55 MPH, is that at least one small way to

[JAYJDF]

take money away from the oil companies? I mean, I know it's a major drag to drive through Kansas and half of Colorado any slower, but would it at least help? Shouldn't cost too much for the change over, they should be able to use the signs from the last time.

[SharonAnn]

1. And, it reduces emissions that form ozone and create small particles.

[shadowrider]

2. Driving 55

When everyone else is doing 80 is a good way to get yourself killed, but yes, it would save gas.

[Tiggeroshii]

3. I'm still alive

And also, it helps me be more aware of people, I actually think I've avoided more accidents due to the way I drive rather inviting them.

[maveric]

31. Wont fly in SoCal.

If you maintain 75 mph you'll get the same mileage as if you go 55.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

4. Problem Is I'd Still Do 80. You Get Conditioned, Ya Know?

55? Ain't no way you're gonna see that happen on Rt.80 in Jersey. No way.

[depakid]

18. After a few tickets, you'd change your tune...

The voice of experience talking...;-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Nope. Nor Would I Get A Few Tickets. This Is Rt.80. This Is Jersey. You Know Not What You Speak.

Not to mention, if you have half a brain in your head it's pretty easy to avoid getting a speeding ticket on highways 99% of the time.

[rurallib]

5. I have been advocating for 55 as a protest against Iraq

and price of gas for a couple years here. Simply driving the speed limit would send a major message, especially with a sign or bumper sticker identifying your reasons.
Yet, I usually garner about 10 "Fyou I ain't gonna slow down" in response. Seems we are all in way too much of a hurry to do what I feel is the one simple, legal thing that would get attention.
The idea of driving 55 has so much going for it but no one will do it. They would rather bitch about the cost of gas and the deaths in Iraq than slow down.
Mrs. Lib and I have been driving 55 for about three years. You quickly get used to it.

[Habibi]

Judging from some of the responses in this thread

apparently even liberal Dems can't be bothered. "Me, change the way I drive? Not gonna happen."

Kudos to you and Ms. Lib. I do the speed limit, myself.

[JAYJDF]

6. so, why hasn't there been any talk or rumors

about doing this again? Too many spoiled motorists? I will add that I have changed lifestyle to where I live in a small town and only drive around 4,000 miles a year. That encludes vacation if any.

[KG]

21. apparently, americans would rather go to war to steal oil than take even the most simple of

conservation measures.

[etherealtruth]

24. Apparently

:(

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. I say deport the illegal speeders.

Every illegal speeder in this country takes away a job from our legal drivers.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. 55? Not without some Valium or Vicodin! I lived through that once. NO ONE drove 55 mph.

It was a farce. That's waaaay too slow. Gotta go at least 80. Even 65 is too slow. It takes forever to get where you're going at 55 mph. Drives me NUTS.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. That's how fast people drive on surface streets here in California

I'd say 75 to 80 mph on the freeways is the typical freeway speed, especially in the slow lane (drivers seem to want to go as fast as they can, but still have the convenience of getting off the freeway whenever they want - - i.e. they want to own the freeway).

I think 55 mph on the freeway is a good idea. But I think an even bigger problem is the way people drive, at whatever speed they drive. At lot of motorists hit the gas pedal to the medal whenever the light turns green. I see gigantic SUVs acting like drag racers on surface streets, wanting to get up to 55 mph as fast as they can. To me, there always seems to be one about 2 feet from my rear bumper.

[taterguy]

10. If you're doing 55 mph you're in much better shape than I am

I can only do about 30 mph, maybe I need to work out more

[Dogmudgeon]

11. So the states get the money instead

The 55 MPH Speed Limit was mainly good for enhancing state revenues through fines.

It's all about punishment.

How about demanding better mass transit, and funding it with some of those subsidies we are now giving to the oil companies?

--p!

[guitar man]

12. sigh

I would love to have the time to drive 55, but as it is, I've been making a 200 mile round trip commute 3 times a week to work and back, and that eats enough time at 75mph.

I have a better solution, I just bought a little travel trailer I'm going to put near my job as a "home away from home" and cut the commutes down to one a week. Best I can do. I hope the wife and kid like camping in an RV park 4 days a week.

[rocktivity]

13. Couldn't you make it sixty?

At a mile a minute, it's so much easier to do the math.

______________________

[jedr]

14. Have an '03 Accord with a 4 cyln.....

I get the same mileage ( low 30's) at 55 as I do at 75-to 80 on open highway ( no stop and go). Have nothing but personal experience to back it up, but feel that the 55 thing was true on older engines, but the newer models seem to to as well at higher speeds.

[sam sarrha]

15. no one is going to drive 55, and that would put truckers out of buisness, bankrupt them

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. It wouldn't bankrupt truckers, Quite the opposite......

I am by no means in favor of reducing speed limits but as far as the nations heavy truck fleet is concerned, speeds over 60 mph, with very few exceptions, have diminishing returns where fuel economy is concerned. I don't have the aerodynamic data close at hand but at speeds in excess of 60, the amount of horsepower and therefore fuel required simply to push the air out of the way increases exponentially. Also, even with heavy trucks that have the capability of reaching triple digit speeds (there are plenty of them out there. I have driven several that could do 105 without breathing hard) the actual average speed of a cross country trip is around 60. A modern, electronically controlled diesel engine, properly geared can easily exceed 7 MPG in a still wind at 60. That same engine/truck will get closer to 4 MPG at 75 MPH. When it often takes more than 200 gallons to top off tanks, you can see the cost savings.

So, lowering the speed limit would have a positive effect on most fleets fuel bills and i suspect many of the larger fleets have re-instituted electronic speed limiters on their tractors. (I have been out of the trucking biz for abut a year now but drove over-the-road for almost 20 years) JB Hunt, one of the largest carriers in the country was notorious for having their entire fleet speed limited to 61 mph for years. They upped the speed to 65 and 70 for certain trucks in the fleet that did a lot of running across the I-10 and I 40 corridors because the those state speed limits were raised to 70 or higher.

It is a different story for passenger cars but not by much. Most passenger cars suffer the same dramatic reduction in fuel economy at speeds in excess of 70 or so. The fact is that air resistance is a major killer for fuel economy and the faster you go, more of the available horsepower is used to simply overcome aerodynamic drag, as opposed to propelling you across the tarmac.

If you are the average commuter, the difference might be say only 20 or 30 gallons a year. But if you put 100,000 miles or more on your vehicle, the extra fuel used traveling faster can be substantial.

Again, i am not an advocate of reducing rural interstate speeds. Boredom and fatigue brought on by slower traveling speeds can be just as dangerous as many other hazards of highway travel.

[sam sarrha]

25. they get paid by the mile.. and can only drive 10 hours a day.. they give you so little time extra

you cant stop to pee, more less take a shower..

[A HERETIC I AM]

30. Sam, like i said, i was in the business for 20 years. I am well aware of how truckers are paid.

And to a degree, you are correct regarding scheduling. The difficulty for truckers is that they do indeed get paid by the mile and faster speeds makes for a better rate of pay. The overwhelming majority of truck drivers in this country drive "Company Trucks" as opposed to being "Owner Operators". The company driver doesn't have to pay for his own fuel. He uses a company card or fuel account. However, many large fleets offer bonuses to drivers who exceed fuel mileage benchmarks so they have an incentive to drive more economically.

Personally I think every single tractor trailer driver in the country should be Union. Then they would have a decent rate of pay and wouldn't have to drive up to the limit on their logbook every day simply to try and make a living. $.35/mile means you get $350.00 for every 1000 miles of driving. The most you can actually, legally drive in one 24 hour period is roughly 840 miles (14 legally allowable hours X 60 MPH average speed) but that is not sustainable every day of the week. The hours of service regulations were modified in 2003 to allow for 11 straight hours of driving followed by a mandatory 10 hour rest period. However, drivers are limited to 70 hours on duty time in 8 consecutive days so in order to not run out of hours and be able to drive avery single day they are out on the road - maybe weeks at a time - they can't average more than 8.75 hours of on-duty time every day. I say on-duty time because the regulations require drivers to log time spent waiting to be loaded and unloaded, fueling and inspecting among other things as "On duty/Not Driving" time which counts against the 70 hour limitation. If you spend 2 hours in Salinas, CA waiting for your load of Lettuce headed to NYC, those 2 hours are supposed to be logged as on duty/not driving and then leave you only 68 hours available for the next 8 days. (Provided you had no driving time for the previous day and a half....lol...never mind...the regulations can make your head spin.) I should note that damned few over the road truckers in this country log their hours legally and properly. Quite frankly, they can't afford to.

Regarding Peeing, taking a shower, etc. Here is an absurdity in the minutia of the hours of service regs;
Technically, a driver has to have a card issued by his company that states he is authorized to park his rig (at a truck-stop, for instance) and leave it for periods exceeding 30 minutes. If he has no such card, he can not leave his rig for any more than 30 minutes at a time and when he does, he has to log the time as "on duty/not driving". In other words, without that card, if he stops at the Petro to go in and shower and have a meal, he has to do all this in less than 30 minutes and log it properly or he is in violation! This is NEVER enforced, btw and very few companies actually comply properly with this reg and issue such "Authorization to leave vehicle un-attended" cards.

[LSK]

16. great, now if only I had more vacation time

[Atman]

17. How old are you?

Seriously. No snark. Just asking...I've lived "Drive 55" under Nixon. You can't do it. It's bullshit. You can't get on a super-highway, which is DESIGNED to handled high-speed traffic, and drive 55. You'll fall asleep and drive off the road into a tree. Modern highways are designed by engineers to be efficient at high speeds.

I remember when I lived in Florida, and hosted some friends from California. In 1982, the "Beeline" from Orlando to Cocoa Beach was just that...a beeline. Miles and miles and miles of dead-straight driving. Drive 55 was a recipe for death. Modern cars and modern highways make 55 mph speed limits just plain riciculous. 55 is no magic number. Just some nostalgic bullshit.

ON EDIT: I don't know why I didn't include this in the first draft; I had to drive out to my weekend home today to stock it up for the holiday weekend. (Okay, let's save the "had to" for another thread.) We have a small SUV and and a Hyundai Elantra hatchback which gets more than twice the mileage of the SUV. I usually like to drive the back road, which takes about 15 minutes longer than taking the highway; the back road averages about 50 mph vs. the highway, which is of course 70-75 or more. But I took the highway today. Why? Because the car gets better mileage on the highway. The back road, mind you, isn't full of red lights and traffic...it's a clear run all the way, with only a couple of very small "hamlets" in which I have to slow down, but otherwise, it's press the gas pedal and drive the entire way.

BUT I GET MUCH BETTER GAS MILEAGE ON THE HIGHWAY. DRIVING 20-25 MPH FASTER.

55 is touchy-feely nostalgia. But technology has made 55 a ridiculous notion. Modern cars run better and more efficiently at higher speeds in higher gears.

.

[A HERETIC I AM]

28. Fuel economy at high speed has more to do with engine RPM and aerodynamics than speed.

I am probably pointing out something you already know but one of the main reasons you do better on the freeway than the 2 lane is because of the sustained, constant RPM's and very little throttle activity compared to what your engine goes through while driving a curvy, 2 lane. Even if you could average the 70 MPH on the 2 lane, you are probably still all over the throttle. The variation in RPM's adds to inefficiency.

[DS1]

20. I do about 60

and get weird looks since I drive a sports car

[Initech]

22. Nope, you'd get your ass run over in CA if you went below 65

That is of course, when there's no traffic.

[sam sarrha]

27. you would get a ticket for being a hazard in traffic

[tammywammy]

26. No thank you

I like arriving at my destination in one piece. :)

[seabeyond]

29. nope, wont do it. not even a consideration. what i will do is conserve

on my driving. how often i get in the car and where i go. doing only what needs to be done, not wasteful and non thinking. i have been doing that for years. and i will buy a reasonable vehicle with good gas mileage.

but i will not go 55 even if the law tells me to.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Strelnikov_]

33. It will be implemented once we approach the 85th percentile driving it

in order to stretch out their 10 gal/month gas ration or $10/gal gas in a couple of years.

(engine efficiency function of RPM, say 5th gear ~ peak efficiency RPM at 55 mph, 6th gear ~ peak efficiency RPM at 75 mph. At 75 mph, 85% more drag than at 55 mph, additional drag force balanced by more go-juice flowing to engine, resulting in reduced MPG).

Recycled screed follows.

+++++

Reduction To 55 mph Could Reduce Oil Consumption By 3.4%

The following report estimates a 3.4% reduction in oil consumption.

The more significant impact is that it would reduce transport fuel consumption by 5.1% which is critical considering that the current shortage is in refined product.

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

http://www.objectfarm.org/Activities/Publications/SolareWeltwirtschaft/Energiekrise/IEA-Saving_Oil_In_A_Hurry_2005.pdf

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.

The tables below are from the report and summarize fuel savings from speed reduction to 55 mph.


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

US /Canada

Thousand barrels saved per day 727 (672 US 2001 data)
Percent transport fuel saved 6.2% (5.1% @ US 13.1 M bbl/dy)
Percent total fuel saved 4.7% (3.4% @ US 19.5 M bbl/dy)


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. and light trucks, based on tests of 9 vehicles.