Bringing back the 55 mph limit?? Read this!

[Aged racer]

:026: Guys, don't know where this might fit, so I've picked this section. Writing to raise the alarm- a U.S Senator has brought up bringing back the old National 55 mph speed limit, in the name of "energy savings". Sadly, it's Virginia's own Senator John Warner, who yesterday asked the DoE to "evaluate" what the "conservation effects" might be.

Please, wasn't this nightmare discredited enough years ago? The productivity losses, the enforcement costs, just plain taking forever to do your business doing the week (or getting to the track on the weekend). The energy savings are likely dubious as well (Can we drill more? Now?)

Small example- my travel times to Roebling Road are 7 hours one way, close to same for Road Atlanta. The thought of adding close to four hours travel time is absolutely depressing. Yes, I'll buy more gas, but that's my choice!

If you agree, email your Senator, and the rest of your representatives ASAP, and make your opinion known! Maybe enough heat on the pol's will nip this thing in the bud. :cool:

Steve

[Greg Amy]

http://www.motorists.org

[RedMisted]

:026: Guys, don't know where this might fit, so I've picked this section. Writing to raise the alarm- a U.S Senator has brought up bringing back the old National 55 mph speed limit, in the name of "energy savings". Sadly, it's Virginia's own Senator John Warner, who yesterday asked the DoE to "evaluate" what the "conservation effects" might be.

Please, wasn't this nightmare discredited enough years ago? The productivity losses, the enforcement costs, just plain taking forever to do your business doing the week (or getting to the track on the weekend). The energy savings are likely dubious as well (Can we drill more? Now?)

Politicians have been known to set off alarms through the media to raise their profile when things are going "slow." This type of behavior benefits the press because more newspapers are sold, more news programs watched or listened to, etc.

I seriously doubt the American public would allow itself to be saddled with a return to 55mph, no matter how much sense a lower speed limit may make. Remember, a draft to help speed up the Iraq war makes serious sense to many in governmental circles, yet no one will dare implement one because the public will not stand for it.

You will know if this 55mph thing is a serious issue when it starts getting considerable attention and debate in media circles. Until then, I'd leave your friendly neighborhood senator or congressman to whatever it is he/she does best, which is probably not government!

[LD71]

Steve,
Yes, let's keep consuming aind increasing our consumption as much as we can---let's get the price up to 6 or 7 dollars per gallon, then we can go for 10. Just make sure we increase the Internet capacity so I can follow your exploits when getting to the races has exceeded my capacity to pay. As in, very soon.

The power of supply and demand is pretty strong--too bad we always focus on the supply side.

Always nice to see a post from my friend from the South,
LD71

[Greg Amy]

Larry,

- The 55 mph speed limit did not save any fuel in this country. I've got stats from DoE to prove it. Fleet average fuel economy (number of total miles driven divided number of total gallons used) did improve from 1975 when CAFE was initially implemented, and was purely coincidental with the NMHSL (National Mandatory Highway Speed Limit). Proof is that after 1990 - when CAFE final number were implemented by law - fleet fuel economy leveled out. The NHMSL was repealed in 1995, and...there was no change of the fleet average fuel economy.

- Speed doesn't kill, and 55 doesn't save lives. We were lied to (surprise!) Fatality rate has decreased steadily and inexorably since standards were kept in 1949, and were completely and utterly unaffected by the implementation of the 55 NMHSL. Yes, I've got NHTSA stats to prove it.

- In fact, many, many studies have proven that 55 actually caused more accidents and was far less safe. Speed doesn't kill, speed VARIANCE kills. And with an artifically-low speed limit, we CREATE that speed variance.

Remember the IIHS bleating we would have 6,000 more deaths per year if we repealed 55 ("Carnage on the highway", I think they said)? Never happened. And, you can rest assured knowing there were HUNDREDS of studies commissioned by various insurance and government agencies to prove that repeal was bad, and none - none - to date came up with anything (YOU KNOW we would have heard about them if they did...)

Bottom line: 55 was great for governments hell-bent on control and ticket revenue, and for insurance company revenues in surcharges, but was a major PITA in this country, costing far more in hassles, expenses, and controversy. We can either encourage people to drive slower to save fuel (something the market does really, really well via "price") or we can go ahead and implement this proven-failed experiment yet again, making criminal a perfectly safe activity.

It's truly our call this time. - GA

[Z3_GoCar]

I think the Senator from Virginia should be forced to go on a fact-finding trip to BFN, Montana, or any place towns are at least 80 miles apart. Then maybe he would reconsider this bad idea. As for saving lives, highway 5 in central California is a real snoozer at 55 mph. I imagine more lives would be lost to falling asleep on that stretch than would be saved anywhere else in the state. At 80mph it's actually a reasonable drive, and at 90-100 you can actually get somewhere (did I say that out loud??).

James

[RedMisted]

...80mph it's actually a reasonable drive, and at 90-100 you can actually get somewhere (did I say that out loud??).

James

The way these dimwits drive in this country nowadays, would you want to see speed limits actually increase? If I'm gonna get totalled, I want it to happen on a race track, not on some interstate by a lady yakking on a cell phone and putting on makeup while doing 90-100mph with a baby in her lap!

[LD71]

Hello Greg,
I appreciate the information you provided. I was only responding about fuel consumption, so the info on accidents is interesting, but separate.
I love the tack that Government lied to us, as I'm quite ready to hear this, no doubts from me. But to the idea that a 55 mph speed limit did not save any fuel, I'm not a believer yet. As someone who deals with numbers and statistics every day, my own experience shows a saving in consumption,

I look at it this way: when I drive to the track, my van pulling my trailer gets about 8 mpg at 70 mph last time I tried, several years ago. I always set the cruise at 64 mph, at which I get just over 9 mpg. I have not tried 55 mph over a long distance because it is not safe to drive those speeds in the current climate.

In my personal driving, I work at my home so no commute. When I drive my pwersonal car (PT Cruiser 5 speed), I average 30 mpg by driving for best mpg--slower speeds, no burning-rubber starts (maybe a PT and burning rubber is an oxymoron?), as much use of the cruise as possible. When I need to get someplace fast and drive at a faster pace, mileage falls to mid-20's.

Therefore my observation is that lower speeds = higher mpg. If this is true in aggregate, it would seem that the only way 55 mph would not save fuel is if total miles increased. Let me know what I am missing.

BTW, although I am bothered by many wasteful proctices I see drivers engaging in, I'm realistic and would probably not advocate 55 mph---too many safety and enforcement issues. But a reduction to 60 might work. Whether it would save gas is the discussion here, just trying to understand why it wouldnt.

Regards,
LD71

[Greg Amy]

...my own experience shows a saving in consumption...Therefore my observation is that lower speeds = higher mpg.

I agree: driving slower uses less fuel (with some notable exceptions, such as higher-performance vehicles geared for higher speeds). However, the issue is not whether driving 55 saves fuel versus 65 - we can agree that it does - the issue is whether a 55 mile per hour speed limit saves fuel versus a 65 mph speed limit.

The answer is: it doesn't.

Why not? Because people don't drive at artificially-low-set speed limits, especially 55 (or even 60 or 65) mph on an interstate-quality highway.

Take a look at this chart:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0208.html

Note the "miles per gallon" columns. Note that it gradually dropped from 1949 to the late 70's, when CAFE was initially implemented (initially 1975, phased up standards to 1990). From there it gradually increased to 1990-91 when the last levels of CAFE were implemented. Notice ZERO change (actually, an increase in fuel economy) when the NHMSL was repealed in 1995.

While driving 55 mph will save fuel when compared to driving 65 mph, the 55 miles per hour speed limit had ZERO effect on fuel consumption simply because people ignored it wholesale. And, no amount of enforcement binges, tax rebates to the states, and mass-market media campaigns to the contrary changed that.

The majority of people will drive at a speed that is safe for the conditions; on interstate-quality highways that speed is well above 55 mph. Mandating the speed limit to 55 mph will have negligible affect on the speed people drive, proven by the "success" of that speed limit during the Great Experiment. Since people are not driving at 55 mph, there will be negligible affect on actual fuel consumption. Since the stated reason for dropping the speed limit to 55 is to slow people down to save fuel, and it has been proven time and again to not work, setting the speed limit at this artificially-low speed will have no affect on the amount of fuel used.

Ergo, why make criminals out of people with no positive effect(s)? You would have just as much chance getting people to drive 55 now within the existing speed limits (which is perfectly legal to do) as you would trying to get people to drive 55 with a 55 mph speed limit.

In other words: zero.

Greg

[LD71]

Greg,
I appreciate your point, it would appear that voluntary efforts to save fuel would have a better result.

The chart has some interesting data. It would appear that "trucks" would be lower-hanging fruit---do you know what vehicles are included there? I assume diesels are part of the mix....surprising to me that mpg would remain at such low levels...

LD71

[Z3_GoCar]

The way these dimwits drive in this country nowadays, would you want to see speed limits actually increase? If I'm gonna get totalled, I want it to happen on a race track, not on some interstate by a lady yakking on a cell phone and putting on makeup while doing 90-100mph with a baby in her lap!

Check out this section of 5, litterally over 100 miles of nothing in a state with more population than most contries. Exits are about 10 miles apart, and most of the time visability is good enough that you can spot trouble 20 miles before you get to it. I think the Germans have it right with speed limit signs that change with conditions. Good and prudent is a legal cop-out for limiting liability, not actually safety. Anyway, my point is that on this stretch, if 55 were mandated more would die from falling asleep than would be saved by the slower speed elsewhere.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=e...e=UTF8&t=h&z=8

James

[CCDangie71]

The way these dimwits drive in this country nowadays, would you want to see speed limits actually increase? If I'm gonna get totalled, I want it to happen on a race track, not on some interstate by a lady yakking on a cell phone and putting on makeup while doing 90-100mph with a baby in her lap!

Chris,
I'm not sure but I don't think Britney Spears does much traveling in your neck of the woods so I think you are safe (at least from her).

Here's my two cents worth. Setting the speed limit at 55mph would/could save some gas but the real problem with consumption is the type of vehicles people drive. All of us are removed from the "problem group" since we need larger vehicles to tow our cars around the country. The issue I have is people who own SUVs only because they can "sit up high" and "have a better view". I have a friend who owned a 4runner and he traded it for a Sequoia because he and his wife had a baby and they "needed more space". He doesn't own a boat or racecar or anything that needs to be towed. If everyone did a reality check and asked the question, do I really need this 7 passenger SUV, we would see a lot of changes and consumption would go down dramatically.

I'm to the point that I want to buy something small for everyday driving and buy a fullsize Ford van as my tow vehicle. At 6-8K miles per year, it should last a good long time.

[kakarot]

Dont know, but driving at 55mph saves more fuel that driving at 75mph.

Changing Interstate speed limit to 55mph would not save any fuel, since noone would actually drive at those speeds.

I am personally know to drive fast on interstates, and 50mph on 55mph highway next to my house. (not actually obstruction traffic, I always take right lane and cruise there)

Its just another political manuver to put some as****e in a seat somewhere.

[RedMisted]

Maybe Sen. Warner would rather reconsider his proposal for the 55mph limit in favor of a punitive "Stupidity Tax" on individuals who buy large, truck-type vehicles for no valid reason. Not sure how such a tax program would be implemented, but think of the gas savings that would result. For example, no more self-deluded wanna-be divas or hipsters cruising around in Escalades and Navigators trying to look important...

[dickita15]

Or we could just let the free market decide. The government already collects more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies.

[Greg Amy]

It would appear that "trucks" would be lower-hanging fruit---do you know what vehicles are included there? I assume diesels are part of the mix....surprising to me that mpg would remain at such low levels...

Larry, those are the local/OTR semis and large container/moving trucks, like local delivery. The most likely reason we don't see improvements there is simply physics: these trucks move large, aerodynamically-inefficient loads, and that takes a certain amount of power.

We've seen some aero improvements in the last few decades on OTR trucks, but nothing revolutionary; the simple reason for that is our infrastructure and laws/economics don't allow it. One of the biggest revolutions in shiping is the containerized transport, which, for the sake of packaging, are large rectangular, square-edged boxes. While these may fit into a ship quite efficiently, and allow pre-packaging and easy transport, they don't make for very aero loads on the highway behind a semi. Further, we have laws in place that limit lengths and such, therefore limiting what kind of attachments we can economically add to trailers to make them more efficient. Finally, our infrastructure is set up to load/unload/handle these square boxes, so - for example - adding large aero attachments to trailers becomes an impediment to efficient transport (plus they are expensive and are easily damaged when a driver isn't paying attention).

We've seen some aero improvements in the trucks themselves over the years; compare a 1970 Peterbilt to, say, a 2008 Mack and you'll note a major difference, in terms of frontal blending and cab-to-trailer flow control. But, in the end, the big box in the back is X-by-Y-by-Z size, and nothing short of a total shipping/transportation overhaul will improve that.

Finally, while I'm no diesel mechanic, it does not appear to the untrained eye that any radical or revolutionary changes have happened to the mechanics of the truck fleet. They're still large frame trucks with basic diesel engines, that need XXX horsepower to pull YYYY poundage. Short of the obvious changes of direct injection and computer control (I'm assuming they're using that now) there's not a whole lot you can do to a diesel engine to improve its BSFC.

Probably the only thing the trucking industry can do to improve its efficiency is economies of scale, in terms of total load per semi (more weight, more trailers.) But, that's limited by highway capability and load limits. And, as we've seen in the past, any time load limits are raised we don't see improvements in efficiency, we see increased total load carried (i.e., allowing tandem trailer didn't cut the number of trucks in half, it doubled the amount of load carried by the existing truck fleet).

The ultimate in economies of scale would come if we, say, hitched more trucks together, maybe letting one driver in front carry 3 or more trailers. Then, to improve safety we could give them their own roads, discrete from cars. To keep them from having to change speeds all the time (their most-inefficient mode) we could give that road right-of-way over others. And, maybe, we could embed some kind of directional control (either computer-assisted or maybe even something as simple as a mechanical "rail" of some kind that the truck would attach to and follow) to keep the on their road. Finally, since hybrids are all the rage these days, why not make the TRUCKS hybrid? Maybe go diesel-electric, where the diesel generates the electricity, which drives the wheels? And, since we now have right-of-way, directional control, and constant speeds, maybe we could hitch up a few more trailers to be even more efficient; if we built a big enough engined "truck", think we could get as many as 25 or more trailers?

Maybe even a "train" of 50 trailers or more, efficiently pulling the whole load, controlled by one person (with a backup on board so they wouldn't have to stop), and done with a highly-efficient diesel-electric hybrid engine?

Yeah, I know: wishful thinking.... - GA

[kthomas]

Or we could just let the free market decide. The government already collects more on a gallon of gas than the oil companies.

Now don't go interjecting common sense into this.

Guess I'll have to dig up my old "OUST55" license plate....

[Eagle7]

Greg, you crack me up. But you forgot about eliminating the bumps in the road and the losses from the compliance of the tires.

[GKR_17]

Chris,
If everyone did a reality check and asked the question, do I really need this 7 passenger SUV, we would see a lot of changes and consumption would go down dramatically.

Careful now. There are quite a few of us who don't really 'need' to be driving around in circles for hours on end either. Not to mention the truck, trailer and junk to take the car to the place where it will perform those more or less pointless circles.

[Aged racer]

Larry, equally a pleasure to hear from you.

Greg, I can’t add a thing to your reasoned (and factual) responses except to say “thanks” (and I may crib some of it for this same discussion on some other web haunts).

A few conclusions I’ve come to after reading and pondering all the responses to this topic here and on other forums:


-- there is always, always a trade-off, and in this case it’s between productivity (time) and resource consumption (fuel). Maybe it’s my capitalist wage slave bias, but I’ll take the productivity any time, hands down, whether it’s business or personal (I can pay a few more bucks, but I can never get my time back)
-- in the aggregate, a return to 55 (or whatever) may or may not save gas (which in turn may or may not reduce pump prices)- as Greg notes, the variables are significant and mostly behavioral
-- if you personally want to drive slower (and like our friend Larry can afford the extra time), no one is keeping you from that- it’s your choice
-- however, those of us who choose the other side of that tradeoff (i.e. time) should also have the freedom to do so (without looking over our shoulder the whole way for zealous speed enforcement):026:
-- lastly, participate in the democratic process (as bastardized as it may be)- do send a quick email to your Senators and Congressman to MAKE SURE they know what you think (in deference to Larry, either way). Pol's don't read forums (especially from racers), but most of the time they listen to constituents.


I think I'm already persona non-grata with our very own limo riding solon Senator Warner.....

Steve