New fueleconomy.gov tips

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by wobombat

And frankly, I will embrace a national decrease in highway speed limits. 65 in my book is too fast and 75-80 in some places is way to fast, not to mention that most people go 5-20 over the speed limit anyway. Let them lower the speed limit and let them start giving out speeding tickets in earnest for going over.

Perhaps you have not traveled the vast expanses of land that exist between the US coasts. The freeways are long and boring, and at 55mph would take ages to travel. I too used to think 80 was an excessive limit, until I had to travel such distances. That limit now seems reasonable to me, but I do agree that limits should be strictly enforced. Otherwise, a speed limit is really just a speed suggestion with no clear boundaries.

People wishing to get better fuel economy can choose to drive slower. In Oregon and Washington, 2 speed limits are given. A faster one for passenger vehicles, and a slower one for commercial trucks. Anyone that wishes to drive slower can drive at the reduced truck limit.

Originally Posted by wungun

Oil is afterall, a non renewable resource.

No such thing as a renewable energy source. Even nuclear fission is a consuming process. I do realize one can be sustained longer than the other though, and I get your point.

There will always be people who drive much faster than the posted limit, in their Escalades and Hummers...

Those that drive Hummers and Escalades pay for the privilege. Not only do they pay more for the vehicle, and more for the insurance, and more for the cost of fuel, but also taxes. They are essentially paying a greater portion of the infrastructure cost by consuming more fuel and paying more tax than the average person.

Efficient transportation has enough of a monetary incentive built in that mandating it is unnecessary. People that make poor decisions should not be insulated against the consequences of those decisions, or forced into making better decisions.

[Frank Lee]

People that make poor decisions should not be insulated against the consequences of those decisions, or forced into making better decisions.

By not paying the true cost for fossil fuel because of extensive subsidy, the hogs ARE insulated.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

By not paying the true cost for fossil fuel because of extensive subsidy, the hogs ARE insulated.

Agreed. Subsidies should almost without exception be eliminated. We should be paying the true cost of fossil fuels as well as the true cost of ethanol.

That said, subsidies don't relate to the topic of mandating a lower speed limit. Perhaps when cars are automated and drive themselves that would make a more compelling argument for a lower national speed limit.

Most people do not consider the majority of driving they do to be entertaining or productive (outside of the need to get from point A to point B). That means that arriving at a destination more quickly increases productivity or free time. The value of productivity and free time should not be underestimated.

Considering the exceedingly short duration of a lifetime, it is wise to consider ways to reduce the 4.22 years the average person spends in a vehicle.

[Frank Lee]

The average person doesn't appear to put much consideration into locating themselves near the stuff they do a lot; another facet of being over-insulated from the effects of their choices.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The average person doesn't appear to put much consideration into locating themselves near the stuff they do a lot; another facet of being over-insulated from the effects of their choices.

Even if people weren't over-insulated from the effects of their choices, they are still often irrational.

I work in Vancouver WA, and a coworker has made the choice to live in Portland OR. The cost for him to commute to work is greater, the cost of rent is greater and on top of all that he pays an 8% Oregon income tax for the privilege of living in Oregon. Even though he knows it costs hundreds more per month to live in Portland, he is willing to do so just to live in hipster city. He chooses this option even though he could live just 10min away from downtown Portland while claiming a WA residency and being closer to work.

After having this discussion with him, he still says it's worth the high price just knowing he doesn't live in "sucktown" Vancouver.

While I believe he is clearly insane, I would not regulate or otherwise compel him to my way of thinking. If he likes high prices and granola women so much, then let him be happy.

If I like driving 70mph and it's reasonably safe, then let me be happy.

[superchow]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Those that drive Hummers and Escalades pay for the privilege. Not only do they pay more for the vehicle, and more for the insurance, and more for the cost of fuel, but also taxes. They are essentially paying a greater portion of the infrastructure cost by consuming more fuel and paying more tax than the average person.

Efficient transportation has enough of a monetary incentive built in that mandating it is unnecessary. People that make poor decisions should not be insulated against the consequences of those decisions, or forced into making better decisions.

IMHO the incentive for energy conservation is not high enough. I look in dismay at our water bill and that it varies by only $5 between winter and summer. I have no incentive to save water, as it barely saves me money.

If vehicles getting under 20 mpg highway were taxed twice as high, people would reconsider daily driving their Hummer or jacked up pickup 50 miles each way.

[CigaR007]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

Just because the government has taxed, legislated a right to the point that people think it is a privilege does not mean that they are correct.

IMO, regulation is necessary in this case. One has to be competent enough to have the privilege of operating a piece of machinery on public roads; for the sake of safety.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by CigaR007

IMO, regulation is necessary in this case. One has to be competent enough to have the privilege of operating a piece of machinery on public roads; for the sake of safety.

Because the regulations are doing a great job of keeping incompetent people off the roads. If someone demonstrates that they are incompetent or a hazard they should have that right revoked (your right to swing your fist ends at my noise and all that). In the case of driving a slight infringement on that right may be a necessary evil, that does not mean I do not retain it as a right.

Also I did not note that you are in Canada, we may have different views regarding rights and their origins.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No such thing as a renewable energy source. Even nuclear fission is a consuming process. I do realize one can be sustained longer than the other though, and I get your point.

Not sure you refined your point enough. Solar/hydro/wind/biofuels energy is renewable in every sense, unless you really think it's necessary to take it to the extreme when the sun burns out.

[gone-ot]

...in reality, NOTHING is without some ultimate cost or penalty.