Re-Institute National 55mph?
 

Anyone else a news junkie? I've seen a couple times on Bill O'Reilly's show where the topic has come up ... should we re-institute a national 55mph speed limit? He had a poll (75% of respondents said "no") and it also came up as a topic of discussion when Laura Ingraham guest-hosted for him Friday, July 11th. I believe the idea is being floated elsewhere, too.

I'm of two minds on this. Yes, I'd love to see other people slow down (I rarely exceed 65mph anymore) and when I do it is often from "peer pressure" from my fellow motorists whizzing by me at 70+mph. I find myself speeding up (sometimes subconsciously) to reduce the speed disparity between myself and the majority of traffic.

However, I'm also a freedom-loving person (with a strong libertarian streak). I don't like the idea of more laws ... especially when the current laws aren't consistently enforced AND Federal laws applied to all the states equally makes little sense when driving differences in those states differ enormously.

Years ago, before we had 65mph in certain places, automotive analysts thought that there would be no problem if the speed limit was modestly increased and enforced at the higher rate. Many (most?) people traveled that fast (and then some) anyway.

And, I have to think that if people just put a little more air in their tires, stopped idling in parking lots for no reason and cease using retail drive-through windows, they'd save a lot more gas than if they merely slowed down 10mph on the thruways/expressways. Plus, I expect that the auto industry is really going to take the stops out and go more aero in the coming years ... I'm talking smooth, super efficient bodies minus roof racks and plus rear wheel well skirts. This will help reduce the disparity between drag at 55mph and 65mph.

I mean, we last tried this in the 70s ... when we (as a nation) were driving mechanical dinosaurs shaped like bricks. Hasn't technology and automotive design come a long while since then?

Please feel free to interject some real efficiency into the discussion ... data and person experience of all types welcome. :)

Here's a interesting thread on the subject. There some good studies that show that it won't work unless you have cameras that enforce it.

You can design anthing you want but it will take years to turn over the vehicles already on the road. I know many people who hang onto their vehicle until the wheels fall off (ecomodders comes to mind). Also many people who make a good living who have never owned a new vehicle they only buy from the secondary market. When I lived in Pa the average car was 10-20 years old in some communities. Having it available is nice but implamentation is years in the future. Speed limits are available now. Do we have years? The only thing that is encouraging them now is fuel cost. If you have a paid for vehicle it's a lot easier to come up with $4+ a gallon gas than if you have a car payment. I heard this argument yesterday. When you factor in the cost of a new fe vehicle he's still ahead of the game for a long time dirving his old car. One thing I have noticed is this has made a lot of people slow down. Slowing down saves a lot of fuel more than tire air pressure and not idling.
homeworkhome53

The current speed limits are not strickly enforced, dropping them will only piss off the masses making things worse. Everyone would think its being done to increase speeding tickets in order to raise revenue.

I hold the opposite extreme. I say autobahn the hwy, no speed limit, instead dedicate lanes for speed ranges, enforce those, plus educate consumers on how to drive. Education will trump laws. Once I learned the benefits of driving slower I did, not only because I'm saving gas, but now I am more relaxed, my blood pressure has dropped, so I am seeing other benefits to slowing down. Which came from eductaing myself on the benefits of slower speeds.

I mean there is no easy answer, car manufacturers will not have our answers for another 3 years minimum, to fill that gap we need to LEARN to drive smarter, so when these vehicles arrive we will use them optimally.

55 is short sighted
 

55mph is old person thinking. The old people who lived through the 70's think, "Hey we've lived through this before, lets do 55 again and everything will be alright".

This is a very short sighted answer. First, the cars have changed significantly, the driving style has changed, and the technology available has changed.
55 would do very little to improve mileage. People will still drive stupidly. A policy like that won't solve anything if people still sprint to get up to 55, then slam on the brakes at the last second at lights.

So much has changed since the 1970's that we really need to think beyond, he our parents and grandparents did this it will work for us too.

There are a lot more cars on the road, and more freeways, and more traffic lights. Driving at highway speeds or 70+ mph in most modern cars does not impact mileage as much as the stop and go of traffic lights in town, and people stupidly sprinting out of the gate only to stop hard a little ways down the road.

Do really improve the situation we need to:

1. Educate to conserve MOMENTUM - braking is bad. this could be done with more road markings around lights and intersections:
   • Have designated "coast zones" before lights and stop signs. Enforce a policy that you must coast on red, or if stopped traffic is in front.
   • Have a "no wake" zone after the stop - his one would be harder to enforce but basically have a zone after the intersection where acceleration is limited. Maybe even mechanically using rumble strips like they lay down in construction zones.
   to go along with these changes, we'll need #2 to prevent
2. Intelligent stop lights - that sense traffic to minimize time spent idleling.. Perhaps have people manually monitor lights and control them during peak times. Most cities have traffic centers anyway.... Think air traffic control - the controllers could probably control the flow of several lights, their job would mainly be to "tweak" the timings if they see too large of backups starting to form. communication with specific drivers would also be kinda cool either through mandated radios or through large signs... "TYK-765 merge right and speed up 10MPH"
3. Universally allow right turns on red.
4. Allow "rolling stops" at stop signs. If you are coasting to a stop sign you can safely judge when to go through.
5. Signs marking "coast zones" to alert traffic that people may be slowing down w/out brakes, and to alert people where is will be a good place to coast.
6. Increase the length of turning lanes, so traffic can flow better around cars waiting to turn. Always have right turn lanes. (I hate being behind someone turning left from the right lane on a two lane road that allows left turns from the right lane!)
7. Limited enforcement during peak times. If cars are moving along at 85 - let them, if a single idiot is crusing by them at 100+ let him go, usually traffic is too dense for people to try that anyway. Singling out a single car from the herd does make everyne slow down, usually too much and causes major congestion and literally tons of wasted fuel. If someone does cause an accident by driving recklessly, increase the penalties.
8. More adoption of 4 day work weeks. Here some ways to encourage it on a larger scale:
   • tax breaks, on companies to encourage it.
   • commuters of 20 miles or more round trip must be allowed to opt for a 4 day work week, or be allowed to tele-commute at least one day.
   • make 4 day work weeks mandatory for all companies with more than 20 full time employees. If they choose to opt-out the company must pay for extra day of fuel.

A few more thoughts on this:
There are a couple places on my commute that when I coast going 55 I speed up to 65-70. I would not want to get pulled over for coasting. Why penalize efficient cars?

If anything it will discourage people from buying the efficient ones, and give them a crutch to continue buying large wasteful ones.

Personally my mileage does not significantly change if I am going 55 or 65. I am sure it impacts others much more; but my point is why penalize efficient cars, and in effect make they less efficient when considering time into the equation.

Bottom line is this is a very complex problem and a one-size fits all band-aid really won't help much, and in fact may hurt things more. The old folks in DC, and at al levels of gov't need to actually think, rather than blindly follow history.

I agree with your entire post ... it's awesome and wish we had city planners here that could start thinking this way.

My question to you is; Do you have ascangauge? I see your statement several times within other posts and wonder what you guys are driving to not notice a difference in miles with a 10mph speed variation.

In my case, the swing is 5mpg for me which is significant.

If people keep insisting that I have to speed because the speed differential would otherwise be "unsafe", then I will be in favor of a national 55 mph speed limit in the US. Nixon got the first one passed, and it was in response to the current energy "crisis", then retained for safety.

How about more stringent licensing requirements like they have in Germany?

trikkonceptz, I just have the "Instant" MPG on the standard display, which obviously fluctuates depending on a lot of variables. When I drive my goal is usually to keep it at or above 35 MPG.

I don't find it significant harder to do while maintaining my speed around 60 or around 70. Though I know this has a lot ot do with the car I drive, which is a '99 Corvette. It coasts extremely well, so if I gradually get to 70 it is pretty easy to keep going around 70. I usually try to gradually get to 70 then glide until I get to 60 and repeat.

When I slow down too much, the big V8 sips a lot of fuel to get it back to a comfortable speed, so if I try to stay at 55-60, my acceration-coast cycle is much shorter, and as a result I'm on the big V8 more often, which the ultimately costs me mileage.

I notice that when I am in 6th gear, and cruising at 80MPH, I usually sit at just under 1500 RPM, at 70 it is about 1100 RPM and 60 around 1000 RPM. So based on that, I can get a pretty good sense of where the sweet spot for my particular car is.

I am sure in a perfect world on a flat road with no traffic a 10mph difference would be more noticeable, but for me he other variables present make that speed difference negligible on my net mileage.

For the vast majority of the U.S. fleet, speed makes a significant difference on fe. 55 would definitely work.

The general concept that slowing down saves fuel is inarguable. The problem is not enough people would buy into it because they have no NEED to. The 70s fuel crisis was different: fuel was in short supply nationwide. People understood the need to conserve because they didn't know if there was any gas to be had at the next exit. It's impact was felt across all demographics.

Today's "crisis" is based on price increases due mainly to speculation. Gas is plentiful if you are willing to pay for it. Some people, like myself and others here, have made changes to our behavior, but from what I see the vast majority are going about their business as if nothing has changed. Oh, they complain about it, but don't change at all. Some will dump their SUV for something with better mileage, but continue to drive 80. Nothing makes me sadder than to be passed by a Prius, with a single smug-faced driver, going 80.:mad:

Lots of times & places where speed makes no difference to fuel economy, or even increases it. Take for instance yesterday, me coming down from Carson Pass (8500 ft) to the valley at about 5000 ft. Seems pretty obvious that I use the same amount of fuel - approximately zero - on that stretch. In fact, if I go somewhat (ok, quite a bit :-)) faster than 55, I can coast over some of the small rises, and further along the level at the bottom.

Likewise, if I'm headed into town (small ups & downs, with a couple hundred feet total change), I get the same or better FE by keeping speed high on the downgrades, so as to coast more on the flats and upgrades - yet I see a lot of brake lights on the downhill, as people waste fuel to stay within the posted limit.

And to the previous poster who thinks 55 is "old people" thinking, I suggest you take your ageism and use it as a suppository.

Bill Orly is not news. Its propaganda. 55mph speed limit is a dumb idea. If the goal is to improve fuel economy, reduce congestion and improve safety all highway speed limits should be eliminated. Unfortunately local authorities make too much money handing out tickets. Oh well.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU

I just wish there was a network of roads/pathways for alternative transportation where I live. Driving a velomobile to work where I live is suicide.

I've been behind a "rolling road block" before. It is bizzare the effect it can have on you. I can recall that I was so irrational about it that I somehow felt "violated" for not being able to go 40 over the limit if I darn well pleased. Doesn't mean 55 is dumb from a fuel conservation or safety point of view. The government is spending a ton of money trying to secure cheap energy, somethings got to give.

Ageist, yes I am very guilty. The question I have is when was the last time you met a truly open minded senior citizen? One who was truly not afraid of to try something new? One whose mind was not made up 40 years ago? I am sure some are out there, I unfortunately have not met one yet.

That said. I do however, treat my elders with respect and listen to them when they have something to say. They certainly have valid concerns, and valuable experience to learn from.

Well said.

Here's a funny thought, imagine a hwy system where there was no speed limit posted .. just a sign that dictated mpg for the road.

Instead of 55 speed limit it would say;

35mpg strictly enforced. That would definately curtail speeds then ...

Then all I can see is everyone putting along @ 45 mph except for Basjoos, doing 80 in the fast lane ...

Hahaha .. that would rock ..

Maybe by then I could buy a used Tesla Roadster :)

I am personally in favor of a national 55 limit. But one problem it would cause is worse highway congestion. If cars are moving slower, and assuming everyone is still traveling daily to get to where they need to go, the highways will have more cars on them at any given time.

But even so, if it were up to a vote of the populous (and it won't be) I would vote for 55. People need to slow down in general, not just their driving.

This topic would make a great idea for a remake episode of the "Twilight Zone". Ok, I am and old man. Thank God.

homeworkhome53

Wow, a lot of responses so quickly! Obviously, this is a hot-button topic. :)

Sorry Lazarus, I did a search on 55mph and nothing came up … or else I would have resurrected that (interesting) thread instead of creating this one.

Yes, I know Bill O’Reilly is no ‘journalist’ in the truest sense (few are, in my opinion) but I often agree with his ‘propaganda’ (although on this issue I do not). At least he calls himself a ‘watchdog’ instead of a journalist … and sometimes brings up interesting things to debate. By the way, I like the way you acquitted yourself in the thread Lazarus reference above.

WebShowPro had the best post so far … and is thinking along the same lines I am. If the task was to kill a fly and the ideal weapon is a flyswatter of a certain shape and weight, the government would have us flailing away blindly with a baseball bat and call it ‘progress’ or ‘moving forward.’ Remember, these are the same idiots that gave us dumbed-down EPA numbers rather than tell the public to fix their terrible motoring habits.

Web I think some of your ideas are a bit too much to ask for (unrealistic in terms of driver training, etc …) but many are interesting and definitely appreciated. Instead of STOP signs everywhere, how about something like more YIELD signs or a hybrid of the two that allows a rolling stop? (some intersections not controlled by a light require a full and complete stop. I love the call for better (smarter) traffic lights that don’t stop the flow of traffic needlessly and cause us to idle needlessly and waste more fuel. :thumbup:

I feel that idling is the real MPG killer in this country … and have countless stories of morons in parking lots idling their wallet away. If we came up with a cluelessness vaccine, we could raise the national speed limit on many thruways/expressways to 75mph and still save 20% over what we are consuming now. :rolleyes:

Speeding is selectively enforced … and if it isn’t enforced, it does no good. And enforcing it takes law enforcement resources that may be better deployed elsewhere. It’s simple, though, and I can see the politicians seizing on it … especially if it will give localities more revenue. That doesn’t make it right. :rolleyes:

Think of all the fuel that is wasted in North America. (And the definition of that term alone would be an arguable point here) People doing stupid things like idling, harsh stop-and-go driving, running on underinflated tires then compare that number number to the difference between an average vehicle today (to say nothing of vehicles available for sale in the coming years) going 55mph vs. 65mph. It’s not exactly a drop in the bucket … but it’s not that much more than that.

The minimal, if any, gains in economy do not justify the hassle when we can (and will) do so much more through other (smarter) means. :cool:

Talk about wasting fuel .... Do you remember the senseless campaigns of "Don't buy gas on Friday", just think of we could tell the nation to drive the speed limit for one tankful, what message that would send to the oil companies ... I wonder how much fuel we could save as a nation in one tankful if we all slowed down ... hmmm

Hello -

I definitely want the 55 MPH limit to return, but here's a proposed compromise :

cbs5.com - Rep. Speier Proposes 60 MPH Speed Limit

On the assumption that today's passenger vehicles have better aero than the advent of the original 55 MPH limit, then maybe 60 MPH would get you closer to the same savings.

Now, enforcement is a totally different can of worms.

CarloSW2

Oh I definitely realize my proposals to improve things will never happen, for a variety of reasons. I was just hoping to lay a few things on the table to show that while a 55 MPH limit *might* help a little, that there are a whole lot of other things, big and small that will help even more.

if you want to reduce traffic congestion and improve fuel economy you don't need a 55mph speed limit. You need to reduce the size of the cars and increase the speed of traffic. Its the only way.
And you thought Jeremy Clarkson was all about fast cars and naked women.
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol...cle4076537.ece

What you need to do is reduce the amount of people.

Wasn't the Kei-Car classification in existance in 1993? Didn't it go back to the 1950's to also encourage fuel conservation in a post-war resource-empty Japan? I think Jeremy might have been witnessing an after-effect of the Japanese asset bubble :

Japanese asset price bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When I audited an Urban Planning class at UCLA, the professor said "Yes, traffic jams are bad, but they are also a sign of a booming economy". 1993 would have been 10 years before the Nikkei hit bottom in 2003.

I do agree that the definition of car "classes" should be based on engine displacement and length. I also agree the economy cars should have incentives like the Kei cars. Today's Honda Civic is the same or larger than a 1990 Honda Accord.

CarloSW2

Just make fuel expensive by taxes, no need for CAFE, 55MPH, mandated small cars......
Attack the root of the problem instead of dancing around it, people wont buy small cars or drive slow unless they want to, and they will never want to when fuel is cheap.

My Grandpa.

My Grandpa.

Have you made up your mind about old people?

There is nothing new on your list, it has all been considered 60+ years ago. Stubborn mentalities come in all ages. You drive a grandpa car BTW :p

"You drive a grandpa car BTW " Well said, dcb. I, a grampa, would love a '63 split window Stingray, but I will never have one, well, it's no longer is the right thing to do. In '63 premium gas was about $.35 a gallon. I wouldn't be critical of a man who had one though, he'll probably grow up. I did. It did take a few years until my old people thinking finally matured and the wetness behind my ears dried up. I used to think I had the answers to all the questions. The I learned I didn't even know all the questions let alone there answers.

homeworkhome53

You could try my neighbor: in his 90s, still works part time as a mining engineer - which means he drives off to remote sites and crawls around in the mines.

More generally, you might consider that a good part of the lack of open-mindedness you bewail is in fact experience. Quite often, when those old people reject your "something new", it's not because they're afraid of trying it, but because they did in fact try it back when you were in diapers :-)

While there are many benefits to lowering the max highway speed to 55mph I think the only way to "sell" it to those voting would be from an energy conservation/economical standpoint. I doubt many "normal" everyday drivers are going to agree to 55mph because it is safer.

Here's something interesting happening in New Hampshire and soon in many other states...some towns have adopted 4 day workweeks for town/state employees to reduce work commutes by 1 day a week. Instead of working five 8 hour days they are now working four 10 hour days. Same commute to work just done one time less each week. Not a bad idea I think. If an average commute is 20 miles (10 miles both ways) then over the course of the year each commuter is saving 1000 miles of driving (based on 20 mpg at $4/gallon that's about $200 and 50 gallons of gas each commuter saves every year) and there's less traffic on the road so it's an easier commute. 100 people on this plan saves $20,000 and 5000 gallons of gas.

Or...we could adopt the China Olympics plan and only allow odd number license plates to drive on Mon, Wed, Fri and even number plates on Tue, Thur, Sat. Sunday all cars can drive.

Oh yes taxes, that's just what those addicted-to-money gov't folks need ... more of our money to waste. Besides, if the government gets any more revenue from energy consumption, you could slowly, gradually see attempts to conserve be diminished or disappear.

Instead of taxes, I'd just as soon let market forces start dictating behavior ... as they are already doing. Smart people are downsizing vehicles and driving less. Gas is taxed heavily enough already. :rolleyes:

What I was hoping for, when I started this thread, is some data people knew about to show how much we might save. Unfortunately, the only thing I've got is a homemade chart I found in that other thread, the one Lazarus referenced.

Using my eyes to add values to the lines on that chart, I figured the cars were losing just less than 6mpg average ... about 14.3% I can't believe I'm losing that much with my stock '06 Honda ... maybe even less than half that.

Of course, I don't know the accuracy of the data ... nor where it came from.

It's interesting ... but I'd love to see better data.

The thing about that graph is that fuel is in the denominator, the "Gallons" in Miles/Gallons. So while it looks like things are leveling off, the gallons per mile are really going ballistic as the speed increases. For example, those two dark blue dots in the lower right represent a %37 drop in fuel economy. And it is %270 worse fuel consumption than at 50mph.

Does anyone NOT know what a denominator is? :)

dcb -

I think the graph is fine. It is expressing information in units that it's target audience will readily understand. In this case it's USA MPG.

I also wouldn't look at fuel efficiency numbers above 80 MPH because they are not realistic for "normal" driving. In fact, I indent to use the graph as a teaching tool when people ask me about ecomodding. At 55 MPH, a person can get about 27 MPG in their BMW 535i. At 80 MPH, they're getting 20 MPG. That's about a 35% drop in MPG.

It still gets the point across in terms that people in the USA will understand.

My only critique would be that they didn't display data below 50 MPH, but again, the purpose of the graph was probably freeway driving.

CarloSW2

Instead of lowering the speed limit to 55mph, how about a better public transportation system? If you had more trains and buses, less people would be on the road.

You would gain so much more by improving our transportation problem. Dropping the speed limit to 55mph is nothing more than a bandaid for a much bigger problem. You would end up with fewer cars on the road and fewer emissions, which would eliminate many more problems.

Our transportation systems suck here in the US. Overseas in countries like Japan, Hungary and many other European countries for example kick our but in this area.

There are very few cities in the US that even have public transportation systems that are even anywhere close to anything overseas.

What we need is better public transportation.

Right there is one of the best reasons (or many) that a 55 mph speed limit is more about control than about actually using significantly less gas. At best it gives marginal savings, if you consider that most people drive under 80 most of the time. Swap that BMW for a Prius, and you cut fuel use in half. Make the Prius a PHEV, and you cut it in half again. Telecommute 3 days a week, and you knock off another 60% of commuting use. And on down the line.

jamesqf -

I disagree because millions of cars driving slower adds up. The WW II Victory Speed was 35 MPH to save fuel and tires. And yes, I think it was nearly impossible to enforce, ;) .

The 55 MPH speed limit may be a "simple club" to you, but it can also be described as a low-hanging fruit.

CarloSW2

I thought about this recently --

The problem: each state sets its own limits.

I can go to Ohio with a 65 MPH max Interstate / limited access road speed, or Oklahoma with 75 MPH max. "55" was a Nationally-Imposed Limit during the oil crisis with mandatory compliance.

The population loves to speed. Whatever's posted is what a lot of people will do... and then some. Heck, David Lee Roth was passionate enough to sing a song about it (fun song I may add).

Aside from the congested urban areas, I propose reducing the highway limit by 5 mph, known to the local residents. You often have to do it when driving from state to state, so it shouldn't be that hard. 75 to 70, 70 to 65, etc...

Going back to 55 would be a big shocker, and met with lots of resistance.

RH77

This whole gas shortage garbage was created by Government.
What you talking about Willis?
We have had this major exodus from out cities due to high taxes and a decline
in the quality of life. The people fled to the suburbs and outer counties to flee these degrading conditions in the cities.
With these people leaving they also took the tax base with them.
Cities can't pay the bills with what was left in the cities.
Lets raise gasoline prices to $6-$7 per gallon. Forcing people to have to move back into our cesspools of government creation.
Personally I think it will back fire all it will do is cause people to cut back their spending while working in the city.
People are not going to pay the Government more in taxes only to see it pissed away on feel good make work projects.

Look what is happening in France with their high taxes.
washingtonpostl

Sarkozy is trying to get 500,000 millionaires to come back to France.
Come back we need the money