Want to save the equivalent of 30 cents a gallon on gas? The Detroit News says anyone can realize those savings if they just drive five miles per hour slower than usual. In fact, Department of Energy researcher David Greene estimates you could save $12 by driving 10 mph slower on a 500-mile trip. The tradeoff: it would add one hour to the trip (that you'll never get back). Don't get too overly zealous with your penny-pinching, though. The AAA warns that driving slower than 55 when the rest of the traffic is zooming past at 70 – 75 is "a recipe for a potential crash." Drivers in some states won't have to worry about that, though– Alabama, Michigan, Minnesota and Vermont are in various stages of considering bills to lower the speed limits on highways, in some cases to 55 mph. We're monitoring sales of CB radios…
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Well, at least this time around we have the Valentine One.
You know what? Going 90km/h instead of 120km/h does save gas. It saves even more has when the average North American vehicle has all the aerodynamics of a half-brick.
The truth hurts, doesn’t it?
This is one of the little things you can do to save power. Of course, exercising this kind of collective responsibility is tantamount to communism.
I drove between 65 and 67 on a recent trip and the odd thing was that people were following me, especially on the NY thruway. There are a lot of giant pickups and SUVs sticking to the speed limit these days on the highway. Some vehicles were actually going below 65. It’s just like after Katrina hit, except fuel prices aren’t likely to go back down any time soon, or ever.
1 hour of my time> $12 bucks. Especially on an 8 hour drive.
toxicroach
Word.
Hours 1-4 = $6-$8/hr
Hours 5-7 = $10-$12/hr
Hours 8-14 = $15+/hr
Maybe that explains my progressive increase in speed on long trips.
KEEP IT VOLUNTARY! 55 was and would again be an ineffective law. I used violate it just to get some sense of mental attentiveness and fight the boredom.
It is my understanding that only 2% of the overall road mileage in the USA has a limit higher than 55 already.
It is a lowest common denominator nanny state dumb everyone down measure.
There are far better methods and means to reduce fuel use than a simplistic “magic number”
German Autobahns are living proof that the “differential in speeds leads to accidents” is a falsehood.
Drive whatever speed you like, simply keep right except to pass.
I have been slowing down lately, but when my annual road trip comes up late this summer, the cruise will be set at 85.
I hope this is OK to mention here that there is a lobbying group that helped overturn the 55. National Motorists Association.
If anybody out there thinks 55 is a good idea, fine, just please don’t be a control freak and attempt to legally coerce or compel me to be like you.
Going 90km/h instead of 120km/h does save gas.
Sure. But the cops in the Crown Vics going 90 mph to catch up with the “speeders” (i.e. every driver on the road once the speed limit is 55 mph) negate any of the savings.
It does not follow that imposing a lower speed limit will actually save fuel. It didn’t work last time, and it won’t work now.
If our governments had any testicular fortitude, they would create incentives to save by increasing the fuel tax. If it costs more, people will figure out how to save it on their own, without interference from law enforcement.
If the motivation is to save fuel, then instead of slowing people down, the goal should be the opposite — to get traffic to stop idling. Unless you drive a hybrid, your worst fuel economy is achieved in slow stop-and-go traffic, not at highway speeds.
Back in the mid-to-late ’70s, the peole I knew who
bought the then-rare imported cars with 5th-gear overdrive or the the domestics with 4th-gear overdrive were the biggest complainers about double-nickel because they couldn’t stay in overdrive on hills at such a low speed and actually got less mileage at 55 than at 65.
When 55 first passed Congress, the typical American car with a V-8 and 3-speed automatic did get better mileage @ 55, but the early down-sizers found that what was true of one class of car wasn’t true of all.
My own recent experience with 55 vs 65 in my Aztek, over the same exact route both times yielded 29.3 mpg both times. I’d just as soon get to my destination earlier if there’s nothing to be gained in fuel economy and the the transmission “hunts” far less between 3rd and 4th @ 65 than @ 55. I encourage everyone else to do his/her own experimentation with different speeds, as every car is geared differently. Some may actually save money @ 55, but more will probably keep the engine in the right part of the torque curve @ higher speeds, with less wear-and-tear on the transmission.
The only real beneficiaries of 55 will be local government collecting undeserved ticket revenue while calling their bald-faced cash grab “enviro-friendly” and “pro- energy independence”.
If it costs more, people will figure out how to save it on their own, without interference from law enforcement.
Unfortunately, try running for office with the position of letting people use common sense with their own finances. Especially when it concerns gas prices, something that the vast majority of the voting public is clueless about other than a daily ‘Woman Sells Sex for Gas’ headline.
Wanna go 55 and save gas? Fine. Stay in the right lane and you’re welcome to go that speed.
As for changing the limit, HELL NO. An hour of my time is worth far far more than $12. In addition, if I feel I am willing to pay the extra fuel cost, let me. Heck, I’m actually HELPING to pay more fuel taxes to help maintain the roads.
With the unpopularity of 55mph, how the hell could it ever come back? It would be just as worthless again, and only succeed in creating more violators out of otherwise good drivers.
I can’t stand knee-jerk reactions like this. In fact, I’m amazed at how many states don’t already have 75 or 80mph limits. Just yesterday I’m on I40 in rural Tennessee, 70 mph. 80 would have been no prob.
Again, its probably more about the revenue than any sort of safety or fuel savings. Govts are hurtin for cash and this is an easy way to get more of it. Meanwhile besides fines, we then have to pay the insurance companies for our “unsafe” driving. You mean to tell me I used to do 70 on this road and was a good driver, but now I do 70 on the same road but my insurance rates will go up because now i’m “speeding”?
I’m getting more and more fed up with the government as every day goes by. Chalk up another one.
As a last rant, why why why why why is it always speeding? I’ll see guys cuttin lanes, tailgating horribly, not using blinkers, etc, yet the only thing that ever gets fined is the G-D speeding.
Pch101 :
Sure. But the cops in the Crown Vics going 90 mph to catch up with the “speeders” (i.e. every driver on the road once the speed limit is 55 mph) negate any of the savings.
It does not follow that imposing a lower speed limit will actually save fuel. It didn’t work last time, and it won’t work now.
I think people want to have their cake and eat it to: they want to speed, but they want safe highways in which to do so. You can’t have safe highways and speeding without enforcement.
Personally, I’m of the opinion that police enforcing speed limits is a waste of resources. Speed cameras can do the same thing without costing fuel or dollars, and they free up officers for “real” policing. If speeding is a revenue generator, then by all means let the machines do it.
Allow me to float this idea:
* Allow unrestricted limits where it’s safe to do so (empty interstate)
* Put up (lots of) cameras to catch violations where limits apply (in-city highways, B roads)
* Use officers to enforce lane discipline and other safe driving behaviours (signalling, safe loading, proper maintenance)
Which pretty much describes how Europe in general (and Germany in particular) does it. Of course, it actually means more, if different, regulation and enforcement.
I think it’s a good idea, but it needs to be policed in a European fashion (consistent enforcement, without exception) rather than in a North American way (blitzes, revenue generation targets).
psarhjinian
You know what? Going 90km/h instead of 120km/h does save gas.
And going 30km/h saves more gas than going 90km/h. At what point do you draw the line?
That’s a good point PCH.
I’d be willing to bet more fuel is used by cars putting along on LA freeways every day than is used by all the cars going 80-85 instead of 60 on I5.
That would be an interesting study actually. But a blanket 55 for everyone sounds good on paper. Just like CAFE…
55 is just a bad idea in the 21st century with modern 5-6-7-8 speed transmissions and force inducted engines.
Let speed be determined by thy gas pedal the thou pump price.
Although one thing I really like in europe is the speed limits changing to improve traffic flow with the conditions. Keeping the traffic moving improves everyones mpg’s.
It’s an overall terrible idea to try to push highways originally designed for 100 mph (which some of the interstates were) down to virtually 1/2 of that velocity, given that modern cars are far more aerodynamic and geared for speeds of 65-70 mph efficiently.
My wife’s Hyundai Sonata four cylinder (2007) is a good case in point. Despite a four speed automatic (replaced in the 2009 with a five speed automatic), it doesn’t even lock up the torque convertor in 4th gear (top) until 45 mph.
When we drove on a 2300 mile round trip journey to see the Hyundai plant, I pretty well set the cruise at the speed limit, which was pretty much 70 much of the way – and STILL obtained 31 mpg in a car with a 30 mpg Hwy. figure (calculated in the pre-2008, higher EPA numbers, no less) so did better than the EPA suggested I should. Not forgetting the hills and mountains of Tennesee and Kentucky.
Fifty Five is a very poor idea. EXCEPT – maybe for “aerodynamics of a brick” SUV’s and pickup trucks. I can see simply extending the varied speed limit (“70 – Truck speed limit 55”) to them. This would give more dis-incentive for people to use these wasteful devices for car use. (As if 13-15 mpg isn’t dis-incentive enough in an era of $4 – soon $5 – potentially followed by $6 per gallon gasoline).
psarhjnian: I think people want to have their cake and eat it to: they want to speed, but they want safe highways in which to do so. You can’t have safe highways and speeding without enforcement.
Why not? Here in Pennsylvania enforcement on the interstates slacked off about 4-5 years ago. Most people drove 70-80 mph (speed limit was 65 mph), and the roads weren’t filled with carnage.
Ticketing people on limited access highways for exceeding an arbitrary number posted on a sign is no guarantee of improved safety.
You can’t have safe highways and speeding without enforcement.
Actually, you can. There is no correlation between speed limits and fatality rates. High, low, in between, it doesn’t matter much.
Studies show time and time again that speed limits are fairly irrelevant. The signs are generally ignored; most people drive at speeds at which they believe the conditions allow, with only a small minority of drivers strictly adhering to the posted signs.
Safety is enhanced when speed variance is kept to a minimum, and when the faster traffic kept apart from the slower traffic. You get the former by encouraging realistic limits, as low limits increase variance between the minority who obey and the majority who don’t. You get the latter through enforced lane discipline.
Fuel savings and speed limits have no business being paired together. The function of a speed limit is to inform a driver who is unfamiliar with a given roadway of the highest safe speed typical under normal conditions, with the understanding that drivers should adjust as conditions dictate.
Fuel economy is just that. Charge a price that creates the appropriate incentives, and grownups will figure out on their own how to save fuel, because money talks. The economic system does a marvelous job of getting people to moderate their consumption, without any guns, handcuffs and jails needed.
The police don’t work for the Department of Energy. Imposing energy savings programs should not be their problem, particularly when the programs don’t even work.
I agree that speed is only one factor in road safety.
I have personally observed police at checkpoints concentrating on speed violators ignoring those who stay just under the speed limit while running two or more “tempa-spares” on cars with broken lights, or those who don’t have their truck loads properly secured.
I have had tires ruined by crap shed by other vehicles, but someone driving 60 on a road designed for 80 that’s been artificially down-limited to 50 has never cost me a penny.
The original design criterion for the Interstate was safe 75 mph travel by typical 1950s cars with typical 1950s drum brakes, bias-ply tires, squishy-soft suspensions, no electronic braking/handling aids whatsoever, etc.
> Safety is enhanced when speed variance is kept to a minimum, and when the faster traffic kept apart from the slower traffic. You get the former by encouraging realistic limits, as low limits increase variance between the minority who obey and the majority who don’t. You get the latter through enforced lane discipline.
As others have pointed out, there is great variance in speed on the autobahn.
I do agree about lane discipline.
New Jersey’s already dropped the speed limit of the Garden State Parkway down to 55, though I think it has to do more with the state’s financial situation than safety or fuel economy.
I think that “I Can’t Drive 55” is the greatest protest song ever recorded. Just sayin’.
pch101: Charge a price that creates the appropriate incentives, and grownups will figure out on their own how to save fuel, because money talks.
Well, it seems to me it will talk just as well at the gas pump or in court.
We already have a number of people saying they are worth “much more” than a paltry $12/hr.
Let’s say they call it at $50/hr.
If we further assume ~20 mpg, and speeds in the area of 60mph, we have about 3 gallons per hour. Arithmetic says that these people are going to be priced into fuel-economy mode when the price of gas hits $50/3, or about $17/gal.
That would be quite a fuel tax indeed.
If their time-value is only $25/hr, then we get $8.50/gal of gas.
This is European levels of taxation. Think that would fly in the USA?
Probably not. But another option is to pass the 55 law again. If the probability you are caught speeding in one hour is P, then we can arrange a fine F such that
P*F = $50 (or $25 or whatever)
If P = 0.01, then F = $5000. If that seems too high to ‘tolerate’ (which I guess is a way of saying you still want to waste), then one can increase the value of P to values pretty close to 1 with a sufficient number of speed-control robots … which it is important to note did not exist in the 1970’s.
How many robots? ttacgreg says 2% of the roads are >55mph. This is about the total interstate mileage (where some 30% of all miles are in fact driven). The Interstate network in the USA is about 50,000 miles in length. Two robots per mile — one facing each direction) — we get 100,000 of them. At $1000 each, we are talking $100 million dollars, or something like 3% of one days worth of current oil consumption. Curiously, even if these cost estimates are low by factors of 2 or 3 or 5, if this kind of thing saves 10% on fuel, it would still pay its installation cost almost literally over night.
Ticketing people on limited access highways for exceeding an arbitrary number posted on a sign is no guarantee of improved safety.
But this is exactly what, say, Germany does, and it works very well. What I think you mean is that “ticketing people randomly is not a guarantee of safety”. As a parent of a toddler, I can safely say that inconsistent enforcement is the absolute worst way to get the results you want, yes this is exactly how we police speed–and road safety in general.
For all the crowing about the Autobahn and 140km/h+ limits, the reason it works is because the limits:
* Are set, where applicable
* Are obeyed
* Are enforced all the time, not just at the end of the month/quarter or after a media event
In Europe, the limits vary depending on lane, time of day, weather conditions, vehicle class, loading and location. And believe me, you will get busted for violating these.
The problem isn’t speed limits, its the twofold issue of lack of consistent enforcement and lack of accountability on the part of North American drivers. If we were to put in something like a 90km/h limit, with 140+ exceptions on open interstates and such, it’d require a huge change in habits. Maybe this isn’t evident to TTaC posters because we’re sane drivers, but as someone who’s commuted along the 400-level highways in Ontario, I can assure you that removing speed limits would result in a perfect storm of speed, bad enforcement and reckless stupidity.
I’ve often thought menno’s idea was a good one (above). Light trucks get a special exemption from pollution, mileage, and safety (of others); let them go 55 to partially mitigate the effect on society of those exemptions. On the other hand, cars–presumably designed for on-road fast travel–should get an exemption from the 55 limit while adhering to the pollution, mileage, and safety standards.
I like those speed limit signs that have no units. I just pretend they are in the worldwide standard unit of speed. 55 meters per second isn’t so bad. For those on the “English” system, that equates to 123 miles per hour.
55 is just a bad idea in the 21st century with modern 5-6-7-8 speed transmissions and force inducted engines.
Nope. Speed is very much important: the big factor in fuel consumption as you increase speed is wind resistance, not gearing. Even with a modern transmission and forced induction, you cannot violate aerodynamic principles.
This is evident when you start looking at the relative highway fuel efficiency of certain pairs of cars: take the Honda Fit and Civic. The Civic is geared about the same, weighs more and has more power, yet does better on the highway. The reason is the Civic’s slippery shape. As you increase speed, the Civic’s advantage gets even larger.
You could make a car “more slippery” and reduce the effect of speed/air resistance, but you’ll never eliminate it completely, and you’ll soon run up against stylistic and packaging issues.
Or, you know, you could go 90 instead of 120. I save a lot of fuel doing exactly that. And yes, I cruise in the rightmost lane. Other than the time I had a vomitting toddler in the backseat, I just haven’t been in the kind of rush that required me to go faster.
Well, it seems to me it will talk just as well at the gas pump or in court.
It didn’t work before. When everyone becomes a criminal, it just breeds disrespect for the law, not obedience.
Speed limits are ultimately democratic. If people don’t agree with them, they don’t tend to adhere to them. When the limits match the wishes of the people, they tend to have high compliance.
When obedience approaches zero, as it did with the 55 limit in many instances, it’s an indication that the limit is too low, not that drivers are traveling too fast. If enforcement becomes so strict that those who normally avoid encounters with law enforcement are routinely turned into criminals, you can expect a rebellion.
But this is exactly what, say, Germany does, and it works very well.
That isn’t accurate. You are forgetting a key point: It worked well long before there were speed cameras.
The speed cameras didn’t change anything, the fatality trends remain the same. The rates were falling before the cameras, and they are still falling.
Fatality rates have also been falling in countries such as the US that don’t rely on speed cameras. Speed cameras produce revenue, not safety.
One of the goals of traffic engineers should be to encourage drivers to choose limited-access highways over other highway options. Interstates are safer than are typical two- and four-lane roads, due to the lack of intersections and the barriers between opposing traffic.
Excessively low speed limits on Interstate-style highways simply encourage faster drivers to choose the more dangerous conventional roads that have lower enforcement. The types of accidents that are most likely to kill people — front-end collisions and turns across traffic — can be expected to increase.
Zealous regulations often create unintended consequences. Given what happened the last time that we tried this, we really ought to know better, but history teaches us nothing.
psarhjinian: But this is exactly what, say, Germany does, and it works very well.
Sorry, but there is no proof of that. You are leaving out Germany’s MUCH tougher driver license requirements, stricter DUI laws, and stricter vehicle inspection laws. The last is particularly telling…when I visited there in the summer of 2006, I was struck by the absence of clunkers on the road.
psarhjinian: What I think you mean is that “ticketing people randomly is not a guarantee of safety”. As a parent of a toddler, I can safely say that inconsistent enforcement is the absolute worst way to get the results you want, yes this is exactly how we police speed–and road safety in general.
There is no proof that setting an arbitrarily low speed limit – whether consistently or inconsistently enforced – will in any way improve safety. And setting a speed limit to “save fuel” guarantees that it will be set arbitrarily low.
psarhjinian: Nope. Speed is very much important: the big factor in fuel consumption as you increase speed is wind resistance, not gearing. Even with a modern transmission and forced induction, you cannot violate aerodynamic principles.
As Pch101 correctly noted, speed limits should not be set to save fuel. Higher prices will encourage conservation, whether they are imposed through the market (which is what we are now experiencing) or through higher taxes.
As an aside, part of the reason Detroit cars were so lousy in the late 1970s and early 1980s was because of the nationwide 55 mph speed limit. When you have to design cars for 55 mph driving, you don’t have to reach too high.
It’s also interesting to note that during the mid-1970s, GM leadership was on record as SUPPORTING the 55 mph speed limit. Any wonder that the cars were so dreadful?
There’s another downside to slowing down besides losing that hour you’ll never get back. Thanks to time dilation, if you drive for an hour at 80mph, you’ll actually age 67 millionths of a second LESS than if you had driven 55. Longer living through speed!
If 55 passes, let’s organize protests. It’d be pretty easy, just get all the car enthusiasts on the internet organized together, take up all the lanes on our local freeways and drive slowly enough to clog them all to hell. No one gets to work, and the state either gives in or starts issuing summary executions.
Jesus 55, what is with this crap again. It got no where last time except to piss a lot of motorists off and make governments richer with tickets. What is with the government not being able to understand that a persons time has a huge value attached to it.
We are leaving on a family trip up to my parents tonight, 700 miles, all 4 or us and the baby supplies packed into the car. I calculated it and doing 62-65(the car is most efficient at that speed) rather than 75-80 is going to save me all of $30 for the entire round trip and that is with premium gas. It simply isn’t worth the added extra hours of travel time to save that little and have less time at my destination. Plus we are traveling with a 7 week old baby, the less time we all have to spend with him screaming in the car the better, I may find myself pushing 90 if the cops are asleep just to cut an hour or 2 off the trip.
Go 55 or whatever slow speed you like in the right lane but don’t force me to lose precious hours of my already too short life to save a tiny bit of energy. Telecommute or move closer to work you will save far more energy not sitting in traffic.
During much of the 1970s, I drove Triumphs with electrically-actuated overdrive switchable on 3rd and 4th gear. This gave me 6 ratios. Those cars consistently achieved peak highway fuel economy at 68 mph, not 55. All of my time on highways during the dreaded double-nickel highway totalitarianism spasm was spent willfully violating that law.
My current car has a six speed transmission and consistently achieves its peak highway fuel economy at around 70 mph. In some conditions its fuel economy at 80 mph is slightly better than at 55.
Driving 55 will increase my gasoline consumption.
Phil
Hawaii never really went away from the 55. A few years back the governor had to force the DOT to raise the limit of one stretch of freeway to –wait for it– 60 mph. OMG! The carnage ensues!! But as soon as the stretch ‘ended’ the limit dropped back to 55.
However, the few times I traveled this part of the island, it seemed the actual speeds of most of the cars was about 70.
The people living out in the middle of nowhere because they can afford to live near work now face a double whammy: expensive commute due to gas price and now long commute times due to 55.
Well, perhaps 55 will perk up the short-hop airline industry. Yeah, that surely will save fuel. Not.
I live in Germany and drive more than 400 miles a week on the Autobahn. A little less than half of those miles have no speed limit, with the majority of the rest limited to 130 kph, and a couple of small sections at 100. I recently started driving 120 instead of 130 due to gas prices. I use about 10% less fuel for about an extra 6 minutes driving time a day. Any slower just isn’t worth it time wise.
Driving 120 I get passed a lot, but since I stay in the right lane, it’s no big deal. In the sections with a limit of 100, there is a little slowing, but not much. Until you are more than 20 over, the penalty is a small fine (less than 20 euro), more than that and you start getting points and suspended licenses. Thus, when I speed it is not more than 20 over.
psarhjinian:
Allow me to float this idea:
* Allow unrestricted limits where it’s safe to do so (empty interstate)
Agreed. I love having large stretches without limits. If only my daily driver wasn’t 15 years old and gas wasn’t $4.50 (on base).
* Put up (lots of) cameras to catch violations where limits apply (in-city highways, B roads)
There aren’t all that many Autobahn cameras, and nearly everyons knows where they are. If you don’t, listen to the radio or download them to your GPS. The locations also change, but they are relatively easy to see if you know what to look for. Not to mention the rapid slowing of traffic denotes the presence of a camera.
* Use officers to enforce lane discipline and other safe driving behaviours (signalling, safe loading, proper maintenance)
Never seen an officer pull anybody over for any reason, and I have driven some 20,000 Autobahn miles.
For all the crowing about the Autobahn and 140km/h+ limits, the reason it works is because the limits:
* Are set, where applicable
True
* Are obeyed
Not so true. Even doing 120 in the 100 sections I still get passed by a lot of cars. Only doing 130 in the 130 stretches will also get you frequently passed. One of the keys to the Autobahn’s success is the stay-in-the-right-lane-except-to-pass mentality.
* Are enforced all the time, not just at the end of the month/quarter or after a media event
Also not so much. See my comment above about cameras. Moving cameras doesn’t seem like consistent enforcement.
I love driving in Germany. I may never come back if the USA changes its speed limit back to 55.
“If our governments had any testicular fortitude, they would create incentives to save by increasing the fuel tax. If it costs more, people will figure out how to save it on their own, without interference from law enforcement.”
YES. Someone gets it. Unfortunately, it’ll never happen.
mdf,
I am gong to respectfully call bullshit on your entry. If I am reading it right, and my apologies If I am wrong, you want to lower speed limits, and want them strictly enforced, and have automated “policeman, I mean, robot cameras” to be used, and the fines to be used to pay for themselves.
1. After the “robot cams” pay for themselves, then who gets the fine money? Current battles over “red light cams” are instructive here. My understanding is that some local governments that have installed them have been know to shorten the yellow light duration to make money, I mean, write tickets. There have been studies that show that accidents at those intersections have increased as people are on more hair trigger to stop more quickly, out of necessity. The better solution to red light running is to simply lengthen the yellow light duration.
2. I strongly disagree with the concept of automated justice.
3. mdf, I would never dictate to you what speed you should drive, please return that favor. And again, if I misinterpreted your statement, my apologies.
my Z4 3.0i gets 32 mpg at 80 mph with the top down (hooray for proper gearing), I’m not slowing down.
Get out of my way.
carlisimo
If 55 passes, let’s organize protests. It’d be pretty easy, just get all the car enthusiasts on the internet organized together, take up all the lanes on our local freeways and drive slowly enough to clog them all to hell. No one gets to work, and the state either gives in or starts issuing summary executions.
A group of Georgia State students did something similar a few years back, except they actually drove the 55 mph speed limit on I-285 in Atlanta at rush hour. They drove side by side in every lane, doing the speed limit. They had people passing them on the shoulder, blowing horns, and expressing their displeasure in other ways. Here’s a video of the experience they did for a film project.
The interesting part of it was when local news crews talked with Dept of Transportation personnel and local police. They all said what the students did was illegal, even though they were driving the posted speed limit. Why? Because “slower traffic should keep right.”
ttacgreg: I am gong to respectfully call bullshit on your entry.
The argument made by pch101 was that “money talks”.
I completely agree with this. It does. How could it not? If it didn’t, then what would it’s point be?
My argument is that it doesn’t matter how you take the money. And, further, that if money has to be taken, then it might as well be taken in a way that would do the least damage.
In essence, I analyzed two approaches to the problem of encouraging people to slow down and save fuel — in aggregate of course: you can raise the price of fuel via taxes, or you re-enact the 55 law, and, unlike the 1970’s, field an army of speed robots to visciously enforce it. Think 100,000 ED-209s — “slow down. You have 30 seconds to comply.”
The tax solution is almost certainly unpalatable. You want $10/gal tomorrow? $20/gal? That would definitely make it worth your while to slow down on the “time is money” position — in effect, you price gas so that it is more valuable than time. But what about the people who are already going slow? A set that includes almost everyone, at least when they are not on the interstate.
Now, “55 limit, enforced by an army-of-robots” solution at least solves the “people already going slow” problem. It also has the property of denying revenue from the bureaucrats who would only use it for ethanol subsidies or whorehouse extensions for the legislature buildings. It even appears (at least on my 30 second analysis) to be economical. Capital costs paid for, by net fuel savings, in the order of a day(!). In fact, the system would save money — again, in aggregate — even if perfect compliance was obtained. Yes, even if it never wrote a single ticket because it could find no one in violation.
Unlike the old 55 laws, which impose standard speed for all because it makes the life of the bureaucrat easier, today it would be easy enough to customize the limit to each car. Phil Ressler (above) says his car would get best mileage at 68mph: if he can prove it, he can go that fast. Why not?
Do carefully remember that this system — like the aforementioned tax — would exist solely for the saving of fuel. My own opinions of “safety” legislation are probably more radical than you may wish to know.
Are there other approaches? Mandatory speed governors? Impractical in the 1970’s, but today it would be a simple firmware hack for almost all cars on the road.
My favorite, because I am a techno-geek, is autonomous driving systems. Do the long haul drives at night. Tell the computer to take as much time as it wants, as you’ll be asleep. Even if you drove during the day, you’d have all that time to read a good book, write a valuable computer program, make love with your sweety, or whatever. The side-effects of such things would be priceless: no need for crazy tax schemes that enrich only the bureaucrats, no legion of neo-orwellian speed cameras carefully noting where you are going, and so forth.
Alas, they do not exist. Yet.
Speed limits should be set to maximum safe speed on a given roadway, no less, IMHO. I would be in favor of raising the speed limits significantly on many highways. On a straight, flat, well maintained, modern freeway, there’s no reason to have the limit below 80, IMHO, although it is below that everywhere except in a few places in rural Texas.
If you want to drive 55, go ahead, but don’t you dare make the speed limit that. And get in the slow lane with the big rigs. I hate it when two cars are going neck and neck at the speed limit or lower on a two lane freeway, preventing anybody from passing.
While I strongly oppose a 55mph speed limit, two arguments against it here I think are incorrect. First, people did in large part obey the old 55mph, or at least enough did to measurably reduce gas consumption, traffic fatalities, etc, after it was imposed.
Second, I am skeptical of claims that peak mileage occurs at greatly higher speeds than in the 70’s and 80’s.
I drive a low-slung sport sedan with a small real spoiler and my peak mileage is definitely below 65.
Nonetheless, the best way to reduce gas consumption is not lower speed limits, but a higher gas tax and congestion pricing.
Both of those, right now, would make a big positive difference for both the environment, our economy, and our national security. It would also bring in enough money to cut other taxes and close our huge budget deficit.
Banning certain vehicles and safe driving at high speeds makes no sense when these behaviors can be gently discouraged in a way that will have big benefits for the rest of society.
Another point: if can save $12 an hour by driving slower, but make $17/hour, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t slow down.
The money you “earn” by driving slower is not taxed, but when you make money from your job it is taxed. So someone who spends an extra hour on the road by driving slower is up a net $12, but the person who drives faster and works an extra hour at $17 gets taxed at let’s say 25% state and local, so has only “earned” $11.90 that hour.
This makes a pretty big difference, because a lot more people make $17/hour or less than make $12/hour or less.
There are simply not enough hours in the day to make adhere to a 55mph restriction.
Additionally, if we’re talking saving fuel, why stop at cars? We should go back to mandating thermostats be set no higher than 68* in the winter and no lower than 72* in the summer. Heating oil comes from the same oil well, and natural gas isn’t that far behind in pricing either.
Unfortunately, it’s too difficult to enforce thermostats compared to enforcing speed limits, so that’s where the money’s at. It’s really a matter of revenue, and lots of it because the state can’t draw tax money from foreclosed houses or laid-off employees. All of this talk of saving fuel and time lost is just issue-skirting BS.
Arbitrary enforcement of the double-nickel never did work, and enforcement through higher taxes on fuel will only serve to 1)piss off motorists to no end, AND (read carefully) 2)jeopardize the careers of every politician even remotely in favor or higher fuel taxes.
A better approach could be a tax on engine displacement — engines larger than 2.5L will get hit with a 5 to 7% tax assessed on the vehicle itself. The tax rate gets higher the larger the engine and the tax eventually tops out at 12.5%. People who buy cars packing less than 1.8L in displacement can actually qualify for a tax break. Thus the onus is placed upon the manufacturers to adapt unless they actually enjoy dwindling sales figures. As for used cars — the tax rates are halved, starting with only a 2.5% tax and topping out at 6%.
An even better approach? Leave the entire issue alone and let the people adapt to the current state of fuel pricing in the manner they see most fitting. People should be happy just for the dwindling numbers of SUVs on the road.
First, people did in large part obey the old 55mph, or at least enough did to measurably reduce gas consumption, traffic fatalities, etc, after it was imposed.
Not true. After the imposition of the 55 mph limit, fuel consumption dropped by 1%. Compliance in some locations was very low (5-10%), although states were pressured to fake their numbers in order to achieve 50% compliance, lest they lose highway funding.
The fatality rate has been falling steadily since the 60’s. It often tracks economic prosperity — economic downturns save even more lives. The fuel crunch and economic problems of 1974 removed a lot of vacationers fron the roads that year, so that accidents involving cars with multiple occupants were reduced.
55 never accomplished its primary goal, which was to save fuel. It didn’t work because a lot of driving was unaffected — most of our driving does not take place on free-flowing interstates, and because most people will drive the speeds that they want to drive, no matter what limit is posted.
I am skeptical of claims that peak mileage occurs at greatly higher speeds than in the 70’s and 80’s.
I concur 100%. Unless the laws of physics were reinvented during the seventies, this is pretty much an impossibility. At speeds above 50 mph or so, the greatest fuel consumption comes from the increasing aerodynamic drag at higher speeds.
The loss of mileage will affect every vehicle; a steady 75 mph cruise is always going to use more fuel than a steady 55 mph cruise, probably along the magnitude of 20-30%. Still, 75 mph cruising will achieve better fuel economy than will crawling in stop-and-go traffic.
My thoughts on speed limits and enforcement.
1. Speed limits set lower than auto/road design leads to “speeding”. Enforcement of these unreasonable low speed limits probabaly does more to breed disrespect for police than any other policing function. You would think that police authorities would realize this. They do want (need) the support of the public don’t they?
2. I don’t know that much about modern car design but a couple of recent rentals have had instantaneous MPG displays. The best MPG for these to cars (G6 and Corolla) seemed to be between 60-65mph on flat freeway with cruise engaged. at 40mph mpg dropped dramatically. My experience with these displays is that perhaps the best way to encourage fuel savings would be to mandate (there is that word again) an instantaneous MPG display on all new cars with the display centered in the cluster and about the size of the speedo.
3. In the western US the boredom of driving 250 miles at 55mph (say across Nevada) surely is more dangerous than a 70-80mph limit (on roads that a modern car could safely do 100mph+). The cost of one’s time is also a consideration as discussed by other posters.
The worth of one’s time seems to be something the Autobahn embodies. If your car gets only get 6 mpg doing 120mph, and around 26 at 60, a 30 minute trip to cover 60 miles, as opposed to over an hour, might be worth the 7-gallon difference.
A few comments for Volvo’s post, above…
Your G6 and Corolla rentals were probably automatics. MPG will drop at 40 because those cars won’t be in top gear and won’t be in torque converter lockup mode. You’re losing tones of efficiency in the transmission. Those people who claim their car is more efficient at 70 than 55 are in the rare circumstance that 55 doesn’t give lockup and/or top gear.
Also, both cars are way overpowered for fuel-efficient driving. Yes, even the Corolla has a power-to-weight ratio the same as the 2nd most powerful E-class Mercedes of 1986 (the 260E). Try a Corolla with 1.2L engine and stick-shift. The gearing will probably allow you to drive 45 in top gear and get best mileage.
I have driven one rental car with the instantaneous MPG readout. I’ll admit that (at least for the week I had it) it was lots of fun to see how well I could do. The effect would probably wear off after a while, but with modern electronics being so cheap, it would be a great feature in every car–and more effective at MPG improvement than TPMS. That rental car hit top gear with lockup at just about 50 MPH, giving me 40 MPG.
To your last point, I’ll add that the boredom of driving 250 miles at 55 MPG will also lead people to take short-hop airplanes. If these are jets and only going 250 miles, they are probably achieving 25 MPG or less per person. Two people in nearly any vehicle going 80 MPH will do better than that per person.
Many consumers spend all the money that they have (and more!). Any gas money saved by slowing down to 55 MPH will be spent somewhere else. Perhaps all that saved money would be used to fly the family 250 miles to grandma’s house for Thanksgiving instead of driving. In that case, all that money saved by not buying gasoline is now spent on kerosene. There is no energy savings there at all.
Thus in a consumer-oriented society, we need a systemic method of shifting consumers away from energy-intensive things and toward low-energy things. The government will never ever plug every possible energy-intensive activity; even if it did, the economy would collapse because nobody would be allowed to do anything.
Why, again, is the government taxing income? Is earning a living such a bad thing that income-earners need to be punished? You need to tax something to run the country’s government, but why not just tax the “bad” things… tobacco, liquor, and the liberation of carbon.
Why be selective about what’s taxed? Cigarettes today, fast food tomorrow, what’s next a tax based on how much time you’ve spent surfing the web and watching television?
For that matter, why are taxes being imposed for any purpose other than supporting government functions, and why is there such an obsession with taxing anything you don’t like? If the government can give out incentives for hybrids, why not incentives for any car that exceeds 30 mpg combined? What about supporting a SUV buyback program if people are so hellbent on getting these things off the streets?
What is so attractive about beating people over the heads with excess taxes and excess regulations?
To SunnyvaleCa
The Corolla rental was a 2009 automatic with 2400 miles on the odometer. I had it for 1700 mile trip in the rocky mountains. Mix of two lane highway and freeway. No city driving. Used cruise control a lot. Average MPG on that 1700 miles was 43mpg. I couldn’t believe it. Minimal stop and go driving on that trip. I accelerated slowly and let speed build up downhill. Even with cruise control downshifting on steep grades I never saw less than 18mpg on the readout.
43mpg!!! Just amazing.
Would buy one in an instant if not for the somewhat frightening handling on curvy mountain roads.
Lowering the speed limit will waste gas by creating more traffic. Slower speeds mean each car spends more time on the road getting to its destination; hence, more cars are on the roads all the time. Once a critical density is reached, you start to get traffic jams.
Why can’t they simply impose a carbon tax, and LET THE PEOPLE decide what how to cope. If reducing speed is really a good way to reduce carbon emissions, people will do it, but if they’d rather buy a prius (and keep driving fast to save time) or insulate their houses, what’s the dif? You’re still reducing the carbon emissions.
Why do people think there’s some sort of inherent good in picking on cars???! If the purpose is to reduce oil use, or reduce carbon emissions, do the most efficient thing, and tax the oil or tax the carbon.
Yeah, jerome, I just got a ticket not more than two hours ago. 78 in a 65. Yeah, that’s speeding, but I was in complete control and traffic was light. Shit happens. No wrecks at all in 30+ years and this is what I get.
Americans get the government they deserve.