Michigan governor proposes reducing speed limit to save gas
During a press conference in Lansing, Michigan on Wednesday, Governor Jennifer Granholm suggested that the state should consider lowering speed limit from the current 70mph. Granholm was speaking during the launch of a new state web site designed to help Michigan residents save money. The site includes a calculator that lets users determine how much money they could save by car pooling as well as a service to help match up commuters to share rides. Granholm didn't give any indication of what she thought the speed limit ought to be. It seems increasingly likely that states will start lowering speed limits in the coming months if fuel prices don't subside. On the personal side, Granholm indicated that she and her husband are both driving hybrids and she is riding a bike to the office two days a week. [Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sasparilla 1:09PM (7/03/2008)
I have to hand it to this governor for touching the speed limit rail (anyone old enough to remember the national 55mph limit institution can remember alot of public resentment about it). Biking to work and driving hybrids...(supposing they're not giant GM truck hybrids...although this is Michigan..hmmnn), she's walking the walk and talking the talk... This begs the question of how much gas would be saved if we did go to a national 60mph speed limit? It would probably be in the nation's best interest (to get fuel usage down and take a little pressure off prices), but I doubt George would ever do it.
Reply
GoodCheer 1:17PM (7/03/2008)
The Governor bikes to work two days a week? That's awesome. I'm very impressed and wish to offer my support.
That almost makes up for driving a 21mpg Tahoe hybrid the other 3 (or 4?).
Reply
radhoo 2:09PM (7/03/2008)
Ad if you are using a hybrid car ? In my opinion It should limit the SUV sales because that is the most important factor to save gas.
Reply
Rojo 1:49PM (7/03/2008)
...which will also slow down transport of goods and increase the cost of that transport due to decreased deliveries over time and pay for more drivers. This would more than offset what would be saved in fuel costs. The consumer foots that bill of course!
For those in or around metropolitan areas, who actually manages to reach or exceed the speed limit on an interstate as it is during rush hour?
People who are quite used to being able to legally travel at 70 miles per hour will find themselves being pulled over more often. Again, those in or near metropolitan areas, what does a police car or state trooper on the side of the road do to traffic flow? Braking chain reactions, resulting in accidents and traffic jams.
More drivers will divert to side-streets due to increased volume on interstates to save some time. However, this introduces even more wasteful stop-and-go driving.
This will increase overall driving time and keep MORE vehicles on the roads at one time, exacerbating the entire issue. Reducing speed limits will not help the issues at hand, even in the short term.
Reply
J.A. 10:56AM (7/04/2008)
Dear Rojo,
In most parts of Metro Detroit, the only time people drive the speed limit is during rush hour. Heavy traffic in Detroit terms means 50mph on the freeway. It's a different world from the Bay Area.
On freeways like I-696, 80-85 is the typical cruising speed.
The minimum speed is 55mph on highways with the 70mph limit. That is slow enough, and there is no need to force people who can afford gas to drive slower.
In Germany, where gas is now 1.55 Euros/liter (about $9.25/gallon), people can still make up their minds about how fast they want to go.
brn 2:29PM (7/03/2008)
There's nothing like a knee jerk reaction.
How about we let people decide for themselves? You want to 75mph, it'll cost you in gas. You want to save gas, slow down (and stay to the right!).
The only real concern there is the difference in speed that people may be traveling.
Reply
Win39 3:33PM (7/03/2008)
Maybe some thinking outside the box for a change? A lower speed limit with my Civic will maybe change its MPG from 36 to 38. Why not repurpose the carpool lanes for vehicles whose city/hwy combined MPG is less than 25. If people want to drive the gas guzzlers, provide less road space for them and they will do it, slowly and less. It will be a simple matter for a computer to spit out a sticker with the annual registration to separate the sheep from the goats.
Reply
CMiller 3:18PM (7/03/2008)
Lowering the speed limit on the freeways isn't the answer. How about we look at fixing the timing of Michigan's street lights. You either have no chance to make it through certain lights, or you have to accelerate to make it through the light. I would less cars sitting at stop lights would mean better fuel economy.
Reply
Paul 4:45PM (7/03/2008)
Just run a friggin commercial during the super bowl and the Daytona 500 letting people know the difference in fuel costs between driving 70 and 90. It's always the morons in their Suburbans and rednecks in raised F350's zipping by me at 90 that make me shake my head. I'll guarantee you that they don't realize that they are paying nearly double to get someplace 20% faster. If they know and still make a stupid decision, then we just let the cops get 'em when they can, but I'd guess we'd see half slow down just due to their consciousness of the issue.
Speaking of cops, how hard would it be to figure out some way of actually enforcing the speed limit? Couldn't you put mobile traffic cameras out in random (changed weekly, say) places on the expressways to catch speeders? A few of these tickets (warnings for the first few perhaps) and I guarantee you that you'd see the speed limit drop from an effective 80 down to something actually close to 70.
Reply
Rojo 5:59PM (7/03/2008)
Aside from being quite the 'Big Brother' scenario, one with which I understand California residents are already familiar, there's also a (very good) legal road-block to traffic camera systems.
"Prove that I was the one driving the car."
The burden of proof that a person violated the law is on the state. "Innocent until proven guilty." So far as I am aware, a motor vehicle is not a legal entity, only the person driving it. Granted I've done no research into the matter, but I am curious as to how some judicial systems have managed to effectively prosecute traffic violations that only capture the image of a license plate. Has legislation gone into place that makes the vehicle owner solely responsible for any 'crime' in which their vehicle (read: license plate) was involved? If so, that's a huge legal precedent and I believe it would be found unconstitutional.
The very reason this distinction has to be made is for the legal protection of U.S. citizens from an overzealous law enforcement officer or department.
Paul 2:36AM (7/04/2008)
Perhaps a challenge, but easily solved with two pictures--one of the front of the car and the face of the driver taken when the speed is clocked and the other of the back to capture the license plate. I know that this is done at toll plazas (specifically the GA 400 plaza in Atlanta but likely others). It may be more difficult to calibrate such a scheme for a portable device, but I can't imagine that it wouldn't be well within the bounds of current technology.
Hey, I'm one of the ones who used to go 90 in a 70 zone and I know this would have pissed me off royally back then, but I guess age and a couple of 20+ over tickets have served to mellow me out somewhat. It is a little big brotherish, but we are increasingly becoming aware of how much some things that currently fall into the bounds of personal freedoms negatively impact everyone. I just think that if you are serious about imparting change to a wasteful society then you really have to be serious about it. And this seems better than some mandated, electronic governor put in vehicles that limits the top speed based on the posted limits (after all, sometimes you really NEED to get somewhere fast, repercussions be damned).
Boxman 6:26PM (7/03/2008)
Sounds like a windfall for state & local governments in the form of massive revenue from speeding tickets. This is nothing more than an expansion of the already outrageous legalized THEFT that occurs every day on our nations roads and highways.
How about her state actually does something useful to reduce gasoline usage, such as waiving excise tax or registration fees for EV's and hybrids? Under current Michigan law, EV owners are actually punished for not using gas - they must pay a much higher yearly registration fee because they don't use gasoline, and thus don't pay their "fair share" of road taxes.
Reply
jpm100 8:33PM (7/03/2008)
I can't help but feel this has more to do with filling the state coffers with speeding fines than anything else.
Reply
Mik_Cal 3:29PM (7/04/2008)
Boxman and Jpm100,
So are the taxes that paid for the roads you are driving on also theft? Or are you just people who have no sense of public goods and the need to pay for them? One of the public goods are roads where maniacs in 2 ton projectiles cannot go any speed and drive in any manner they want. That's what the cops are there for.
Reply
Michael 5:19PM (7/04/2008)
LET PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!
GD. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.
Reply
toxshox 7:17PM (7/05/2008)
Doesn't anyone here have self control? I used to be the guy who couldn't let anyone pass me. I have at least 20 speeding tickets under my belt. The tickets and the cost of fuel (in 2006) taught be to be a better driver. I once thought I was cool for driving absurdly fast and passing everyone, but I have since matured and found how much cooler it is to drive efficiently. By changing my driving habits I now get 68% better fuel mileage in town (42mpg). The highway (41mpg) is also a great improvement because I don't speed, EVER. There is no logical reason to speed and very RARE instances when you need to pass (I only pass tractors and Amish wagons). I get to my destinations within the same time frames as before because I make less stops for fuel and potty breaks. I did the math and it only makes sense to drive SENSIBLY.
Reply
Chris 6:31PM (7/07/2008)
Obviously she cares more about the extra revenue generated from the probable rise in number of speeding tickets issued than saving gas.
I wouldn't use the term obvious if she ...
1) Proposed a 55-mph minimum, and left the max at 70
2) Proposed a 55-mph maximum and changed the definition of "speeding" to 15 mph or more over the limit.
I love the "I'll snap my fingers and solve the problem" attitude.
Reply
Pointingfingers 2:27AM (7/08/2008)
Does anyone know the progress our Governess has made when she was approached with a plan to build an oil refinery here in Michigan back in 2005?
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7423
It should be up and running by now right(?).
Reply
Pointingfingers 2:27AM (7/08/2008)
Does anyone know the progress our Governess has made when she was approached with a plan to build oil refineries here in Michingan in 2005?
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7423
Its up an running right(?).
Reply