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

[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.

[ssjrrupp]

No 55mph, please. I don't need some half-wit, do-gooder politician trying to restrict my freedom of choice. These same people can't tell me how to save money. Hell, we just watched as one do-gooder politician went into debt during her presidential bid because neither she nor her idiot employees knew how to manage funds... like most politicians, they blew cash "living the lifestyle" like they were going out of style. Spending other people's money is as easy as telling them how to spend and save it, it seems. I can't think of anything more hypocritical.

Here's the deal. We've become a service economy. The US is a warehouse of imported goods with services available to distribute those goods. We've ignored the growth of the "global economy" for two decades. We've save lots of birds and polar bears and plants, whatever, while other countries have industrialised. Our standard of living is inflated compared to the rest of the world. The use of oil is and has been practically the backbone of this great society. And now, sadly... it's time to actually pay. It's going to take years to catch up. Oh well. And we may never.

Government legislation, laws (outside of obvious criminal offenses), rules, regulations, ordinances... bla bla blah... aren't designed to save me money. They are designed to redistribute what wealth I have. Rob from Peter to pay Paul and it ends up where? Beats the crap out of me.

Free markets always correct themselves. Tampering is generally not good. Unfortuneatly, it feels like the masses want the government to take care of everything and don't want to blame themselves for poor choices. Conservatives, liberals, blue, red, con artists; they just bend to keep their jobs and keep themselves fat. I don't care about party lines... I only care about what affects my money. Noone is going to tell me that a 55mph speed limit does me a darn bit of good. It's just another way to control me in a setting in which I really have no rights, anyways. And in controlling me, they get more of my money.

Bunk. It's all bunk.


On a separate note... there's a Mercedes 190e 16V on Ebay right now. It's got ITS stickers on it but the owner claims that it won ITE Midiv 3 years running. I checked the Midiv site and looked at about 75% of the race results back to the beginning of 2006... I don't see a Mercedes anywhere in ITE or ITS. By location, if the car had been run locally, I would think results would be found in events run at Hartland park, but I don't see any,

Does anyone recognise this car? I emailed the owner this morning.

Best Regards,
Justin

[OTLimit]

Does anyone recognise this car? I emailed the owner this morning.
Best Regards,
Justin

Actually, I think if you look back in the Midiv archives at 1997 you will see who owns/owned the car. But 3 championships? Uhm, don't see it immediately but I could be missing something.

http://www.midiv.org/PDF/2007_MIDAM_CHAMPS.pdf

http://www.midiv.org/PDF/2007_IT_CHAMPS.pdf

I find it ridiculous to take this senator seriously, considering they flagrantly violate laws and get away with it because of the office they hold. But hey, they are good enough to make laws for the rest of us to obey. I know, let's see if we can get Mr Gore to actually "get green" some time in the near future.

We did a little test with my 95 Golf yesterday on the way home from Nebraska. Put unleaded (NO ethanol) in the car, and Chris drove. Car got ~33 mpg. The best I can do with regular unleaded (with ethanol) is ~30. Let's just say that he drives faster than I do. Car ran better with real gas in it, got better mileage, and therefore saved me money. Anyone else see a problem with using a food crop to make ethanol?