Serious about gas shortages? Strictly enforce freeway speed limits

[Newsjock]

Does our Congress truly believe that oil is a natural resource that needs to be conserved? Let's have some Democrats sponsor legislation to strictly enforce speed limits of 65 mph and above on the nation's highways -- and impose a special energy-waster surcharge on these speeding fines.

Why high speed limits only? Because as speed increases at these levels, vehicle mileage drops dramatically -- you've seen what happens to your car's fuel efficiency at, say, 80 mph vs. 70 mph. Making even a 2% or 3% dent in the amount of fuel spent on freeways could make a significant impact.

I'm not suggesting a return to the nationwide 55 mph speed limit -- although one could argue that our energy crisis dictates it. Also, today's vehicles are more efficient at 65 mph than they were 30 years ago. And I'm not suggesting cutting any existing speed limits -- rather, simply enforcing them strictly, with zero tolerance. A limit is a limit is a limit.

Why special fines? It's all about the rule of law. Don't tell me Republicans wouldn't be all for the rule of law, particularly when it came to something as critical as enforcing the nation's speed limits -- not only for energy savings, but for safety as well. If you're not going to break the law, you're not going to get fined. How much? What about $50 per mph over the limit? Would $100 do? The idea is to drive home the seriousness of our energy situation. Direct the revenues into funds for highway repair and improvement, because highways in good repair are more fuel-efficient and safer.

Republicans won't go for that? You mean they're saying we don't have an energy problem? They think it's OK to go 80 mph in a 65 mph zone in a giant SUV assault vehicle (or a semitrailer, for that matter) that's waiting to crush hapless motorists?

This would be a wonderful way to pin the GOP to the wall about their true feelings on energy policy.

(Yes, this is all motivated by me going down the freeway today and being passed by far too many giant SUVs adorned with Bush stickers and doing 80+ mph in a 65 mph zone.)

Edit to clarify: No, I do not personally endorse these changes. But I think proposing them would be a good tactic to nail down Republicans, and to advance the discussion about what our energy policy really should be.

[CatholicEdHead]

1. Good in theory

unrealisitic in practice.

You can't have so many cops per mile of every road in the country. Like it or not but gas prices will be the only thing to slow everything down.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

29. Simple matter of installing speed cameras, really.

Seems to work quite well on the A14 outside Cambridge, UK (though it's still one of the deadliest roads around, regardless of the cameras)

[MadHound]

39. Sorry friend, but that is exactly what we don't need more of

Cameras, I hate the damn things, and they are becoming more prevalent everywhere. Geez, talk about your Big Brother scenarios, we're there now. Cameras where you work, where you shop, where you live, 24/7. How long before they're mandatory in our homes?

Sorry, I agree speeders are a problem, but it is a problem that shouldn't be solved with more intrusive tactics like cameras everywhere.

[seabeyond]

2. booooo....i will conserve my way and not yours

i dont go slow. havent in 26 years., and wont in the future. never had an accident. i talk fast walk fast think fast. to put me at a slower speed is murder for me, seeing i will probably fall asleep, not be focused, because it is too slow. what i have already done though, bought a fuel effecient car and keep it primed. i dont drive around much, only when needing to, filling up about every three weeks now.

best i can do.

can cut back more on driving. i am ultra conservative and dont like wasting or spending. so i do my part

but i wont slow down

[Newsjock]

3. No, I don't really believe it either

I'm not suggesting the idea because I favor it. I'm suggesting it because it seems a great way to get the GOP on record about what they really think.

Of course it would never pass.

[porkrind]

25. Wow, thanks for your sacrifice!

It's intelligent forward-thinking people like yourself that make America great. Maybe you could put a yellow magnet and American flag sticker on you car to show how much you care.

[seabeyond]

27. i bet there is a place you dont sacifrice

and i do. but then i wouldnt be a sarcastic jerk to you, i would see it balances in the whole and i would thank you for the efforts you do make. appreciate and value that.

[libertypirate]

33. Oh the big balance myth...

I love big balance myths. My dad uses the same horse shit about his own driving record. It's rather silly. I don't cause problems so I can fudge the law; who said anything about logic. It is one thing to be against something and act against it. It is completely another to ignore social protocol because your believe you are not going to have an impact.

The thought that socially we will balance each others behavior is false. What evidence of such a wild, we will balance each other out, theory can you present?

This is just a convenient way to excuse your behavior; must be nice.

[porkrind]

36. golf clap to you!

Sorry, I guess I am a sarcastic jerk. :)

[seabeyond]

38. finger to you, wink

ya ya ya

[A HERETIC I AM]

4. Under inflated tires probably waste just as much fuel.

If everyone kept their tires at the proper inflation, you would EASILY pick up the mere 2-3% you are talking about. The technology exists that could make even the largest SUV's increase their fuel economy by a considerable amount but Detroit is slow to act and always has been. Why? Because radical changes are expensive and they don't come without a profit motive. When Americans start buying more Hybrids and less F-150's, then you might see the car makers do something about it.

[leveymg]

5. Sorry, I'm a European on this One - 130kph (83mph) in most places

If you want people to save gas, tax the SUVs by weight and EPA gas milage.

Let me get where I'm going in my own way at my own pace. Lead, follow, or get out of the way, please. If you want to drive 55, fine, but please stay in the right lane.

:hi:

[boneygrey]

6. Have to agree n/t

[sandnsea]

7. Go back to 55 mph

There was never a logical reason to raise it in the first place.

[Fescue4u]

11. Nor a logical reason to lower it

[Deja Q]

30. Uh, going 65MPH uses 15% more gas than 55MPH and peak performance is

about 35-40MPH.

So, there is a damn well good and logical reason for lowering it, and it the federal speed limit should NEVER have been upped.

[Fescue4u]

31. lol. as if it were obeyed

Nobody went 55mph.

The law just turned the highways into a revenue stream for cities and states. Speeds didnt decrease.

[sandnsea]

17. It doesn't save gas?

O-kaaay.

[politicat]

8. Maybe it's just my car, but it's more efficient at high speeds than low.

I drive a 5 speed manual, and most lower speeds (35, 45, 55) are at the shift point, where it's very easy to speed if I shift up, but very energy inefficient to stay in the lower gear. I do shift, but baby-car has a serious love of speed, so keeping her under control can be fun.

It's more efficient at 65 than at 55, and yes, I have the mileage data to back it up. We get about 47 MPG when the bulk of miles are at 65 or above, about 42 when the bulk of miles are between 40 and 65, and about 37 when the bulk of miles are below 45.

I guess I shouldn't be complaining, considering those numbers are significantly better than most people's numbers, but enforcement of such laws might hurt others who are in the same position.

Now, if you want to enforce speed limits for other reasons - like it makes for better traffic flow if everyone drives the same speed, all the time - I have no problems.... just ticket the 35 in the 55 zones, too, for obstruction. I can see the safety and overall function of the laws from other perspectives than efficiency.

[Trillo]

14. My car too. I wrote a post below. nt

[Fescue4u]

9. Didnt work the last time either.

"Zero tolerance" is just another word for zero intelligence.

[dweller]

10. better yet, use the $$ from fines (per mph over limit)

to fund the law enforcement divisions that are losing $$ due to *moron's cuts to state's gov'ts.

incentive.
dp

[vpigrad]

12. Wouldn't work because of the lazy cops!

Any plan that depends on those thugs in blue doing their job is doomed to fail.

[Trillo]

13. I don't buy this argument

that lower speeds always help everybody's gas mileage. For example, in the 4 cylinder that I have, if a 45 mph speed were introduced, I'd have to drive in 4th gear unless I was going downhill. It's off the power curve of the engine at 45 mph in 5th (which means that the engine isn't efficiently producing power).

Anyway, I checked the gas mileage during a road trip through the desert in '87, when the car was virtually new, and I got the best mileage at 75 mph, although it was only slightly better than at 70. I checked at 50 mph then added 5 mph increments between gas stations. I didn't test higher than 75 mph. (this model is rated at a low wind resistance number)

I think there's more too it than just wind resistance. Gearing. bodyshape and the engineered powercurve of the engine.

This was just one model. Other models and types, such as trucks, would likely have much different efficiency speeds, with lower rpm powercurves, lower gearing for loads, and higher wind resistance numbers.

Under your proposal, some people would actually get worse gas mileage, although that's not a statement of averages. This proposal just becomes just another way for the government to collect fees for relatively poor people who are lucky enough to have a car to drive. Those fees impact poor people a lot more than they do the rich.

[Undercover Owl]

15. Nope. I don't like it.

Better to start by banning Hummers and encouraging fuel efficient vehicles. Increase fuel efficiency through technology.

If we MUST change driving habits on a road structural basis, then how about having fewer red lights? Decreasing the amounts of stop-and-go driving will increase gas mileage.

[the_spectator]

16. "... but MILLIONS will be LATE!" (Homer Simpson) n/t

[ConcernedCanuk]

18. Bunch of Speeders here I see, hmmm

.
.
.

Well,

If ur gettin better gas mileage going faster - ur in the wrong gear.

Can't beat the fact the faster you go, wind resistance increases.

Anyhoo, the above is not the real reason for my post

Personal Experience:

At one time I commuted over 250 miles each way weekly to the job site.

At 10 cliks over the speed limit, cost was around 60 bucks one way

One day I was in a strange mood, and drove all the way back at 5 cliks BELOW the Speed limit (ur right, I wasn't the most popular guy on the highway, but I stayed in the slow lane where there were multi-lanes), enjoying the scenery etc, and fill-up only cost me 45

hmmm

Did it again later, same thing - 15 bucks less, $30 a week savings

Well, when it dawned on me that I'd save enuf EVERY WEEK for a case of beer :toast:

AND

a pack of smokes :smoke: or two

I've been a slow poke ever since

:dunce:

[politicat]

19. I'd say different designs.

My car was designed to be a high efficiency, low drag, low weight commuter car. That is it's primary duty, and that's what we bought it for. Thus, the fact that it was designed to run in 5th at about 65 for most of its miles is not surprising, and it's not surprising that it gets the best mileage there.

Further, I would say that I know my car, its gear ratios, shift points and efficiency models far better than you do, since I drive it, and you don't, I document it, and you don't, and I have the tach in front of me, and you don't. So, please, don't backseat drive from hundreds of miles away. It's bad enough when the backseat driver is in glare distance.

[ConcernedCanuk]

21. OK - I won't "backseat drive"

.
.
.

But Licenced InterProvincially in Automotive, and Truck & Coach Mechanics, and over 25 years in fleet maintenance,

aw

what the heck

carry on . . .

I ain't never gonna be back in the States again anyway

maybe ur air got thinner down there or sumthing . . .

I'll never know

BUT

if'n ya check the USA's OWN statistics between the fuel consumption in the USofA b4, during and AFTER the double nickle era . . .

get back to me

[porkrind]

26. Drag is an important issue

Aerodynamic drag is the problem. The force against your car is:

linearly proportional the cross-section to the wind
proportional to the square of the velocity
linearly proportional to a drag-coefficient

The power reqired by your car is then proportional to the cube of the velocity!!! (It takes 8 times the power to double the speed)

Keeping speed down is important, but having good aerodynamics is also very important. A sleek, aero mustang will always blow away a van, hummer, or excursion.

Also, as you say, the gear ratios are important. The car is designed to be most efficient at some cruising speed.

[Solon]

22. Gas mileage in my car is pretty good...

I don't know what you drive that costs 60 bucks one way, half of 250 miles I assume. I drove from St. Charles, MO to Jefferson City last week in my car, going mostly 70-75 mph. That's about 218 miles give or take a few for the total trip to and from. I only burned a little more than a quarter of a 10 gallon tank car, a 1989 Toyota Celica Manual 5 Speed. Going to my friend's house in Springfield Missouri, about 225 miles away from me burns about half a tank, that means the total trip is about 23 dollars for the total trip, don't know what you drive, but it sounds like a gas guzzler to me. The only thing that sucks, my car REQUIRES premium gasoline, the only good thing about it is that I travel about 40 miles to work each day, yet only fill it up about once every Week and a half, depending on other types of driving.

[ConcernedCanuk]

24. Ur half-right - It's a gas guzzler by any standards

.
.
.

Heck, it's 26 years old for one thing . .

And the 351 got tired,

so I dropped in a 400 out of my Mk V that had rotted out

It doesn't go far 'ceptin' in the summer, only burned 3 tanks of gas each of the last two winters - averaging between 2 - 4,000 cliks annualy - heck my insurance costs twice what I spend on gas in a year.

If I didn't love my camping so much, I wouldn't even own a vehicle anymore

but Camping is my #1 passion -

so it's a keeper . . .




BUT

that 250 cliks was ONE way -

250 cliks = 45 - 60$ depending on my speed

Round trip of 500 went from $120 - $90

Besides

I got to enjoy the scenery more -

AND

I stopped getting that little heart flutter every time I saw a black n white!

:)

[B Calm]

20. Even though I think it's our God given right to speed, I personally

have slowed down and started driving the speed limits to conserve fuel.

[BiggJawn]

23. Hah! Indiana's considering going to 70MPH

Which means rich ReTHUGs in their SUV's can wail at 95 MPH before getting Reckless Driving tacked onto the speeding ticket.

[Deja Q]

28. Why did Clinton terminate the fed speed limit of 55MPH in the 1st place?

:eyes:

[radwriter0555]

32. Um who says there is a gas shortage? There is no gas shortage, no one is

SAYING there is a gas shortage.

There is gas price GOUGING, but certainly no shortages.

Where did you get the idea that there are shortages? That hasn't been mentioned by anyone.

[KalicoKitty]

40. We are being gouged so the oil companies can profit billions!

"ChevronTexaco earned $13.3 billion last year, the most profitable year since its inception in 1879. Unocal earned $1.21 billion last year, nearly doubling its profit from the previous year."


We can't do a damn thing about it because they own the administration! BIG OIL rules!

[amazona]

34. oh Good Lord

This is a case of "Only Nixon can do this."

I don't any Democrat should get anywhere near such a proposal.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[uncle ray]

35. or people could just learn to drive

and we could do away with the strick speed limits.

living near mountains, and always driving thru hilly areas, i can assure you that many people waste gas from feeling the need to maintain an exact speed, rather than allow the car to speed up going downhill and using the momentum to carry them up the next hill, instead braking on the way down, to aviod a speeding ticket, then getting back on the throttle on the way up.

and how about the jackasses who feel the need to drive slow in the left lane? everytime a faster driver has to slow down behind these slower drivers, more gas is wasted. same with the way most people cluster up on the highway, always braking to slow because they feel the need to follow 50 feet behind the car in front of them, and there are no other cars for a mile, of course to "pace" themselves off another car, less risk of getting a speeding ticket.

give me a long stretch of any road, where the other drivers are considerate, and allowed to drive as road conditions and the vehicle/driver ability dictate, and you'll greatly increase mileage.

something to keep in mind, engines have a "torque range", where they are happiest, most efficient, and thus, make the most power. generally, the smaller the engine, the higher the ideal operating range will be. an engine running steadily at 4000 rpm will generally use less fuel than an engine that is cycling from 1000-4000 rpm. every time you push harder on the gas pedal, the computer, or carburetor on old cars, gives the engine an enrichment shot of fuel, this doesn't happen with a nice steady cruise, and what matters is engine RPM and engine vacuum, not vehicle speed. so trying to drive at a slow speed, say 55 in hilly country, in a car with a small engine, and overdrive automatic transmission will get poor mileage compared to the same car driven faster by a person who is aware, and keeping the car in an appropiate gear, not bogging the engine down, etc.

bottom line is a strictly enforced speed limit is the worse thing there is for good gas mileage. the best thing is a driver who's most valueable guages are his/her tachometer and the vacuum guage.

[Strelnikov_]

37. Reduction To 55 mph Could Reduce Fuel Consumption By 4.7%

The following report estimates an impact of a 4.7% reduction in fuel consumption. This is fairly significant since the initial manifestation of peak oil appears to be a shortage of light crude feedstock for gasoline production.

Then again, there is the faith based science approach that any measure that may take a bit of sacrifice is worthless and will have no benefit.

Saving Oil in a Hurry: Measures for Rapid Demand Restraint in Transport
International Energy Agency
28 February 2005

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

Table 2-35: Consensus estimate of effect of reducing speed limit to 90 km/hr

US /Canada

Thousand barrels saved per day 727
Percent transport fuel saved 6.2%
Percent total fuel saved 4.7%


Table 2-29: Fuel Economy by Speed, based on ORNL
Percent Change In Fuel Economy

55–65 mph 11.0%
65–75 mph 17.7%
55–75 mph 30.6%

Note: Based on Model years 1988–97 automobiles and light trucks, based on tests of 9 vehicles.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), 2003, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition
22, http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/Download22.html.