National speed limit pushed as gas saver

[ShadowFox]

National speed limit pushed as gas saver - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices. Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit. Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon. As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide, with oil hovering around $145 a barrel. Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year. "Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater," Warner wrote Bodman. Warner asked the department to determine at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered. Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner's letter but added, "If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production." The department's Web site says that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated to cost motorists "essentially an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs," Warner said in his letter, citing the DOE data.

So, what do you guys think?

[Jack]

I'm divided. Part of me doesn't see the need for the feds to usurp state laws, but in this instance I can see the reasoning and I agree with it, although it still could be done nationally by the states.

No one has a right to drive, no one has a right to drive fast. Further, no one should be able to waste a resource that we all have to share. I was talking with friends the other day about what the current gas crunch might bring about. I'd just read an article about it, and its contention was that America will become more like Rome or Korea. Very few cities have decent mass transit. So we'll start to see more motorcycles, scooters and the like on our roads. Cars may become nothing more than enclosed motorcycles. At that point we could lower the speed limit to 50 and it wouldn't be a real sacrifice.

Still, I know that we are speed junkies, from stock cars to the internet, we love speed. It's going to be a hard habit to break. But the motivation for doing so is practical and realistic. We need to preserve oil as much as we can while we develop either alternative sources or alternative methods.

I think I'll be getting one of those motorized wheel chairs with a mount for my laptop and a 1000cc engine.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Jack I'm divided. Part of me doesn't see the need for the feds to usurp state laws, but in this instance I can see the reasoning and I agree with it, although it still could be done nationally by the states. No one has a right to drive, no one has a right to drive fast. Further, no one should be able to waste a resource that we all have to share. I was talking with friends the other day about what the current gas crunch might bring about. I'd just read an article about it, and its contention was that America will become more like Rome or Korea. Very few cities have decent mass transit. So we'll start to see more motorcycles, scooters and the like on our roads. Cars may become nothing more than enclosed motorcycles. At that point we could lower the speed limit to 50 and it wouldn't be a real sacrifice. Still, I know that we are speed junkies, from stock cars to the internet, we love speed. It's going to be a hard habit to break. But the motivation for doing so is practical and realistic. We need to preserve oil as much as we can while we develop either alternative sources or alternative methods. I think I'll be getting one of those motorized wheel chairs with a mount for my laptop and a 1000cc engine.

Another issue we have is that American culture likes things BIG. Yet that may be getting off topic, so i'll let the mods decide if they wish to continue it.

[Jack]

Another issue we have is that American culture likes things BIG.

According to the majority of the spam I get, you are correct. You may even be understating it. The subject lines use the terms, "humongous", "gigantic", "grotesque". I don't thing they're talking about cars, though. I could be wrong.

Yet that may be getting off topic, so i'll let the mods decide if they wish to continue it.

Psst...so far it's just you and me. You started the thread and I'm a mod. Unless you complain about one of us being off topic, I'm not going to have a reason to say anything.

[another day]

Enough bandaids... Stop wasting time, and get on with real long term solutions to stop using anywhere near as much oil.

[Jack]

Such as...?

[ThoughtCriminal]

This isn't going to solve any problems. All it'll do is give cops an easier time when they need to fill their quota of tickets.

The real solution is to make our cars more efficient in the short-term and get away from petroleum in the long-term. I suggest electrical or hydrogen as environmentally safe ways to power vehicles, with the understanding that these are ways to make the power portable, rather than sources in themselves. As for sources, fusion is the holy grail, but there's room for other things, including fission and solar.

TC

[Compugasm]

Hmm, grudgingly, I'll have to agree that slower speed is an acceptable first step to take. The goal there is to reduce the bottlenecks and keep traffic flowing.

The roads in San Deigo are nice and wide. But they're connected like tree branches. So to get anywhere, you must travel to the trunk where all the congestion is. Freeway traffic spills over into secondary roads waiting to get on the freeway. By 8pm, the freeway is almost empty. How can this be put to better use?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Compugasm Hmm, grudgingly, I'll have to agree that slower speed is an acceptable first step to take. The goal there is to reduce the bottlenecks and keep traffic flowing. The roads in San Deigo are nice and wide. But they're connected like tree branches. So to get anywhere, you must travel to the trunk where all the congestion is. Freeway traffic spills over into secondary roads waiting to get on the freeway. By 8pm, the freeway is almost empty. How can this be put to better use?

Roads are naturally bursty. How will going slower reduce bottlenecks and keep traffic flowing?

TC

[Whilletal]

Its a great idea if you live in states where major cities are close to each other such as California. However here in Dakota's, Wyoming, Montana ect it's a different story. In my state (SD) the two major cities, Sioux Falls & Rapid City are separated by 360 miles. 55 mph makes for a very sucky drive and I have no doubt all it will do is increase the revenue for the Highway Patrol.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Roads are naturally bursty. How will going slower reduce bottlenecks and keep traffic flowing?

On a documentary about freeways, it was said they carry the most cars at 35mph. Lower speeds allow cars to drive closer together, this increases the capacity of a road. Because the distance between cars is reduced, and this is only safe at low speeds.

[Nono]

Quote by: Jack Such as...?

Such as taking much of the money now wasted to pamper Wall Street and the military and investing it in convenient mass transit specifically and alternative energies generally.

In addition, a lot of these resources might be used to plan how today's suburbia (ultimately doomed) can be shifted to a much more local lifestyle.

It ain't like there's a choice in the matter. So might as well get going on doing it as painlessly as possible.

[Sweet Katie]

Don't support a national speed limit. Don't support the large, big brother government dictacting speed limits to states.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Sweet Katie Don't support a national speed limit. Don't support the large, big brother government dictacting speed limits to states.

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.

[Brian]

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.

What are you insane!!!??? *chuckles* on the inside

[Brian]

I think the speed limits are fine where they are at.. I do not want to pay for road signs to be put up.. it is going to cost us one way or another. And if you keep it where it is at, it is less of a hassle, just let smart Americans make smart choices.

[Chaossaber314]

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.

No, her point was that it's a state's rights issue. Setting speed limits is not the place of the federal government. It doesn't mean you have no speed limits. It just means that they're set by individual states.

[kharvel]

I am SHOCKED by this SOCIALIST proposal. This is a proposal straight out of a SOCIALIST nanny state.

A national speed limit is anti-American and anti-free market. If the purpose of a national speed limit is to "save oil", then this proposal is an extremely stupid way of doing it.

Look, if there is sufficient economic pain, people will drive slower on their own. PEOPLE RESPOND TO ECONOMIC INCENTIVES. This is what the focus should be on.

The high price of oil is already cutting down the number of miles traveled by American drivers and it will continue to reduce the number of miles. This is the FREE MARKET response to high oil prices. Another free market response is to drive slower. There is absolutely no justification for a SOCIALIST intervention if the free market is already working according to expectations.

If the underlying agenda behind a national speed limit is to raise revenues for cities and states, then there is a far simpler and better way to do this. INCREASE GAS TAXES. This will give people even more economic incentive to drive slower.

Germany already has some of the highest gas taxes in the world and as a result, even though there are no speed limits on the autobahns, most drivers still drive slow because they RESPOND TO ECONOMIC INCENTIVES in the form of high gas prices.

National speed limits is a BAD SOCIALIST idea and a failure from the outset. It will do nothing to reduce oil consumption over the long term, as evidenced by the fact that oil consumption increased every year in 1980s and early 1990s even with a national speed limit.

No, the best way to reduce oil consumption is to give people economic incentives to drive slower.

Greed is Good™

[ThoughtCriminal]

There are some good arguments against this speed limit, but these various libertarian ones are not among them. This has nothing to do with state's rights or free markets or other nonsensical abstractions.

TC

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 No, her point was that it's a state's rights issue. Setting speed limits is not the place of the federal government. It doesn't mean you have no speed limits. It just means that they're set by individual states.

Shh, I'm fishing.

My point was a general one about the intersection of freedom and necessity. Conservation measures would never be all that popular, whether implemented at the state level or the national level. They might be a good thing regardless.