Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

ForeignPolicy

A Call To Lower the Speed Limit to 55

By Matthew S. Miller, AlterNet. Posted May 31, 2007.


It's tough love for the oil addicted.
Advertisement

"I can't drive 55!" -- Sammy Hagar, Heavy Metal icon also responsible for the Fast Times at Ridgemont High soundtrack.

"People try to go as fast as the car will go ... One thing the truckin' industry has done year after year is raise the speed limit ...When man goes a little bit faster than walkin'; that's very unnatural ... People have a way of getting' carried away with it and they do this thing called speedin' ... I blame it all on the trucking industry, all of it, all this racing around and everything! So, I had this idea ... -- Michael Russell, Peripatetic Picker & Patriot

Fifty-five! Now there's a number that used to unite the United States. Coast to coast the law of the land was fifty-five miles an hour. Just as patriotic Americans worked together and planted victory gardens to fight food shortages during WWII, in the 1970s, with help from the insightful policies of an enlightened congress, Americans responded to the OPEC energy embargo with character and resolve. We reduced our consumption of petroleum.

Imagine the national unity of will it must have taken in 1975 to get Chevrolet to produce the subcompact Chevette and to persuade people to drive it! The effect of the collective effort knocked a dent in the all time petroleum production curve and set peak oil back a decade from legendary oil geologist M. King Hubbert's initial estimate of a 1996 peak. It's amazing what Americans can do when they work together! Just ask Neil Armstrong.

Congress laid the groundwork for mass-producing and popularizing fuel-efficient cars in 1974, a year before the Chevette hit the assembly lines, with The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act. It prescribed a national 55 miles per hour speed limit to reduce gasoline consumption. Its follow up, The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, among other things, raised the corporate average fuel economy standards (CAFE) from 18 mpg to a 1985 level of 27.5 mpg. These steps were taken to mitigate the negative economic effects that our increasing dependence on "foreign oil" had wrought.

Our support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war caused a backlash among the seven Arab sisters of OPEC and Saudi King Faisal decided to use the oil weapon against the West on October 17th 1973. After the initial economic disruption, we retaliated with the conservation weapon and it worked. The embargo ended exactly six months later, but the conservation policies still looked like a good idea in light of the dawning realization that America had passed its all-time production peak in 1971. They seemed even better in 1979 when a second oil shock stemming from the Iranian revolution rocked the world economy.

By '84 attitudes had changed. Like petulant children, having come down hard from a candy-driven sugar high and ready for a new buzz, Americans started consuming petroleum in the transportation sector again at an unprecedented rate. The rationalizing child's argument that "since she has a dollar and the candies are only a penny a piece, she should be entitled to eat 100 pieces" is exactly the same argument by which Americans collectively justified their gasoline consumption. Why conserve an apparently cheap and plentiful commodity? At the 1985 low of $20 a barrel in 2006 dollars, oil was astronomically under-priced, a fact hidden from the narcissistic gaze of late 80s yuppies and Wall Street types.

Fundamental rights were at stake. How dare the government infringe on the "flow of commerce" and my right to declare my independence with the speedometer of my automobile (not to mention odometer). Sammy Hagar's screeching foray into the world of social protest with "I can't drive 55" from his 1984 Voice of America album summarized the oil optimism and deregulation imperative of the Reagan era. By the late 80s, Americans were driving gas-guzzling Jimmys, Jeeps, Blazers and Broncos 75 mph through the light truck loop-hole in the CAFE standards. Fifty-five became a number from America's past.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: speed limit, fuel efficiency, petroleum preservation

Matthew Miller holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of South Carolina, grows food on his lawn, poops in a bucket in his garage and drives sixty-one on the interstate. He also serves as a peak oil prophet for the greater Oklahoma City area. He plans to quit driving and to build an Earthship with his communist buddies.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I'm glad...
Posted by: adp3d on May 31, 2007 3:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...there at least two of us wondering about why there is no call to lower the speed limit. However, if you take about two seconds to think about it, its all about revenue fro the government. the reason speed limit reductions aren't imposed is that when we use less gas(by about 15% on average) there is less money coming in from fuel taxes. Here in Lansing the speed limit was actually raised from 55 to 70 on I-496 which runs through downtown. A scary kinda stretch with a sharp bend and merging traffic. It's a no-brainer really, give yourself a tax break as well as save yourself some money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm glad... Posted by: sptunik
» RE: I'm glad... Posted by: kewpie
» RE: I'm glad... Posted by: jroth420
Fuel use and hybrids
Posted by: Neiljohn on May 31, 2007 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well looking at this as an SUV owner in the UK, driving a 15 year old diesel that does 30mpg+ and paying ~$9/USgal, I find all this talk of hybrids very misleading.

At 55mph you need to charge the battery, or run direct, but you also have to haul said battery. Then theres the build costs, toy's pious ranked 70th IIRC in dust to dust costs (from concept, through build, sale and use and SERVICING including replacing the poluting batteries at least once in 5-7 years, then disposal and recycling).
My older Land-Rover may consume slightly more fuel on the road, but it's simple metals and construction, easy repair and servicing, and ultimately cleaner disposal/recycling will consume less oil overall.
If a Prious lasts 10 years with 3 battery changes how does that stack up against an older diesel running on bio-mass???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not just speed
Posted by: RPF (UK) on May 31, 2007 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever I have been in the states, my observation of US city driving technique is this:
1. Wait at traffic light until green.
2. Foot to the floor, accelerate as quickly as possible, ignore speed limit.
3. Brake hard to stop at red traffic light at next intersection.
4. Repeat.
This is obviously very wasteful - however it is a style that suits hybrids well as braking put energy back into the battery. Otherwise hybrids do not seem to make a vast amount of sense. They require far greater resource to build, cost more and at steady cruise are little more economical than a similar size/weight non-hybrid (or less so , compared to a diesel). In the UK there is no reason to drive a hybrid beyond the desire to have a large faster car then car than is necessary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's not just speed Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: It's not just speed Posted by: johnclark
Let's try something else first...
Posted by: willie.horton on May 31, 2007 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If lowering the average speed would save gas, let's lower it in a more sensible way.
Let's try enforcing the speed limits we have, non-selectively, with automated radar cameras and "toll timing:" if it takes less time than it should to go from one end of the NJ Turnpike to the other, for example, you should be fined.
Speed enforcement is currently one of the most regressive, unfair "poverty taxes' we have. It facilitates racial profiling, and fixed fines have a disproportionate effect upon the poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Idea Posted by: AndyF
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
Posted by: Illiteratilumen on May 31, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't you see? If you make me slow down my car then the TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON!!!

They hate us for our speed limits, you know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOOOOOOOOO!!!! Posted by: jroth420
Their time is more valuable to them than your kid's blood
Posted by: Wexler on May 31, 2007 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having lived through the gas lines in the mid-70s and the resulting push to conserve fuel, the trend of the last few years is puzzling and troubling. Instead of driving smaller vehicles at slower speeds, which has been proven to save fuel and should be general knowledge, our nation has done exactly the opposite. The fuel efficiency of the national fleet has gone down, not up, and states have raised speed limits back to where they were prior to the mid-70s oil embargo.

So what's up with this? Have we contracted collective amnesia? Are we scientifically brain dead and can't understand the basic facts about how vehicles use fuel? Did the danger of our dependence on foreign oil to our national and economic security somehow just go *poof*?

On my daily 18.5 mile commute in to work, I set the cruise control in my 34 mpg Camry to 1 mph over the speed limit. (OK, I admit it, I speed). Every single day I'm passed by scores of SUVs and 3/4 or 1 ton tricked-out pickup trucks with single occupants. And not just passed. I mean I get my friggin' DOORS blown off. People are driving these highly inefficient gas-guzzlers faster than they ever have. The nominal speed on most of my commute is 65 mph. The average speed on that road is 75, and it's not unusual to get passed by someone doing 80+.

What is unusual, however, is to see anyone pulled over for speeding. I estimate that I see about 6 traffic stops a year.... and my commute takes me over extremely busy highways. Have the police given up on enforcing speed limits? Sure looks like it to me.

So why do people drive like that? Is it poor planning? Anxiety? Poor driving skills? Ignorance?

I have concluded that they just plain don't give a flip. They have decided that the few minutes they save on their commute (which I'm sure are used for something really important, such as bullshitting with the guy in the next cube) are more important than consumption, pollution, national security, economic security, and yes, the blood of your kids who are fighting a war to secure our "right" to take oil from the Middle East.

It's insane, stupid, and disgusting.

W. W. Wexler
editor@stopdubya.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good for you, dubya dubya dubya Posted by: Lloyd Drako
» downshifting Posted by: brock_samson
» RE: downshifting Posted by: Lloyd Drako
» scientifically brain dead? Posted by: Iconoclast421
If Alternet and its readers would stop whining about the oil shortage and actually fight for
Posted by: maxpayne on May 31, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
legalization and use of Industrial Hemp and funding of ALTERNATIVE RENEWABLES such as solar, wind, geothermal, hemp, etc ... and yes, even funding and lowering the price of PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, there'd be less oil-shortage cry-babying going on. And why not get more readers to be aware of Apollo's efforts to solve the problem. Gawd, I'm sick of the way faux "liberals" allow Konservatives to RAPE them to death !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Legal Hemp ? Posted by: zipper696
» RE: Legal Hemp ? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Legal Hemp ? Posted by: jroth420
» uninformed Posted by: Iconoclast421
Price is the only effective controlling factor.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on May 31, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Transportation fuels are only a part of the problem.

We should tax all fossil based hydrocarbon fuels at the point of origination or entry. Then distribute all the proceeds to the public - one citizen gets one share, as Alaska does with its oil dividend. This would provide both a carrot and a stick, and remove a lot of the political resistance to the price change. A tax equivalent to 55 cents a gallon, as suggested in this article, would not make much of a difference. But once the mechanism is in place, it could be "dialed in" to match our national goals.

As long as we have access to cheap fuels, we will make poor personal decisions regarding the use of those fuels. It is the cumulative effect of all those bad decisions that is causing the damage.

This article and chart show very clearly that the improvement in fuel mileage in the early 80s was driven first by consumer response to high prices. Then when prices fell, CAFE standards were set at the mileage levels that had already been met, and have stagnated at that point since.

Neither individuals nor corporations will sustain any behavior simply "for a good cause." We must demand that government impose those requirements on us. Then government must do it in a way that we see as fair, so we will continue to send our representatives back to Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A recent study found... Posted by: EagleMB
Tough love?
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 31, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You might as well just label it a call to increase police revenues. People won't slow down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tough love? Posted by: zipper696
big difference between the '70s and now
Posted by: zooeyhall on May 31, 2007 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember well the oil shocks of the early '70s. As a newly graduated high school student, I can still see people's frustration over going to the gas station and being limited to 5 gallons, or no gas at all! It was a very important wake-up call for this country. Steps were taken by administrations both Republican and Democrat to lower the speed limit nationally to 55 mph, increase car fuel economy standards, etc. There was grumbling from some of the public, but pretty much people went along. I think the national attitude to a large extent reflected what it was during WWII, that we were facing a crisis and this was something we needed to do.

Fast forward to 2007 and American has changed--for the worst. We now have the "me first" attitude in spades! A ruthless economic Darwinism embraced by the populace and the government: "I've got the money, so what if gas goes to $10/gal? And as for the lower class schmucks who can't afford it? Well,--screw 'em!" We've got an info-tainment media and press. "Feel good" news reporting is the order of the day. Our politicians are spineless whores selling themselves to the highest corporate bidder.

Yes--it would be great to have the speed limit at 55 again. Not only would it save fuel, but it would save lives. However, unless we realize the sad differences between American today and that of 30 years ago, it will be just a nostalgic dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Raise the Speed Limit!
Posted by: South42 on May 31, 2007 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are like a bunch of addicts who have and endless supply of cocaine. It doesn't matter that the price goes up as long as it keeps coming. The only way to force a cure to the addiction is to stop the supply as the addiction itself prevents one from seeking a cure. The faster we use up the oil the sooner we will find a better system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Post
Posted by: Ms.Katmai on May 31, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, what a great idea. I do my best to keep off of I-5, knowing that other people are driving 80+, and putting themselves and me in danger. Using mapquest, I find an alternate route - it usually takes a little longer, but I can take in the BEAUTY of the neighborhoods that I have to drive through.
Write to your governor!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Actually... Posted by: EagleMB
» US highways are not the autobahn Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
» RE: One more point... Posted by: EagleMB
mass transportation
Posted by: Mamarianne on May 31, 2007 7:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless major changes are made in the trucking industry, a 55 mile speed limit is going to have a terrible impact on the people who earn their livings as truck drivers.
Our interstate highway systems are designed for higher speed limits, and that is how drivers will continue to use them--unsafely whizzing past drivers who do try to travel at 55. The cost an occasional ticket will be absorbed just as drivers have absorbed the higher costs of fuel.
Local law enforcement agencies will, of course, need more staff to process the enforcement of a 55 mph limit. Whether the revenue from fines will cover the additional expenses must be determined. Whether the time spent ticketing drivers going at what used to be considered a safe speed of, say, 70 mph can be justified when weighed against other uses of law enforcement officers must also be carefully considered.
Instead of attempting to regulate the auto industry or mandating unworkable speed laws, governments (local, state, and federal) should do more to improve the feasibility of mass transportation. Lack of reliable transportation to work is one of the causes of economic distress for our nation's working poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An effective national 55-mph speed limit requires effective national leadership.
Posted by: HughScott on May 31, 2007 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hell no!
Posted by: Robba29 on May 31, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Okay--I'm drawing the line here. I love driving fast--call it an addiction. But with my farfegnugen (sp) 4 cylinder, manual Jetta I get ~30 mph at 80 mph on cruise. I'm still more fuel efficient than most! This idea gets the big finger from me. Speeding isn't the problem--its the crap for fuel efficiency cars and the lack of governmental regulation to change the manufacturer's (and oil industry's) greed. The people pay for lack of willpower of congress. Yeah, that almost makes sense. All I can say is, stick to the right--I'm coming through!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To Hell with this Idea
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 31, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I also think to hell with this lame idea.

Yeah less gas is used at slower speeds in most automobiles but time is money and to some of us, the time we save driving 120 miles at 80 mph is worth the tradeoff in decreased mpg.

What we need to do is redesign our highways throughout the country.

Maglev technology is in use throughout the world to propel trains upwards of 350 mph.

Why not design a new superhighway that incorporates this maglev technology for a new breed of cars that can drive on these highways being propelled and powered by maglev technology as well as normal roads where they are powered by an internal combustion engine.

These new highways could be built in such a way as to accommodate larger trains as well.

The transportation system in the U.S. has been stagnate for many decades, what do we have to show for it? Increasing traffic congestion and cars which haven't really changed in the last 100 years.

Its past time to put new technologies to use in improving transportation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old enough to remember the double-Nickel
Posted by: sausage on May 31, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember the mandatory, nationwide 55 mph speed limit. Western "libertarian" Republicans hated it. Claimed they couldn't get anywhere.

Everybody ignored it anyway. Somewhere in the US Constitution all Americans are guaranteed the right to drive their automobiles at high speeds. I believe it's the same amendment which allows all Americans to walk the streets with a handgun tucked in the waistband of their pants.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Of course I'm not serious Posted by: sausage
Many American drivers can't/won't...
Posted by: rdorrett on May 31, 2007 7:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am writing from the Baltimore metro area where the Baltimore Beltway speed limit is 55. However, during my drives to and from work each day, I am one of the very few drivers who sticks with the 55 mph limit and, in fact, even when I'm in the "slow lane" and doing 55, drivers are on my bumper. I have some idea where the notion of 'road rage' comes from! I find this pretty humorous because in spite of gasoline prices being now well over $3.00/gal. here, people are not slowing down. They're not even doing the legal speed limit!

Now, onto a related topic - how many people are aware that Toyota came out with a working concept car, the Eco Spirit, a diesel hybrid which got 104 mpg in the early 2000s? And, Toyota has no plans to produce this vehicle either!

So, we have American drivers zooming down the Beltway at anywhere from 60 - 80+ mph, a plethora of BMWs, Hummers, and other fuel-efficient vehicles to zoom around in and a vehicle which could be available which would get incredible fuel mileage which the #1 car maker in the world is not going to produce!

Personally, I think as a nation, we're screwed, because very few people want to give up anything! least of all the right to travel as fast as they want to, when they want to and wherever they want to, even if it means going to the grocery store for a loaf of bread in the family Hummer!

Bob

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 104 mpg Posted by: pzzp
Out West
Posted by: StuartH on May 31, 2007 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The distances people drive out west are unimagineable when
living in an urban context. On the one hand, there are few
situations where one might encounter a traffic jam. But, to
get places where one has business or to seek pleasure, will
inevitably require driving for hours at a stretch. To go from
getting somewhere in four hours at 80mph to driving 55,
just takes way longer. The cost in terms of fatigue and
making it harder than it already is to get anything done would
really be staggering.

What the next administration needs to do is to require higher
mileage capability of the car manufacturers, and put some
teeth into it. Also, our leaders need to quit lying to us about
the true nature of the long term worldwide resource picture.

We ought to put emphasis on renewable energy research, to
the extent that it might mitigate the crisis.

Cutting back on driving at all, really thinking about whether
that business or tourism trip is affordable, should come
before causing everybody to have to tangle with local law
enforcement over speeding.

In some parts of the West, people could go back to horses
and buggies without much problem. Maybe we'll see the old
buckboards get dusted off and more people doing errands on
horseback. Gas at 3.00 a gallon causes one to grumble.
Going over 4.00 and staying there, which it will sooner or
later, should cause a lot of pressure for change in our
current circumstance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Out West Posted by: willymack
» RE: Out West Posted by: WitchyNy
Nice tone to the article. Tad reediculumus, but still a nice tone.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 31, 2007 8:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine the national unity of will it must have taken in 1975 to get Chevrolet to produce the subcompact Chevette and to persuade people to drive it!

I could imagine a market for a subcompact, but I don't have to. We have the data.

Economics unite individuals us in the marketplace, where the market exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Save gas and be safer too!
Posted by: donnambirdlady on May 31, 2007 8:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I learned to drive in California when the speed limit was 55. When the speed limit went up, accident rates also went up with a higher percentage of fatalities. I am all for lowering the speed limit back to 55. It will save many lives as well as conserve gas. People need to relax at the wheel a bit more and plan their long distance trips to allow ample time for highway slowdowns anyway. It also occurs to me that the phenomena of road rage really started happening about the time the speed limit went up. Maybe slowing down a bit would be a good thing for our society as a whole and a good place to start would be on the highways.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Save gas and be safer too! Posted by: sondjata
You gotta do better than that
Posted by: lamar on May 31, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This one-size-fits-all solution is a pipe dream. Why shouldn't I be able to go 75 mph if my car is more efficient than yours at 50 mph? Once you start talking about "collective good" you'd better have some strong, scientific evidence that reducing the speed limit would have a significant impact. Would it do more than raising efficiency standards? Improving fuels or switching to diesel or other fuel? How would this affect the trucking industry? Railroads? I'm a little reluctant to give up something that improves our daily lives without something more than a 'wouldn't that be neat' analysis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» #$&^*$^$^%* Posted by: decembrist
» RE: #$&^*$^$^%* Posted by: lamar
» speed kills Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
The Double Nickle ... a 20% pay cut for drivers
Posted by: BenCaxton12 on May 31, 2007 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone knows, I trust, that the Teamster's Union is not what it was in 1949. There are more hourly wages for truck drivers. Pay is by-the-mile ... and coincindenally, averages about 55 cents whether the mile is traveled in 45 seconds or 45 minutes.

And while the state Nickle could not be enforced the FEDERAL limit could be (and was) with fines and penalties applied based on drivers ICC logbooks. (Falsifying the log being a much worse offense than exceeding the speed limit.)

There's any number of ways to encourage, incentivize and mandate better fuel efficiency. We know them: tax breaks for high-efficiency vehicles, taxes on fuel and low-efficiency vehicles ... HOV lanes ... subsidized research in fuel economy ...

But what the hell: NICE HEADLINE ! Stupid, but NICE !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rather than a Sunday drive in the hybrid...
Posted by: utahn00b on May 31, 2007 9:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...why not a Sunday ride on a bicycle? I'd bet the mpgs would be even better than the incredible (sigh) 38 in the Camry. And your neighbor wouldn't even have to plug it in--or, for that matter, change the battery to the tune of thousands of dollars in a few years. Of course, the bike doesn't have a blinking light to praise her for her good sense, but I'm sure something could be rigged up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yea, good luck with that
Posted by: ateo on May 31, 2007 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
America's response to peak oil is to invade the Middle East and make sure the oil keeps flowing to America rather than anyone else. China and India are just going to have to do without vast suburbs and 30 minute commutes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» and the likely outcome? Posted by: zipper696
I don't get it? Who's enforcing this limit?
Posted by: elfinito on May 31, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The limit in so many areas is still 55mph. And who drives 55mph? Actually, someone driving 55 gets honked at and is dangerous on the road because of (not his fault) the need for everyone to go around this driver, creating constant lane changes...one of the main accident causes on highway driving.

Speed limit laws are already one of this nation's great jokes...that help citizens learn at a young age that certain laws are "allowed" to be broke.

Its not the law that matters...its the enforcement. If you make it 55mph...than goddammit the cops need to enforce 55. (maybe with +/- 5 mph leeway).

I feel one of the huge mistakes we make as a nation is lthat we love to implement laws that we than selectively enforce. Drug laws and Speeding Laws are the most blatant. And...guess what...they are both two of the biggest areas where minorities are targeted. Because these laws of arbitrary enforcement, allow a cop the power to decide who to fuck with.

Personally I am against the speed limit being 55, I think should be an exteremely strictly enforced 75 on Highways. that 20mph for a trucker, or anyone traveling several thousand of miles round-trip, makes the difference of days in the trip.

Further...there are actually studies that say the most efficient speed is 70-80mph. And its all just popaganda to help encourage 55mph driving, that this "efficiency" notion is stated. Isn't it a bit fishy that efficiency goes up with speed and just happend to be at the max at 55mph...the speed limit? Truckers, almost universally say that they get better gas mileage at higer speeds.

However, thats just my opinion and if "society" feels that 55mph is better...Fine..thats democracy! But, whatever the speed limit is...goddamit enforce the freakin laws!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» fact check Posted by: wefearwhatwedontunderstand
Oil is bad, mmmkay?
Posted by: Sakkara on May 31, 2007 12:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, I hate this country's dependence on oil. I hate that people buy Hummers that get 2 miles to the gallon and then jack them up on giant tires so they get even less. But you know what else I hate? People who drive slow. Speed limits are posted for two reasons: to create speed traps or to reduce accidents by morons who can't drive. Eighty percent of the people I get behind on a daily basis are driving way too slow. Speed limits on roads are only a warning to me to be alert for cops. Now I'm not someone who just loves speed; I only drive when I have to and where I have to. I don't go on roadtrips, and I consider every moment in my car time I'm wasting in my life. When someone in front of me is going 45 in a 45, THEY are wasting my time. I wish I could return the favor, but all I can do is make them aware they're pissing me off. Which I do.
My V6 Eclipse gets 30 miles to the gallon, and a tank of gas lasts me on average 3 weeks. I've never had an accident, haven't had a speeding ticket in over 7 years, and I never drive less than 10 mph over the posted limit.
Speed limits aren't the problem we should be focused on! The problem where the environment is concerned is the internal combustion engine. If the oil companies and our government (same thing) weren't standing in the way, we'd all be driving hydrogen vehicles.
The problems where accidents are concerned are people multitasking (they should only allow in-car cellular speakerphones), drunk drivers, and stupid people (any monkey with $40 can get a driver's license in this country). Make everyone take a long, comprehensive *strategic* driving course and test prior to getting a license and accidents would decline exponentially.
The only thing oil should be used for, period, is lubrication. You hippies pissing me off by trying to waste my time sitting behind you in traffic staring at your Jesus fish is NOT the way to solve the world's oil addiction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oil is bad, mmmkay? Posted by: sterlingdave54
» RE: Oil is bad, mmmkay? Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Oil is bad, mmmkay? Posted by: Sakkara
» RE: Oil is bad, mmmkay? Posted by: decembrist
From a pickup owner
Posted by: redavenger on May 31, 2007 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I drive a V-6 F-150 most of the time--I usually get an average of 15 mpg. This means I use about a gallon of gas each day--one tank will last me basically a month. We also have a newer Accord that gets 30+. My wife drives it to work since her commute is longer. To me, most of the problem is drive distance. I live in the Bay Area, and people don't seem to think much of spending and hour plus in the car. I get frustated if I spend more than 20 minutes driving home. I don't understand why people have to live so far from work--certainly not in the numbers that they do!

Any long-distance driving that we do is in the Accord, but it is so great to have the versatility of a larger pickup for many situations, and I can't see the harm in owning what many might perceive to be a "gas-guzzler" for the limited use and mileage that it gets (under 15,000 miles in two years).

I had an attack of conscience a few months ago, and looked into getting a smaller pickup, but most essentially got the same gas mileage--maybe 3 better. People love their pickups--why don't more auto manufacturers make fuel-efficency their number one goal here--not in passenger cars that, it seem to me, are comparatively more efficient?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crap premise based on Crap philosophy
Posted by: DaBear on May 31, 2007 1:56 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I began driving when the lines were just starting to get shorter and everything was either 40 mph or 55 mph (limited to interstates as all 2-3 lane "highways" in PA were 40 mph or less). I have to laugh at Matt's premise because nowhere in his piece does he cite the "science" to support his premise that 55 mph as opposed to 40, 45, 60 or 65, or 32.3 mph for that matter is the optimal fuel efficient speed. Anyone who does modest research can find that: a) optimal fuel efficiency speed differs from vehicle model to model, even vehicle to vehicle (although the latter are admittedly much smaller variations), b) fuel efficiency is a function of constant or steady maintanence of that optimal speed--see the "hyper-miler" phenomenon where folks change driving style/speeds to coax up to 69 mpg out of cars with CAFE ratings of 23 mpg at 55mph). I remember the crap-science used to prop up the double nickel bullshit; Philosophy was the real basis of it. "55" is bullshit as a matter of technical practicality.

In terms of safety, that's also crap: train a person to drive a vehicle properly and not merely operate a vehicle, eliminate the urge to multitask or do something else other than being fully focused on driving when behind the wheel, use safety features in vehicles (seat belts, ABS, air bags, etc.) and you minimize road dangers--and THAT is a personal responsibility issue. It's not the damned digits on a sign that'll save lives, it's the vehicle, skill of the driver and conditions that saves lives. Get it through your philosophically drenched heads.

So, if 55 ain't justified by technical science, it's not a matter of safety, then it's a philosophical thing. And that's an utter bullshit reason for having a public policy to address a problem that is largely of a technical nature. You cannot solve technical problems by employing philosophy only. You can't restart a heart by singing songs or holding hands, you need CPR and a defibrilator [sic?]. You want fuel efficiency? Build better vehicles or use better fuels. Even the EV1 could handle 65 mph when handled by a skilled driver (and still get the range - a whole mess of us did it so I know it can be done). You want safety? Train drivers better--what passes for driver training in California right now is appalling; it's barely learning to operate a vehicle nowhere near actually driving one with substantive skill. God help those in massivetwoshitts or connecticlutz or new jerky (I used to live those places too... a driver's nightmare of vehicular illiteracy). Matt's argument is akin to singing songs and holding hands and the bad oil man will go away. that's crap.

I for one, "obeyed" my mpg and time as a priority. While I love to drive fun cars, I own crappy old cars (I'm not a CEO) so every moment behind a wheel is a moment I'm not able to work play or be human. Gimme a train any day of the week. To deal with the double nickel era stoopid, I owned and employed cop-detectors to maintain my priority of mpg and time. If some philosophical numbnut brings back 55, I'll just go back to those work-around devices. Conformity only brings out my inner rebel.

FWIW, my current attitude is: 55-schmiftyfive--with local petrol at 3.69/gal. I've gone back to riding my bike and walking, driving only when it's utterly impractical to do so. So even if the fundie magik drive-55 happy people force the double nickel's return, I'll give them the finger as I ride by on my bike.... at top speed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

MY OTHER CAR IS A BROOM-
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 31, 2007 4:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or my horse-you know what the Amish say about drunk teenagers?
The horse always knows the way home. It is true.
Imagine how we could cut the teenage death rate.

Also I love trains. What about steam engines?

You know what is sexy? A man on a bike. Or walking along....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL
Posted by: YogiBear on May 31, 2007 11:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I didn't read the piece. I couldn't quite get past: Sammy Hagar Heavy metal icon

Heavy metal? Hagar soft-rocked Van Halen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If they would lower the speed limit anymore I would fall asleep driving
Posted by: Mojoe on May 31, 2007 11:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't believe people actually think lowering the speed limit will lessen global warming. This is such a ridiculous idea it makes my head spin. Should we make drive thru's illegal too? What about leisure driving, should that be illegal? Should trucks only be sold to businesses? Should convertibles be illegal?

The answer is NOT lowering the speed limit. That would make driving my Corvette so much less enjoyable.




And by the way, before someone cries about me driving a Corvette... in 6th gear at 80 mph I get 30 mpg. That's better than your VW Jetta.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My VW... Posted by: Robba29
» That must be a rare Corvette Posted by: xconservative
Rural Areas Not Like Urban Areas
Posted by: StuartH on Jun 1, 2007 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to be tedious, rural distances are a reality.

Here in Arizona, there are long distances between
places where it is necessary to go for shopping, for
meetings, or for other purposes.

We go thirty miles to a basic grocery store, for
instance. The nearest department store to us
is actually about two hundred and fifty miles.

Actually, I agree with William Kunstler, who wrote
the book, "The Long Emergency." Certain parts
of the country, the Southwest especially, could
really have problems as gasoline becomes more
and more expensive.

The realities here underscore the need for real
solutions and not bullshit proposals by people
who have no real grasp of what is going on in
the world beyond their typewriter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ural Areas Not Like Urban Areas Posted by: xconservative
Would Save Me One Mile Per Gallon
Posted by: hole11 on Jun 1, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My car is tuned to do 65. At 65 mph I get about 30 mpg. At 55 mph I get 31 mpg.

Those signs are more dangerous than the speed. How many wrecks involve a street sign or speed limit sign? I can go out at a dangerous four way intersection and count about 20 street signs.

Eliminate signs altogether. Drive at your own risk. Fewer people would drive or they would drive even more cautiously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]