973 V-8 Impala.
Further, a recent Georgia DOT survey found that fully 87% of motorists on Georgia’s highways routinely disobeyed the posted speed limits. Any law that nearly 9/10 people ignore cannot be enforced.