Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas

[papaT10932]

Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it?

[NE2]

I think it's pretty clear (from the speeding thread if nowhere else) that most people here will be against it, and I doubt this topic will go anywhere good.

[1995hoo]

It was tried once. It failed. No reason to try again. I think the Texas government has the right idea. When they posted 80-mph limits on two Interstates, they were asked about whether it would use more gas. Their response: (1) If motorists choose to spend their money on gas, that's their decision. (2) You're not required to go 80 mph just because a sign allows that speed, so if you want to use less gas, you can go slower. Just make sure you stay in the far right lane at all times unless you're passing someone.

The whole "55 saves gas" thing is bullshit anyway. There is no magic speed that saves fuel because the best way to maximize fuel economy is to hold the lowest speed that lets you use your highest gear without lugging the engine. In my 2004 Acura TL, for example, that's between 60 and 65 mph where I can stay in 6th gear. My fuel economy is worse at 55, turning more RPM in 5th, than it is at 65 turning lower RPM in 6th. My car is by no means unique in that respect. (Unfortunately the proliferation of automatic gearboxes means many, perhaps most, Americans are clueless about proper use of a car's gearing.)

[Brandon]

Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it?

NEVER AGAIN!

It was a bunch of horseshit the first time around, and it would be a bunch of horseshit now.

[SidS1045]

Reducing the national speed limit to 55 to conserve gas- are you for it or against it?

It was effective for about 15 minutes.

OK, make that 16 minutes.

Seriously...it was the blatant disregard for the 55mph NMSL that led to the proliferation of police radar (and later on, lidar) and the over-emphasis by law enforcement on "speeding," which in turn has become a source of untold riches for states and municipalities.  I'm not sure any economic analysis of the cost of the NMSL was ever done, but I did read that some economists thought the costs in lost time outweighed the gasoline saved, which turned out to be miniscule anyhow.  One of the NMSL's most outspoken proponents, Ralph Nader, made an absolute fool of himself by predicting horrendous carnage as Congress was considering its repeal...carnage that, of course, never occurred.

Considering that no one with any intelligence at all thinks that there is any shortage of motor fuels, certainly none that would justify the current high prices, there is no reason to revisit this demonstrable folly which was largely ignored anyhow.  It's just another example of lawmakers so utterly out of touch with the people they supposedly represent.

[Landshark]

We need to exploit our domestic resources!  Drill!  10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online...  Drill here in America! 

[J N Winkler]

Seriously...it was the blatant disregard for the 55mph NMSL that led to the proliferation of police radar (and later on, lidar) and the over-emphasis by law enforcement on "speeding," which in turn has become a source of untold riches for states and municipalities.

Actually, I don't think that was the case--foreign observers were noting, well before introduction of the NMSL, that American traffic law enforcement was heavily focused on speeding.  Before the NMSL came along and capped open-road speed limits at a very low level, it was still possible to set up speed traps and many towns did so.  The beauty of speed limits is that they lend themselves to strict-liability offenses, which gives law enforcement the leverage it needs to push agendas unrelated to speeding (e.g. white supremacism in the South).

[Scott5114]

We need to exploit our domestic resources!  Drill!  10 years ago they said we couldn't drill in the Arctic Mosquito Reserve because it would take 10 years to bring online...  Drill here in America! 

That's a rather simplistic approach to the problem. We are drilling in America already (the state of Oklahoma still exists) but it doesn't really help problems much, because prices don't accurately reflect supply and demand–people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".

If you want to save money on gas buy a car that gets ridiculous gas mileage. There's plenty of discussion of that in the car rental thread in off-topic.

[AZDude]

I don't think they should not just because almost nobody will follow it, but because of the cost to place new signs.  What should be done instead is enforce the "keep right except to pass" rule.  And "Left lane for passing only" rule.  Re-educate people about lane usage.  Make the rules of the interstate and expressway system similar to those of the German autobahn.  As soon as the right lane is clear, you MUST merge right.  No passing on the right lane even if there is a slower driver in the left lane (ticket both the slower driver and the one passing on the right)

In other words let people drive 55-60 mph (the compromise between speed and fuel efficiency) as long as they stay in the right lane and that the speed limit is at least 55.  And let the faster drivers pass in the left lane.

[agentsteel53]

the only thing more horseshit than the law was its enforcement.  I remember that speed of traffic in the mid-80s on a typical Massachusetts freeway was 75, even buzzing past the cop parked over the side of the road.  No one got pulled over ... except when some jurisdiction needed to make a buck.

[Tarkus]

The NMSL was Nixon's biggest mistake next to Watergate, and rivaling the 18th Amendment as an "ignoble experiment".  It's destroyed lane courtesy, encouraged enforcement-for-revenue, and fails to actually conserve fuel or protect the environment (see Texas' "environmental speed" experiment).

The whole "55 saves gas" thing is bullshit anyway. There is no magic speed that saves fuel because the best way to maximize fuel economy is to hold the lowest speed that lets you use your highest gear without lugging the engine. In my 2004 Acura TL, for example, that's between 60 and 65 mph where I can stay in 6th gear. My fuel economy is worse at 55, turning more RPM in 5th, than it is at 65 turning lower RPM in 6th. My car is by no means unique in that respect. (Unfortunately the proliferation of automatic gearboxes means many, perhaps most, Americans are clueless about proper use of a car's gearing.)

Precisely--it's a combination of the car's gearing, and to some extent, aerodynamics.  I've actually found that my automatic VW Jetta Wagon gets better mileage between 70-75mph than at 55mph.  The car's rated 27mpg highway, and I've gotten 30mpg+ regularly at those speeds.  Got 40 once driving from Central Oregon to Eugene (as it was mostly downhill).

I don't think they should not just because almost nobody will follow it, but because of the cost to place new signs.  What should be done instead is enforce the "keep right except to pass" rule.  And "Left lane for passing only" rule.  Re-educate people about lane usage.  Make the rules of the interstate and expressway system similar to those of the German autobahn.  As soon as the right lane is clear, you MUST merge right.  No passing on the right lane even if there is a slower driver in the left lane (ticket both the slower driver and the one passing on the right)

I agree 100% there.  I'd really like to see minimum speeds posted on left lanes of freeways.

people buying and trading "oil futures" end up jacking up the price by creating artificial "demand".

Yup, it's all the damn speculators.  Beyond the gas prices, they're a large part of the reason our economy's all screwed up, though that's a whole other can of worms.  

Producing gasoline artificially may also be a viable option.  Given that there are some techniques to actually recycle carbon dioxide, as the US Navy is trying to do, and the fact that almost all vehicles on the road are already operating on gasoline engines, the enviros really ought to be looking at gasoline's potential to be produced in a renewable manner.

[agentsteel53]

Yup, it's all the damn speculators.  Beyond the gas prices, they're a large part of the reason our economy's all screwed up, though that's a whole other can of worms.  

generally, the problem is 1) anyone who believes that they can create wealth by slicing, dicing and manipulating figures on a piece of paper without actually adding anything of value to the system, and 2) anyone who cannot immediately see that group 1 is full of shit.

[SP Cook]

The NMSL failed to save gas or save lives.  It simply was another bad idea out of an insular bunch who live in a big city and have no real idea what goes on in the 99.9% of this county that isn't within 5 miles of the sea.

[Henry]

Come on, this isn't 1973! A lot of us would rather do 75 on the highway anyway. But maybe a minimum speed posted in addition to the regular speed limit would be a nice compromise.

[Brandon]

Come on, this isn't 1973! A lot of us would rather do 75 on the highway anyway. But maybe a minimum speed posted in addition to the regular speed limit would be a nice compromise.

Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).

[corco]

People aren't idiots economically- if I know I'm burning a ton of fuel by going 90 MPH down the highway then I've done so because I've calculated in my head that the time saved is worth more to me than the fuel burned. It's anti-capitalism to restrict speed for economic reasons.

From a safety standpoint, given the number of people that would ignore the law there would be a much greater speed differential on the highways which is much more dangerous than the lower speed. If, say 2/3 went 55-60 but the other third continued to go 65-85, that's much worse than 90% going 70 and 10% going 70-85

[agentsteel53]

Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).

I have never seen that enforced.  I've seen plenty of people get pulled over for going too fast; not once for going too slowly.

the other day I damn near rear-ended some idiot who was doing 20 (!) in the left lane on interstate 5.  speed of traffic was the usual 60 or so going uphill at the 14 junction but this maroon had somehow gotten it into him that Jesus demanded a road block.

[Brandon]

Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).

I have never seen that enforced.  I've seen plenty of people get pulled over for going too fast; not once for going too slowly.

the other day I damn near rear-ended some idiot who was doing 20 (!) in the left lane on interstate 5.  speed of traffic was the usual 60 or so going uphill at the 14 junction but this maroon had somehow gotten it into him that Jesus demanded a road block.

Not so sure California has a minimum speed for freeways.  I know Wisconsin doesn't.

[agentsteel53]

Not so sure California has a minimum speed for freeways.  I know Wisconsin doesn't.

even if there is no literal minimum, driving 40-50mph slower than the speed of traffic, in the lane that is expected by other drivers to be the least likely to contain such behavior, causing said drivers to need to make sudden swerves to avoid you, is the definition of reckless driving.

[Tarkus]

Many states have a 40 or 45mph minimum speed limit on their freeways already (Illinois has 45, Michigan has 55).

the other day I damn near rear-ended some idiot who was doing 20 (!) in the left lane on interstate 5.  speed of traffic was the usual 60 or so going uphill at the 14 junction but this maroon had somehow gotten it into him that Jesus demanded a road block.

I've had that happen to me on I-82 near Ellensburg, WA a whole bunch.  Truckers usually--one going 25 trying to pass one going 20 going up the steep grade.  Most traffic does at least 75-80.

even if there is no literal minimum, driving 40-50mph slower than the speed of traffic, in the lane that is expected by other drivers to be the least likely to contain such behavior, causing said drivers to need to make sudden swerves to avoid you, is the definition of reckless driving.

I'd agree there.  I'd love to see that being enforced more.  Fine the crap out of the slowpokes, I'd say.  Arguably, they're more dangerous than folks speeding, as their behavior is less predictable and they are likely completely oblivious to their surroundings and/or impaired/distracted in some manner.

[AZDude]

Even without a sign posted the default minimum of an interstate highway is 45 ( in the right lane ofcoarse).

[agentsteel53]

I've had that happen to me on I-82 near Ellensburg, WA a whole bunch.  Truckers usually--one going 25 trying to pass one going 20 going up the steep grade.  Most traffic does at least 75-80.

indeed.  the rightmost two lanes of the Grapevine are like this too.  one should never get into the rightmost lane in the Grapevine unless they have enough visibility to know they can get out.  There could be a truck around the next bend doing 15.  it's the equivalent of driving into the oncoming lane of traffic on a two-lane road to execute a pass.

[1995hoo]

Even without a sign posted the default minimum of an interstate highway is 45 ( in the right lane ofcoarse).

That's a question of state law, just as the question of the maximum is a question of state law. In Virginia, for example, there is no statutory minimum number–instead, it sort of follows the "reasonable and prudent" guideline:

§ 46.2-877. Minimum speed limits.

No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

Whenever the Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of a traffic engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the Commissioner or such local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit to be set forth on signs posted on such highway below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

(Code 1950, § 46-212; 1950, p. 881; 1952, c. 666; 1954, c. 244; 1956, c. 364; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-193; 1960, c. 153; 1962, c. 307; 1964, cc. 118, 408; 1966, c. 85; 1968, c. 641; 1972, cc. 89, 546, 553, 608; 1974, c. 528; 1977, c. 577; 1978, c. 605; 1980, c. 347; 1989, c. 727.)

[Brandon]

Even without a sign posted the default minimum of an interstate highway is 45 ( in the right lane ofcoarse).

Only in states where the minimum speed is set at 45 (like Illinois and Indiana).  In Iowa, and other plains states, it is 40.  In Michigan it is 55.

[Duke87]

The problem is that most drivers base their speed mostly on how fast they feel safe driving on the section of road in question based on its geometry and weather conditions, not so much on what the posted limit is. So, simply lowering the limit will only slow down the people who are anal sticklers for the rules or are paranoid about getting a ticket. The vast majority of people will correctly recognize that the maximum safe speed does not magically suddenly change just because the signs have changed, and will continue to drive as they did before.

And even if you could slow people down, you'd save a lot more fuel by raising the fuel economy standards for new cars. Which I do believe we are doing...

Besides, at this point, there is no need to legally force people to find ways to burn less gas. The economic incentive to do so is there without it, even if gas drops back to $3 a gallon. For over a decade car manufacturers have been using MPG figures as selling points and advertising their vehicles as fuel efficient. Who needs a legal push?