Re-Institute National 55mph?

[twolostminds]

The "national speed limit" debate can go on forever and ever and ever and ever and...well you get the point. It is something that will benefit most and hurt others. How about the auto makers catch up with technology. Where are all the super efficient 6 and 8 speed automatic transmissions? why isnt everyone building variable gear transmissions? Or a "gearvendors.com" type over/underdrive that makes your gear ratios efficient at both city and highway speeds?
The answers here are in technology not laws.

[rsx2002]

Right ALS everything we dont like is a government conspiracy. How can any of you possibly say that slowing the whole nation down 10-15 mph wont save very much gas? This is a hypermiling/ecomodding site is it not? Do you know nothing about the subject? Maybe some car get a little worst mileage at 55 than at 60 blah blah blah and other horrible excuses but you all know this will help the majority of cars increase FE. To say if the law is not enforced completely it wont work is also ignorant. For starters there are actually people out there that obey the law without having to get in trouble first. Secondly there is a limit to how far over you can go before it will be enforced without doubt. 20 over is reckless driving and i garuntee you will have a cop up your ass in a hurry if you go by him that fast. What this means is even if most people speed and you reduce the speed from 70 to 60, they will start driving 70-75 instead of 80. They may still speed but they will slow down some to stay in that safe zone where they wont get pulled over and it will still save gas. If you want to drive fast and speed do it but dont tell us this idea wont save fuel because without a doubt it will. Without a doubt.

[rsx2002]

A reduced speed limit is not the final solution to this problem. I have not heard one person say that it is. Why do people against this change act like that is the case? It is only a means of conservation until the new technologies are in place. Get with the program.

[jamesqf]

Because it reduces the motivation for people to change. Assume 55 works, then two things happen. It reduces the cost of gas, by reducing demand, and it reduces the cost of driving, because individuals use less per mile. As a result, they have less incentive to junk the gas guzzler in favor of an efficient vehicle and/or lifestyle changes that reduce driving (and other gas use such as power boats & RVs). That in turn reduces the potential market for more efficient vehicles, making it less likely that people will invest in development.

It also keeps up the social pressure to remain one of the guzzling crowd. I've never seen real figures, but I think it's a pretty good bet that a lot of people bought that SUV or RV, not because they had any deep-seated desire for one, but because their friends & neighbors did. Most people tend to follow what's popular: if driving the guzzler is the in thing, then that's what they'll do. If biking 20 miles a day becomes popular, the followers will do that instead.

[dcb]

I don't buy that argument jamesqf. SUV sales are way up since the speed limit was increased. Half the crowd here is saying nobody paid attention to the 55mph speed limit anyway.

[Big Dave]

Considering that the 55 MPH limits was the most hated and most flouted statute since the Vollsted Act, I cannot think of anything that would be more detrimental to the attitude change needed than another federal limit jammed down people’s throats.

No doubt 55 works. Why would 35 MPH not work better? How about 15 MPG? How about not going at all? People travel for their own reasons and most of them do place a value on their time. Another artificial speed restriction will just antagonize people and make them hate the whole idea of fuel economy.

[cfg83]

dcb -

Originally Posted by dcb

I don't buy that argument jamesqf. SUV sales are way up since the speed limit was increased. Half the crowd here is saying nobody paid attention to the 55mph speed limit anyway.

I don't understand how the speed limit is related to SUV sales. I thought it was related to cheap gas (when adjusting for inflation). From my POV, the SUV is just the return of the "Big-3 Dinosaur" car in a different form :

Public Citizen | Auto Safety Group | Auto Safety - The SUV Phenomenon: Ducking Regulations for More Than a Decade

Following the oil crisis of the early 1970s, Congress passed ground-breaking fuel efficiency standards. Gas-guzzling dinosaurs of the road began to disappear. In the 1980s, manufacturers began to make more SUVs, taking advantage of the fact that SUVs are classified as "light trucks," so they are subject to less stringent fuel economy standards. The SUV s popularity exploded as oil prices declined and energy conservation took a back seat to the free-wheeling excess of the 1980s. Detroit also was helped along by the Reagan administration s refusal to issue any fuel economy regulations and by a congressional exemption that gives SUVs a free ride on fuel economy.

Not only does 55 MPH save gas, from a hyper-ecomodder-miler POV, a 55 MPH speed limit protects *me*.

CarloSW2

[dcb]

Originally Posted by cfg83

I don't understand how the speed limit is related to SUV sales.

They aren't, and that was exactly my point.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

No doubt 55 works. Why would 35 MPH not work better? How about 15 MPG?

On average (not in every case obviously), if I had to guess, mpg gets worse below 35mph.

35 mph WOULD be a pretty big time hit compared to 55mph, and making efficient cars with peak mpg at 55mph (with some aerodynamics for the joneses) is certainly concievable.

No point going 15 if it is slower AND more inefficient than 35, so I think we can rule that one out.

But above 55 and you are on a steep dropoff of mpg. And argueably wasting national resources for the habit. Again, I don't really care, I'm just saying for the point of discussion. The governments job is to govern, where does the money for foriegn oil dependence come from? I think they HAVE to do something to reduce consumption.

[cfg83]

dcb -

Originally Posted by dcb

They aren't, and that was exactly my point.

Ok, I misread your sentence and took it out of context, my mistake.

CarloSW2