Lower speed limit movement spreading as John Warner jumps aboard
As fuel prices show no signs of subsiding any time soon, calls are starting to increase for reviving the once dreaded national speed limit. As in the 1970s when the 55mph speed limit was originally implemented, the premise is to reduce fuel consumption. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has sent a request to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to determine what the best speed would be for optimum fuel efficiency with current vehicles. No new speed limit legislation has been introduced yet in Congress but this is clearly a first step in that direction. It seems unlikely that any national speed limit legislation will be passed prior to the elections this November. However, come January 2009, if gas prices still remain above $4/gallon, a lower speed limit seems probable. Thanks to Greg for the tip![Source: CNN]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Michael 6:22PM (7/05/2008)
LET PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES HOW MUCH GAS THEY WANT TO USE.
If they can't afford to speed, they won't spend the gas money. A return to the double nickel would result in two things: more accidents and more police revenue.
Put a tax on the gas, and LET PEOPLE DECIDE HOW FAST THEY WANT TO DRIVE (within limits, I'm not talking Autobahn here).
Reply
rj 7:48PM (7/05/2008)
I like driving 55 but I can't because cars tend to go 75 and flow of traffic driving is the only safe way to drive. I say lower the speed. It saves lives and a lot of fuel. If we are facing some kind of fuel crunch in the future or if there is anything to this whole global warming bit (which I doubt but who knows) then there is no decent reason to go fast except for the fun of it - which is stupid - 55 saves lives and gas - it's been very well proven. Don't be so selfish you pathetic speeder.
Michael 7:57PM (7/05/2008)
See my comment below. ENFORCE LANE RESTRICTIONS.
1. Pass on the left ONLY.
2. Do not drive below the speed limit in the LEFT LANE.
Violating either one of these rules would be grounds for a ticket.
axiom 12:03PM (7/06/2008)
Michael:
" "LET PEOPLE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES HOW MUCH GAS THEY WANT TO USE." "
People on the highway don't get choose their own speed limit. If the limit is 65 or 75, someone can't drive 50 to conserve gas.
" "A return to the double nickel would result in two things: more accidents and more police revenue." "
Now this is where I have a problem. You're making claims that are dead wrong and it shows you didn't even read the article you're commenting on. If you clicked the link and read the CNN source article YOU WOULD KNOW:
----Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.---
That "double nickel" speed limit SAVED **4,000** LIVES A YEAR, between when it started in '74 and when it ended in 1995. Thats 85,000 people ALIVE who otherwise would have been killed in an auto accident. Idiots who speed above the limit SHOULD be ticketed, so its not a negative that police stations will be on your ass if you're endangering the lives of others on the rode.
" "Put a tax on the gas, and LET PEOPLE DECIDE HOW FAST THEY WANT TO DRIVE" "
A gas tax is regressive. It hurts those who are harder off more than those who are better off. In case you didn't know, our financial systems are in turmoil right now, mainly do to depressed consumers hit by inflation and high energy prices. Your idea would exacerbate already high energy prices, leading to yet more inflation, and destroy whatever consumer confidence was left in the market. Its a dead idea. Might have made sense when gas was 89cents, but not today or tomorrow.
If the republicans were smart they would be leading the push for this, as its inevitable the 55 limit will in effect by this time next year. But they can't say no to those corporate energy contributions. And they will pay for it in the November elections. Good riddens.
sensitive_man 7:42PM (7/05/2008)
More accidents? Michael... I assume you can site a study that 55MPH equates to more accidents that 70MPH?
If people were to decide for themselves we would have nothing of value left on this blue marble.
Reply
Michael 7:54PM (7/05/2008)
My proposal assumes a few things: Americans learn what lane discipline is. Let's say they keep the speed limits, and you're driving 75 on a 75 road. You're in the right lane. The person in front of you decides that he wants to slow down, and that's not what you want. Pass him on the left. But what if there's a person in the left lane doing 60 mph? THEY GET A TICKET, because you would be forced to pass on the right. Passing on the right should also warrant a ticket.
The way it is now, lanes don't mean much, and people just drive wherever they want and pass on whatever side they want. If we drop the speed limit to 55, you can be sure that there will be some people who decide not to obey that limit. Without any official rules governing lane discipline -- ENFORCED rules -- this is unsafe. Instead of forcing EVERYONE to slow down, give people the choice and ENFORCE THE LANE RULES. People can freely drive slower... in the RIGHT lane. Driving slowly in the left lane would not be legal, nor would passing on the right.
Obviously, this is way too complicated for police officers to enforce, so it's a moot point anyway.
e 7:49PM (7/05/2008)
Speed has a HUGE effect on fuel consumption. Travelling at 65mph instead of 55 increases fuel usage by around 20%, set off 5 mins earlier and save a fortune..
Reply
Gil 7:56PM (7/05/2008)
The only thing of value on this blue marble is letting people decide for themselves. If you want to drive at 55, have at it, but do not presume that your pretense of moral superiority entitles you to make that decision for others.
A national speed limit in a country the size of the United States is absurd. This is an issue best left to states, as provided for in the Constitution. A lower limit which makes sense in a dense state like New Jersey or Delaware is absurd for Texas or Montana.
Reply
rj 9:05PM (7/05/2008)
moral pretense eh? I don't quite see it like that. Driving 75 will cause some number of deaths for very little benefit. I don't think it's a moral pretense to say "lets all get a little safer here" It's not far removed from the whole question of drinking and driving for example. We give up that freedom so we don't accidentally kill somebody - same deal with driving too fast.
axiom 12:22PM (7/06/2008)
A lower speed limit makes sense in any state where gasoline fuels the cars on the highway, Gil. This speed limit was also national law for 21 years and never struck down as unconstitutional, so don't use petty nonsense to attack good policy ideas.
Again you DO NOT get to set your own speed limit. Its attitudes like yours that causes accidents. If a car drives too fast over the limit or too slow under the limit they are a danger on the road and can cause a serious accident or get ticketed. Get rid of this stupid "choose your own speed" nonsense.
Rick 8:24PM (7/05/2008)
More traffic, more congestion, more passing, more aggressive drivers, more tickets, more energy wasted speeding up to pass those going to slow, etc. Horrible idea.
A federal law to help the citizens save 20% of their fuel? WTF?!
Reply
axiom 12:26PM (7/06/2008)
Lower gas prices, 4,000 less deaths a year, less accidents. All better reasons than the selfish ones you stated. Let do it!
Brent 11:30AM (7/08/2008)
axiom-
4,000 lives saved is 4,000 more people on the road using gasoline!
(Not really 4,000 since there isn't one death per car everytime)
BlackbirdHighway 9:21PM (7/05/2008)
Well, if it's just to save fuel, then it won't apply to my electric car, right? In that case, I'm all for it.
Reply
jpm100 11:59PM (7/05/2008)
The efficiency loss is related to air-drag on the vehicle and not IC engine operation. So you're in the same boat.
D.M. 10:04PM (7/05/2008)
No.
Once, twice, a hundred thousand times NO.
I lived through the first malaise era, in which the national 55 mph speed limit was the most broadly ignored law in the nation.
Theoretical conservation is pointless when virtually no one will comply with the artificially lowered speed limit.
The legislative groundswell behind reviving the national speed limit has nothing to do with conservation and everything to do with revenue generation. State governments from sea to shining sea will doubtlessly salivate at all the ticket revenue this act would generate.
To not recognize this effort as a money grab by the nanny state is folly.
Reply
axiom 12:24PM (7/06/2008)
" "I lived through the first malaise era, in which the national 55 mph speed limit was the most broadly ignored law in the nation." "
So you ignored the speed limit for 21 years?? That would make you an @$$hole, for endangering countless lives so carelessly. And you think this qualifies you to give sound advice on future speed limits. uh. huh.
" "Theoretical conservation is pointless when virtually no one will comply with the artificially lowered speed limit. State governments from sea to shining sea will doubtlessly salivate at all the ticket revenue this act would generate." "
Well, if "virtually no one" (you) will obey the limit, don't those state governments have a duty to police to road to prevent reckless drivers (you) from potentially killing others with your car? They also have a right to collect fines for people like yerself that think where they have to go is more important than other people's lives.
tankd0g 11:50PM (7/05/2008)
Hell, make it 35 mph while your at it and ll those toy electric cars on sale now will suddenly be highway legal......and we'll all have to fly in big oil guzzling plane to get anywhere on time.
Reply
axiom 12:30PM (7/06/2008)
Good idea. If they attack Iraq and gas jumps to $10 a gallon, we just might have to do that. Try a train if you can't control lead foot.
jpm100 12:06AM (7/06/2008)
Someone should really check this before we take the plunge.
Most transmissions/axles are geared so that engine speed is put at the most efficient speed while cruising at highway speed.
When you drive 55, the engine runs slower and possibly not at its optimum speed.
The improvement might not be as much as some would like to think.
Reply