National speed limit pushed as gas saver

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Compugasm According to HowStuffWorks, they provide some math reguarding what driving speed gets maximum fuel efficiency.

I think that sight is misleading. I have a scangauge and can get my numbers instantly and exactly for any given tank or trip.

Slowing down to under 55 at all times has made a definite improvement in average tank distance and instant mpg. And I have a 1.3 L 110 hp gas/electric engine. Small and better efficiency at speeds between 40 - 55.

I notice the same trend in my friends Corolla S. Larger engine but still a small car and better fuel economy at a steady speed at under 55 mph. Same thing when I try the scangauge in my parents cars. X5 is > better under 55 (but still fuel sucking yikes!). The only difference is then M3 which gets better fuel economy at about 62 mph. Drops under or over that speed. I'm guessing thats the lowest speed for the final gear perhaps. Not that a whopping 28 mpg steady travel is anything to be proud of.

I'd love to give it a go with more cars. So far I'm guessing only sports cars with higher numbers of gears can get better mpg's at higher speed. Generally speaking in an MT car the best fuel economy is while at the lowest possible speed for the highest gear. At least that's the stance of the experts over at cleanmpg.com.

[JaneDoe321]

I think that a national speed limit is one (useful if small) piece in the larger puzzle. I get a tad tired of the "Oh, that "solution" is SO stupid..." response. I don't think we're going to get ONE magic cure-all solution, at least not in the near future.

When I'm brainstorming ideas about this issue, a couple of things come to mind. I think more telecommuting might be helpful to address overall gasoline consumption. I also think that perhaps we could have a staggered work week. Four 10 hour days would be great, given (at least) America's obsession with type-A success, we could "ease" into this with two separate shifts, like a M-Th and a Tu-Sat shift. That way we could still "do business" six days a week (like so many people do now), or some variation on this anyway...

I think we need more "non-traditional" (for America) solutions and less "Your ideas are SO stupid!"

[ThoughtCriminal]

[quote=Kamehameha34;524430]..As you interpret them, it seems. It seems as though your system gives the d**chebags every right under the sun, except for the right to take responsibility for entering someone else's property.

Need I remind you that the issue here is whether a business may profit from poisoning its employees and customers? I would suggest that being poisoned would in fact go against my rights as a person.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 . How do you act when you go into someone else's house? Do you criticize them if they decide to allow smoking in their own homes? Would you bring a court order to a Muslim family that chooses not to keep the company of jews? Of course not, because although you disagree with their decisions, you have no right to impose your own on their property. It's a shame this lesson is lost on you.

I should also remind you that this is not about entering someone's personal space, such as their home. This is about entering their place of business so as to transact business. It is the job of the government to regulate business, both by enforcing legal contracts and by creating the framework for their legality. It's called civil law.

In short, we're talking about a storefront, not an underwear drawer. Try not to confuse the two.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Very good! You can't violate the rights of others with your property! If only we could get you to realize that you don't have the natural rights to shop at your choice of stores, and demand a ban on smoking on someone else's property.

First of all, there are no natural rights. In nature, there is only the freedom to do whatever you can get away with. I think the libertarians endorse it as "caveat emptor", but it is not how we do things in society, where we have rights.

Putting that aside, I do have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of things that are personal, such as my race, gender or sexual orientation. This is a civil right, and it's one that libertarians would like to remove. Good thing we won't let them.

[quote=Kamehameha34;524430]
Businesses don't profit from that. They would profit from the labor of workers that consent to work in an environment with certain health hazards that should be made clear upon application. Nice try to bastardize the issue, though.

Clearly.
[/quotes]

Businesses can and do profit from it. Ever been to Park City, UT? There's an old silver mine nearby that's open for tours. Very educational. I learned that where there's silver, you find lead as well. And when they blew holes with dynamite, the lead dust would poison the miners.

Yes, this did kill them, but the mining company didn't have to pay the medical bills or anything, so they had no trouble making money. The doctrine of personal responsibility was selectively applied to the miners, but not the owners, just the way you libertarians like it. As a result, this business profited from the deaths of its workers.

The trick to getting ahead even when the costs of an endeavor outweighs its benefits is to make sure you get the benefits and someone else gets stuck with the costs. Of course, you're literally getting ahead; your forward motion comes at the expense of society as a whole.

The fix is for society to protect itself by requiring you to take personal responsibility for the harm your business causes, which includes protecting your workers. That's why modern silver mines wet down the dust and provide masks. Not only is it good for the workers and for society as a whole, it's the law.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That doesn't mean it's up to the businesses that provide these things to accomodate your every will. They don't even have to accept your patronage.

Not my every will, but they do have to honor my civil, human and legal rights. Crazy, eh?

In any case, my point is that a business is not like a party. A party is personal, a business is merely private.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You keep repeating this lie, when it's been shot down several times. You're not convincing anybody. For the last time, no one's suggested that a free market would 'fix' discrimination. It would provide alternatives to stores to stores that discriminate.

It is a simple fact that the free market does not fix discrimination, and you admit this when you claim that it does the next best thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't do that, either, as I've explained at length. In short, society has to act to fix it; the market is useless.

[quote=Kamehameha34;524430]
Incorrect. You just rattled off an unfavorable scenario that would actually remedy itself in a libertarian - but doesn't because it apparently takes place in a socialist fairyland where societal justice doesn't exist.

This is a standard libertarian article of faith. Whatever problems exist, they're either not really problems or they'd magically go away if only the market were sufficiently free. Utter nonsense, as I've demonstrated repeatedly.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I think that a national speed limit is one (useful if small) piece in the larger puzzle. I get a tad tired of the "Oh, that "solution" is SO stupid..." response. I don't think we're going to get ONE magic cure-all solution, at least not in the near future. When I'm brainstorming ideas about this issue, a couple of things come to mind. I think more telecommuting might be helpful to address overall gasoline consumption. I also think that perhaps we could have a staggered work week. Four 10 hour days would be great, given (at least) America's obsession with type-A success, we could "ease" into this with two separate shifts, like a M-Th and a Tu-Sat shift. That way we could still "do business" six days a week (like so many people do now), or some variation on this anyway... I think we need more "non-traditional" (for America) solutions and less "Your ideas are SO stupid!"

The four-day workweek is a fine idea, and it's now standard for civil servants in UT. Telecommuting is also a big win all around.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: tivodan1116 LOL you're hysterical in your ignorance of politics. Name one either "conservative" or "libertarian" elected in the last 40 years "into power". Good luck. The problem is we haven't elected any conservatives or libertarians, only politicians who think big government and big spending and big social programs are the way to go. Your argument is absolute, unadulterated nonsense.

The Republican party is run by conservatives, both the regular kind and the libertarian type. Any noise you make to the contrary is just that.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Apeman81 "No one has a right to drive, ..." This nation is founded upon the idea that the rights of the people rest with the people. The government can only claim powers the people cede to the government, for only as long as that power is ceded Just who, if not the people, decide what rights we have in America?

No one has the inalienable right to drive. Rather, their right is contingent upon such things as getting a license and generally following the relevant laws.

TC

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal The Republican party is run by conservatives, both the regular kind and the libertarian type. Any noise you make to the contrary is just that. TC

In name, perhaps, but the only conservatives who get their viewpoints actually put in place are those who have no problem with big gubmint, never mind libertarians.

[thebuescherman]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary In name, perhaps, but the only conservatives who get their viewpoints actually put in place are those who have no problem with big gubmint, never mind libertarians.

Exactly. I couldn't name a single official in Washington that meets my description of "conservative". No real conservative would increase the spending of the government like those buffoons (sorry, I love that word) have. The amount of pork spending and utterly wasteful projects (bridge to nowhere comes to mind) has disenfranchised myself and every other conservative I know. Refusal to plan for the future, as demonstrated in the Bush administration's energy policies, also hits a *severely* wrong chord with environmentalist conservatives such as myself (Yes, we do exist!). It has even got people to TRULY believe that all conservatives are racists, sexists, bigots, dispassionate to the suffering of the poor, religious crazies, gun owners, and warmongers. We don't have to look far to view that last point.

[Aussie]

Quote by: Thanatos
Heck, lets get rid of all speed limits. Live free or die, right? This way many motorists shall be free to go as fast as they want, die, and ultimately reduce the number of cars on the road leading to a cleaner environment and lower gas prices.

Quote by: Sweet Katie

Actually, this isn't as crazy a notion as it sounds yet it can acheive the opposite results.

There's two cases I know of where the removal of speed limits and roadsigns has lead to less (yes less!) fatalities.

Montana - speed limits were temporarly unenforceable
Montana: No Speed Limit - Safety Paradox - Press Releases - National Motorists Association

For the last 5 months of no daytime limits in Montana, the period after its Supreme Court had ruled that the Reasonable and Prudent law was unconstitutional, reported fatal accident rate declined to a record low. Fixed speed limits were reinstated on Memorial Day weekend 1999. Since then, fatal accidents have begun to rise again.

In a town in Germany, they removed all traffic signs all together, making motorists effectively figure it out for themselves (except the town limit of 30mph remained). In the 4 weeks so far, there hasn't been a single accident
Accident-free zone: The German town which scrapped all traffic lights and road signs | Mail Online

The reverse can be said for the Northern Territory. Since imposing a speed limit of 130km/h where roads previously had no speed limits (due to the massive distances here), fatalities have actually risen.

Dumb people down enough and they wont have to think for themselves, bombard people with signs and rules and they'll switch off. You see it on the roads everyday. Impose an arbitrarily low speed limit and I'm sure you'll see fatalities rise. Most petrol is used in acceleration anyway, not on freeways.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary In name, perhaps, but the only conservatives who get their viewpoints actually put in place are those who have no problem with big gubmint, never mind libertarians.

The conservatives are quite willing to make the government big so long as it's either to wage war or impose "traditional" morality. They've also learned that they can get libertarians to vote for them just by appealing to greed with promises of lower taxes.

TC

[Compugasm]

Quote by: HelioPrime Generally speaking in an MT car the best fuel economy is while at the lowest possible speed for the highest gear. At least that's the stance of the experts over at cleanmpg.com.

Quote by: HelioPrime ...You'd have to google the episode but they showed 45-55 offered the best tank on a car continually run at a set speed till empty. 60+ and the mpg's dropped off more rapidly the faster travelled.

Quote by: HowStuffWorks In general, smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic cars will get their best mileage at higher speeds. Bigger, heavier, less aerodynamic vehicles will get their best mileage at lower speeds. If you drive your car in the "sweet spot" you will get the best possible mileage for that car.

I'm not exactly why you felt the need to point my source out as misleading. You've given two contridictory answers. So how is HowStuffWorks misleading, and you're answers are not?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal The conservatives are quite willing to make the government big so long as it's either to wage war or impose "traditional" morality. They've also learned that they can get libertarians to vote for them just by appealing to greed with promises of lower taxes. TC

that's one segment of conservatives, you seem to think that conservative is one giant conspiracy of rednecks and preachers, when in fact I'd be willing to bet they are more varied in sentiment than liberals.

[Kamehameha34]

Need I remind you that the issue here is whether a business may profit from poisoning its employees and customers?

I've corrected you on this matter. The fact that it appears you continue to use such appeals to emotion in your 'debate' means that you will not listen to reason, and it is not worth my time to attempt to force it upon you. I refuse to engage you further in this thread. You do nothing but preach - and a preacher does not argue in the face of reasoned argument, he preaches further.

I'm quite aware that you'll see this is a concession, to which I reply that anyone capable of reading your arguments will see otherwise.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary that's one segment of conservatives, you seem to think that conservative is one giant conspiracy of rednecks and preachers, when in fact I'd be willing to bet they are more varied in sentiment than liberals.

I think it fairly characterizes the conservatives who run the Republican party these days.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I've corrected you on this matter. The fact that it appears you continue to use such appeals to emotion in your 'debate' means that you will not listen to reason, and it is not worth my time to attempt to force it upon you. I refuse to engage you further in this thread. You do nothing but preach - and a preacher does not argue in the face of reasoned argument, he preaches further. I'm quite aware that you'll see this is a concession, to which I reply that anyone capable of reading your arguments will see otherwise.

One day, you'll understand the difference between disagreement and refutation. Then again, maybe not.

TC

[thebuescherman]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I think it fairly characterizes the conservatives who run the Republican party these days. TC

Indeed, and sadly true. As I posted previously, this group has disenfranchised many of us conservatives.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: thebuescherman Indeed, and sadly true. As I posted previously, this group has disenfranchised many of us conservatives.

To be clear, I'm not saying that conservatives who want to destroy the public schools and othter social programs are any better.

TC

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Compugasm I'm not exactly why you felt the need to point my source out as misleading. You've given two contridictory answers. So how is HowStuffWorks misleading, and you're answers are not?

How did I offer contradictory answers? I mentioned 40-55 as the best speed for fuel economy. That is by no means a "fast" speed as many highways are 65-75 mpg zones where the average speed is even higher. The article goes off the popular assumption that sports cars and small cars get better gas mileage at higher speeds.

Beating the EPA - The Why’s and how to Hypermile. - CleanMPG Forums

If you read that whole article you can get a better idea.

Example: Results on a cruise control run in a Ford Escape Hybrid SUV:
Run # 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph
1:::::: 56.8 mpg 56.2 mpg 51.2 mpg 42.0 mpg
2:::::: 62.3 mpg 56.0 mpg 51.8 mpg 42.5 mpg
3:::::: 57.8 mpg 56.0 mpg 51.1 mpg 42.5 mpg

Results in a Honda civic hybrid:(One of the smallest available engines in the US: 1.3 L engine. Most engines are at least 1.5 L +)

Run # 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph
1:::::: 84.3 mpg: 89.3 mpg 69.1 mpg 56.4 mpg
2:::::: 86.5 mpg: 89.0 mpg 64.8 mpg 48.5 mpg
3:::::: 85.1 mpg: 90.7 mpg 67.3 mpg 50.5 mpg

In two different types of rides the fuel economy scale is almost the same. Better mpg's in the 40 mph zone dropping off afterwards.

[Sonart]

.

How many people remember that we already had a 55 mph speed limit, that it was about energy conservation and that it worked, although at the height of America's muscle car craze, it was hugely unpopular. Congress and President Nixon passed the National Speed Limit law in 1974 as an gasoline conservation response to the first Oil Crisis. By 1980, the U.S. had successfully conserved enough to reduce our oil imports by an incredible 25%, leading to the collapse of oil prices and OPEC in 1981... and with the halving of energy costs came the "Reagan Boom".

Alas, Americans forgot what the speed limit was all about. 15 years later, most folks thought it was about highway "safety", and allowed speeds back up in 1987-88.

.