Reinstating "55," Are They Crazy?!
May 29th, 2008 Posted in Fuel, James Baxter, Speed Limits, Traffic Tickets By James Baxter, NMA President The same forces that resisted the use of fire many thousands of years ago are still with us, only now they are advocating the return of the national maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. Anyone who endured the last 22 year long “experiment” with the “folly of 55” knows that [...]Reinstating "55," Are They Crazy?!
Not an NMA member yet? Join Today & Get These Great Benefits!
Other Related Articles
- The Effect Of A National Speed Limit On Traffic Safety & Fuel Prices
- The Old Man In The Buick — And The Return Of Drive 55?
- Why Don’t Politicians Care About Transportation Issues?
- Tired Of High Gas Prices? Don’t Ask The Government For Help
- We Are Being Suckered By Miles Per Gallon Ratings
NMA Blog Commenters:
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Tim,
You have my support as well. I’m still totally against the arbitrary and inconsistent way in which speed limits are enforced, but I’ve never otherwise questioned the value of police to our society. Thank you!
My thoughts on speeding & crashes,,,,from a Traffic Officer.
Near the bottom. Same webpage, different topic. “Maryland uses photo=radar”.
http://www.motorists.org/blog/speed-cameras/maryland-police-refuse-to-pay-speed-camera-tickets/
Tim, some of your points are well taken. I’m curious, if the idea is to slow traffic wouldn’t patrolling in a fully marked police vehicle accomplish this more effectively then hiding in the bushes or behind overpass columns with your motorcycle? I would assume that the more visibility you have the more compliance your going to get (without writing a bunch of tickets). In some of the dangerous areas you so stated why not have a officer in a marked vehicle parked, which should alert motorists to a more dangerous driving environment. I’m not sure “hiding” from the driving public has much of a deterrent effect and sure does not gain you guys any points.
It sounds like you tend to concentrate on dangerous parts of your jurisdiction. That is NOT the case in many instances and certainly not in my state. In my driving environment your subject to blanket enforcement no matter what the conditions are. It’s one of the consequences of a revenue driven, quota enforced traffic control. Driving according to conditions is not possible here. And enforcement data is treated as a state secret around here so we simply don’t know how effective or what intensity traffic enforcement is. Conversely you can find traffic crash data all day long. Why would municipalities be so secretive about enforcement data unless they are hiding something?
So, if I drive an electric car fueled by renewable resources or some other non-oil form of transportation, do I get to be exempt from the speed limit? Perhaps that would work nicely to actually improve our oil dependence as I’d happily change vehicles if it meant that I was legally allowed to drive at a higher safe speed.
Good question Jules! That would certainly test the *real* reason behind the double nickle if it were re-implimented.
That Tesla Roadster is looking better every day!
“I’m curious, if the idea is to slow traffic wouldn’t patrolling in a fully marked police vehicle accomplish this more effectively then hiding in the bushes or behind overpass columns with your motorcycle? I would assume that the more visibility you have the more compliance your going to get (without writing a bunch of tickets)”…………………………………….
These days we mostly run moving radar. I get the idea you are referring to limited access highways and similar roads. All of our cars are marked. I have a few tactics I tend to use frequently. While driving and stationary I will momentarily flash my emergency lights briefly at a passing car, in full view. I am looking for a reduction in their speed (we can tell increases and decreases by observing the radar unit). Strange thing is, many times I’ve had drivers pass me by heading the opposite direction (while I’m also moving) then IMMEDIATELY speed up. We can tell this because many cars are equipped with REAR radar. Rear radar allows us to track a vehicle AFTER it has passed us. I stop the drivers and they ask me for a warning. “You WERE given a warning.”
My point is: 1) I’ve given them a fair chance by warning them w/my lights and they speed up before even getting out of sight of my rearview mirror. 2) The concept of driving a speed within safe limits is somewhat longer lasting when a driver gets a summons. With this, keep in mind I will only issue the people who are speeding “too fast for conditions”.
I regularly drive at 5 mph above the limit on four lane highways so as to not clog the road up AND make up any differences motorists might have with their speedometers. Knowing this, it is common to have drivers pass me on my right (four lane road) traveling at 15-20 above the speed limit. I cannot understand what they are thinking? My vehicle is a marked car and my current radar unit also allows me to track vehicles traveling in the same direction either in front of me or behind me.
“It’s one of the consequences of a revenue driven, quota enforced traffic control.”………………….
Quotas have been found unconstitutional in my state. Our department cannot force us to write summons’, but they can force us to stop cars. They can track our cars stops and summons’ issued but cannot take action against us for not writing tickets. As far as revenue goes, our state gets the lion’s share of the money. Even then, any money that makes it’s way back goes into a general fund and not to our department.
“enforcement data is treated as a state secret around here so we simply don’t know how effective or what intensity traffic enforcement is.”………………………………………….
We keep track of total summons’ issued, DWI arrests, total crashes, fatal crashes, crashes with injuries on our department website for everyone to see. I also conduct surveys throughout our municipality on roadways we receive speeding complaints about. I regularly find that speeding complaints cannot be verified through our speed surveys. After each survey we post the road, speed limit, average speed, 85 percentile and total volume. I find many people confuse speed with volume. They see a lot of traffic driving on their road and equate it to driver’s speeding.
In his post above, Tim said:
“I regularly drive at 5 mph above the limit on four lane highways so as to not clog the road up AND make up any differences motorists might have with their speedometers. Knowing this, it is common to have drivers pass me on my right (four lane road) traveling at 15-20 above the speed limit. I cannot understand what they are thinking? My vehicle is a marked car and my current radar unit also allows me to track vehicles traveling in the same direction either in front of me or behind me.”
Here in Maryland, state and county police typically run at least 20 mph over the posted limit. I’m not exaggerating — it’s rare to see them traveling less than 80 mph.
To their credit, 2 or 3 Montgomery County officers have pulled me over for 80+ mph and just given me a verbal warning and asked me to keep it under 80 mph — in a 55 mph zone.
What amazes me are the idiots who decide it’s ok to tailgate a fully marked cruiser going 30 mph over the limit. I see this on a regular basis.
Equally stupid are the ones who are doing 80 mph and don’t notice the marked cruiser literally 6 feet from their rear bumper. I’ve seen people drive mile after mile at 25 over with a cop right on their tail. Then when they do notice the cruiser they hit the brakes creating a huge chain reaction.
One day, I was in a group of drivers following an unmarked car. Everyone knew it was a cop and hung back. The cop was doing about 75 in a 55 zone so he wasn’t exactly slowing many people down. After a few miles a guy with WV tags apparently had had enough and accelerated away from the pack and passed the cop doing at least 80. The cop let him get a few car lengths ahead and then lit him up. It wasn’t like the guy didn’t know — he had come flying up behind a few minutes earlier and then hit his brakes hard when he saw the unmarked car. Very strange.
My remarks about my patrol car speed were NOT for limited access highways. I would expect traffic would move a little faster on those roads.
Tim,
Don’t know if you can answer for other cops, but when patrolling for speeders on highways, to what extent are you scanning the left lane vs the others? As I’ve mentioned, it’s been over 10 years since my last ticket, and I’m wondering if my fanatical observance of ‘keep right unless passing’ rules has helped to keep me in the clear.
Joe writes: “enforcement data is treated as a state secret around here so we simply don’t know how effective or what intensity traffic enforcement is.”
Tim responds: {We keep track of total summons’ issued, DWI arrests, total crashes, fatal crashes, crashes with injuries on our department website for everyone to see. I also conduct surveys throughout our municipality on roadways we receive speeding complaints about. I regularly find that speeding complaints cannot be verified through our speed surveys. After each survey we post the road, speed limit, average speed, 85 percentile and total volume.}
You have no idea how extraordinary that is. Texas DPS treats all such statistics as “proprietary information,” even though it is gathered by a public agency, by public employees, with public equipment and money. Only when they were forced to reveal certain data in response to a federal lawsuit about racial profiling did we learn even how many citations they issue per year (just over 1 million speeding cites, 490,000+ for all others combined). We still don’t know what speeds were cited as compared to the posted limit or how many ancillary cites arose out of a stop instigated by a speed violation alone.
I was once accused of being a “communist” because I wanted similar data from the Oklahoma HP.
What website is that? I want to take a look.
Tim unless I’m reading or understanding you wrong the data you mentioned is more about crashes and accidents. While you may do surveys, that’s all well and good, but where’s the meat? I’m a data man. Where is the actual enforcement data.
Obviously, I’m not saying this should be your individual responsibility, it should be the states. Categorize and publish this data. How many citations and warnings (they don’t give out warnings around here). Maybe traffic stops would be a better measure. I want to know data such as what the traffic stops were for, what time of the day, and what geographical location the violations occured. What conditions were present. How much revenue was generated. How many of these citations were challenged? All this data is available; it’s on each and every citation and in each court.
What could the result of this be? If every court was required to report this information to the state and be published on the Internet on a regular basis then we could do things like compare jurisdictions (municipalities) based on population. I suspect this would really open some eyes. Combined with crash data, only then can the public make a proper, independent assessment and form a conclusion on how effective and what kind of enforcement works best. I suspect that again, speeding violations would top the list. It could also make some municipalities feel a little bit uncomfortable and uncover abuses about their traffic control program.
Municipalities of similar population and higher numbers of traffic citations would undoubtedly be called into question. Studies resulting from this kind of information could also cause some calls for traffic control reform. It would also help enforcement of a state speed trap law (if a state has one). Oklahoma has one but it’s worthless.
I suspect this is the real reason this information is treated more like a military secret. The first step to traffic control reform is to study the data. The effort to make traffic enforcement transparent by pushing for laws that effect such would be a worthy endeavor for citizens of any state to embark on….. hint, hint.
James, I had a similar incident years ago when I went down to my local, friendly traffic court and tried to get similar data. The first question out of their mouth was “what do you want to know for”. I was younger then and was caught off guard by the response. I just left. Believe me, it wouldn’t happen now.
It intrigues me that this information is so guarded. If you or I were asked by law enforcement about something and we refused to respond or attempted to elude the question we would immediately be accused of hiding something for something less then a forthright reason. Should we not believe the same thing about these municipalities and states?
“We still don’t know what speeds were cited as compared to the posted limit or how many ancillary cites arose out of a stop instigated by a speed violation alone.”……..
Our data is limited to what I described in the previous post. We CAN adjust it easy enough to look at specific percentages of cites written, but linking them to specific locations is VERY hard because of our poor computer system. What would be some good information to post? Maybe we can adjust if it is easy enough? We do not have people on staff to gather this data. That’s part of our job too!
Seth,
I do not do any limited access highway work. Our department is responsible for about 70 square miles and has about 100 officers. Pretty small by most standards I suppose.
What do you mean about keeping left? The ticket for failure to keep right or being to the right keeps you out of the radar? It’s always better to keep right when radar is concerned because of the way it operates, but unfortunately if you need to pass others you’ll have to move into the left lane. Radar is influenced by many factors, biggest (truck vs. MC, it will be VERY hard to get a good tracking history on the MC) proximity to the antennae/patrol vehicle, fog, etc. Today’s radar units work very well and are more than capable WHEN USED CORRECTLY. The old sports car thing doesn’t mean much to me, other than I like to read about them. The violation drives the stop, not the violator or what they are driving.
Mr. Young. I’ve spoken pretty freely here about many different aspects of speed enforcement and their results. I am always concerned about what I talk about for MANY reasons, not least of which is what some others would think. Let me re-read my posts. I’d always encourage departments to post their information so the public can see it. I am in the top group when it comes to ticket writing and I comfortable with the way I write them, therefore I have nothing to hide. Those bigger departments have the data, why not share it??
What a collection of whiners – I hope they drop the speed limit to 45 MPH.
Smarten up, Grow up!
And for MR.$24.00/hour travel time – you are grossly overpaid. Life is not a timesheet.
“How many citations and warnings (they don’t give out warnings around here). Maybe traffic stops would be a better measure. I want to know data such as what the traffic stops were for, what time of the day, and what geographical location the violations occurred. What conditions were present. How much revenue was generated. How many of these citations were challenged? All this data is available; it’s on each and every citation and in each court”……………………………………….
Some of this data is easy to get. Each car stop ends with a radio transmission or computer entry which tracks some of the information.
The time of day, locations, conditions present and revenue related to the SAME citations would very nearly impossible to track. Just in one jurisdiction you would have to have an integrated system between the police and the courts, then the other jurisdictions would also have to be integrated into the same system. We can hardly get some of our equipment to work right, let alone keep track and cross reference this type of data.
The idea of MORE sophisticated equipment in our cars to make our job easier IS NOT MAKING OUR JOB EASIER : ) !!!!! Its seems when I come in contact with newer officers they have a hard time doing their job without their laptop, camera, computer systems etc….. This type of attention splitting in the normal patrol duty is taking away from the officers primary abilities. KISS,,,, keep it simple stupid.
Long story short, it would be a nightmare for use to try and reconcile all of that data together. We would burn more time compiling it than actually doing police work. Maybe that’s your plan…. : )
Motor Head,
We’re here discussing/debating the issues. Join us when you have something of value to add.
Me drive at 55??? NOT IF THEY SHOOT ME ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, HAUL THE REST OF MY FAMILY OFF TO A CONCENTRATION CAMP AND SEND THEM TO THE “SHOWERS”!!!
********************************************
Americans are lazy! If you want to improve fuel economiy 10-15% on any car without washington regulations just revert to “Manual Transmissions”! But how many still know how?? Our parents and grandparents knew!
********************************************
Manual Transmissions only gives you better gas mileage in city driveing on the highway it does not make any difference.
Drive 45, why not 35. ok why not drive at all. That way you won’t use any fuel. That makes a lot of sense. So does jumping off a cliff without a parachute.
The 55 limit is stupid. Speed limits should be based on what people can safely drive. (85% speed.) Not lapel badges to wear to say “I am doing something”. This experiment in social engineering was tried before and failed.
We have safest roads ever with higher speed limits. Clearly if driving faster than 55 was dangerous, our death rates would have shot up. They havent!
The 55 died. Let it go.
If you are concerened about saving fuel, than get a fuel efficent car that is geared for highway driving (skip the hybirds as they are best for city driving).
55 NEEDS To BE BURIED ALONGSIDE TRICKY DICK’S ROTTING CORPSE!!!
I don’t think this is going to happen for the simple reason that one year before the NMSL was repealed congress passed another law about unfunded mandates under the law if the federal government mandates anything on the states or local governments that costes money they have to pay for it or the state or local government don’t have to impose it.
To pay all of the states to lower the speed limit would cost more that 350 billion dollars more than we spent on the drug war for the last 15 years put together last time the federal government was able to pass some of the cost on state and local governments but this time the federal government has to pick up the whole tab with a record deficit this would make a bad problem worst and this does not count the fact that they would have to pay for the enforcement costs they might even have to send some federal law enforcement officers to help out the state police.
For those of you who would like to vote on it. Bill O’Reilly has a poll.
http://www.billoreilly.com
Make your voices heard
I have already voted NO to 55!
I read an article a few years ago that argued the 55 mph speed limit on interstates caused fatalities to increase because it shifted traffic to two-lane rural highways, which are more dangerous than interstates. Is anyone familiar with this study?
There were many articles addressing this issue. A couple of points of interest:
1 The absolute numbers of fatalities decreased and the safety cabal crowed about how slower speeds saved lives, etc.
2 A closer examination of the data revealed that lives were saved because the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) declined dramatically because gasoline was in such short supply.
3 An even closer examination revealed that the fatality rate – the number of deaths divided by the VMT – actually increased; thus, it was less safe than higher speeds.
4 The number of single-car crashes increased relative to the total number of crashes. This indicates one of two things: (1) an increase in drivers falling asleep due to long hours of boring driving at less than a full-faculty-engaging trip and/or (2) an increase in the number of suicides.
5 Because drivers gained no advantage by traveling on interstate-grade roadways over secondary highways, they remained on the secondary highways (especially when enforcement concentrated on the most productive spots for speeders, i.e., high-speed highways). The result was the increase in the fatality rate.
What is wrong with the govt? Are they crazy? They want the 55 MPH speed limit back again. That did no good in the past and I am sure that it wont do any good in the future if the govt does restore the 55 MPH speed limit. If and when there is a debate about the 55 MPH speed limit, please for the well being of yourself and for the others around you SAY NO THE THE 55 MPH speed limit.
When I drive at 55 in a 65 limit road, the ba—- act as if I am doing something wrong. Hurry all the time.! Getting to work is understandable. To get home and put their asses down in the couch to watch T.V, or play with the big toys!Not enough excitement in life I guess! Ridiculous!These people sooner or later should have heartattacks and related issues!Thank God I am not going to be a nurse attending on to these scum bags on treatment!
Shreya,
Question: When driving 55 in a 65, are you in the far right lane (unless passing someone driving even slower)? If you are, then by all means continue driving as you are and you should not be impacting anyone else on the road.
If you’re not on the far right, then check out the ‘keep right pass left’ articles on this site and please move to the correct lane.
Thanks!
the worst is when these clowns pull out in front of people and go 55 mph or lower on two lane roads that are posted 65 mph with high traffic volume. can be tough to pass. If you do this pull over once in a while, or wait till traffic clears then turn. not everyone has the same attitude… 55 is a pile of crap, we can get through this crises with out lowering speed limits. if the government is going to cap speed limits they should consider 70 mph, 55 should not be an option. of course I prefer things to stay the way they are, 70 is a much more reasonable “national speed limit.”
To Matthew,
I fully agree with you that the 55 Max speed limit is BS. 70 mph is way more resonable than 55 mph. If you drive 55 mph on a flat Navada freeway you feel like your going 1 mph, you take forever just to get to were you want to go, and vehicles now days have 5-7 speeds so going above 55 mph really does not affect fuel economy. The govt really needs to listen to the people and the NMA.
Thanks all of you that need to drive 75 mph or more. You are costing me an extra buck in gas costs.
The fact is that anything over 55 starts to cut down your gas milage significantly. Over 65 it starts to take a lot more. The difference between 45mph and 75 mph is somewhere around 30% to 40%.
Of course if you are driving a large eight cylinder car that sucks gas at any speed you may not see that much difference. I drive a car that has a city rating of 24 mpg and a highway rating of 35 mpg. I average over 40 mpg going slower and staying at or under 55 mph when possible.
I see people all the time on a 55 mph two lane road that do have to speed it seems like. They save one or two minutes getting to work and take 20% to 30% more gas doing it. As far as the cost analysis posts on this board, what if everyone would save 10% to 25% by slowing down? The answer is gas would be down under 3 bucks again. If you need to go over 75mph then you are costing me money not just yourself.
Randy,
Your logic doesn’t explain the fact that people have always driven 75mph, yet gas wasn’t always $4. Maybe, just maybe, there’s other contributing factors to the current gas price.
Yes there are other reasons. If you would turn on your radio or TV you would know. The world is using more oil. That leaves less for us unless we want to be paying 6 or 7 bucks then you can drive as fast as you like.
One problem with that though, being that you are sending all of that money to other countries the trade imballance happens making your money worth less and makes the cost go up even more. You do not have the right to drive 85 or even 75 even if you can afford it.
That brings up another subject. Speeding tickets. People with more money do not care if they get a ticket because they can afford the $50 to $100.
There needs to be some way to increase the ticket price depending on income. Move it up to $1000 or more for some people. The roads would be safer because you would not have people driving 55 and others drivng 85. That is where the safety issue arrises.
You actually would not have to lower the speed limit to save a lot of gas but enforce the speed that is there and punish the people that do not obey so there is more incentive to follow the speed limit. Get a good radio in your car and relax and lower your speed.
Thank you for your socialist thinking. Haven’t you heard of equal protection under the law?
75% of the increase of the cost of oil is the destruction of the U$D over the last five years. OPEC even says/asks, please stop destroying your currency.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080630031540AALu6KQ
If I can get 20mpg@100mph, can a Ford Excursion V10 4×4 even get 20mpg@50mph?
How about curtailing non-essential driving, instead of slowing down?
Randy writes: {One problem with that though, being that you are sending all of that money to other countries the trade [imbalance] happens making your money worth less and makes the cost go up even more. You do not have the right to drive 85 or even 75 even if you can afford it.}
Actually, we do. I get about 33 mpg at 80 mph in the Bimmer. A company Tahoe that I drove for about a week a few years ago got about 8 mpg. Where exactly is the morality is slowing me down to assure a supply of fuel for the gas hogs? The trade imbalance is best explained by the devaluation of the dollar that in turn is best explained by the negligent policies of the Cheney/Bush administration.
{People with more money do not care if they get a ticket because they can afford the $50 to $100. There needs to be some way to increase the ticket price depending on income. Move it up to $1000 or more for some people. The roads would be safer because you would not have people driving 55 and others drivng 85. That is where the safety issue arrises.}
First, speeding cites average about $200 now, depending on the jurisdiction and what they think they can get away with. A CA photo violation is $372. VA just flirted with fines in the $5,000-6,000 range and it backfired because the people rebelled.
Second, by exactly what mechanism would graduated speeding fines make our roads safer? There are two problems with your logic. Is 85 mph in a 70 mph zone less safe for Bill Gates because he earns billions every year than it is for John the carpenter who makes $50K? And since there is no correlation between speed limits or level or enforcement and key safety measures, exactly how would your proposal actually affect those measures?
I should not have brought up the topic about variable ticket prices because I know it is not going to happen but the fact is people care very little if they get a ticket. It is just the cost of fast driving they say.
What I meant was that if you can get people to drive at the same speed or close it does cut down on accidents.
I would say on 95 percent of all trips or even more are less then 50 miles and usually less then 20. Explain to me why you need to drive 85? To save 1 to 10 minutes of time? Is watching TV or some other thing that urgent that you just have to get there in a hurry. Try leaving 5 minutes early to your destination and see what happens.
As far as the comments about cars getting 20 mpg at 100. What a joke. Buy a car that gets 50 mpg or more at 55. Eventurally we will all have to.
Too much money has been the problem that we have had in the US. I can afford a huge car that gets 15 to 20 mpg they say so they get it. They can afford to pay the extra 2,000 a year or more in gas also. Well that is one of the things that is increasing the trade imbalance and driving down the value of our dollar. It is not the goverement that is at fault as much as it is your own.
Randy writes: {What I meant was that if you can get people to drive at the same speed or close it does cut down on accidents.}
While I, too, would prefer that speed variability be less, even great differences need not cause anxiety attacks. Slower traffic must keep to the far right lane allowing faster traffic to pass unimpeded in the left lanes. Problem solved
{Try leaving 5 minutes early to your destination and see what happens.}
Don’t confuse time management with optimal speeds. We don’t always have the option of leaving 5 minutes early. Try telling your boss or your spouse that you can’t listen to them any longer because you need to leave so you can drive more slowly.
Optimal speeds – the speed at which the driver is fully engaged in driving rather than having time to contemplate any number of exogenous issues – are rarely reached but should still be a goal of traffic engineers, law makers and law enforcers. This speed varies with car, driver and conditions but should not be interfered with by policy or police because to do so is far more dangerous than the speed itself. The empirical proof that slower speeds – that is speeds well below the optimal for the roadway — yield higher crash rates is contained in the data that emerged from NMSL. One particularly noteworthy trend was the sudden increase in single-car crashes, one where the driver fell asleep and ran off the road
{As far as the comments about cars getting 20 mpg at 100. What a joke. Buy a car that gets 50 mpg or more at 55. Eventurally we will all have to.}
I get about 33 mpg at 80 mph; I suspect that I’d still get about 28 mpg (or more) at 100 mph. To me, the important variable is not the consumption of fuel but the internal calculus where I feel most comfortable near that ephemeral optimal speed.
Let’s ignore fuel consumption under the assumption that rechargeable electric cars will soon replace the internal combustion engine. Does your analysis – essentially the fear of running out of petroleum – still hold true? Would you then support rational traffic laws.
{It is not the goverement that is at fault as much as it is your own.}
I think you should look much closer at the waste of what is turning out to be multiple trillions of dollars in Iraq.
*********************************************
Does anyone know if they had a natonal speed limit during WW2? I know they had gas rationing with coupons. At $150/Barrel oil is roughly $3.57/Gallon with 42 gal/barrel.
$4/gal gas is cheap by European standards. Most of us will see $10/gal gas! Transportation revolution is underway. GM will either be broken up or radically changed in 10 yrs. Drastic change is inevitable!
Yes, the NMSL was 45 mph. Oddly enough, the only two times that the fatality rate trended up was WWII and the Nixonian reaction to the Arab embargo in 1974 when the speed limits went down.
There are VERY few cars that get really exceptional mileage in the US. [and that 'exceptional' would only be considered 'good' outside the US]
The current Prius, I think I will wait for the next generation, and then wait a little longer for the lithium battery version.
Camry hybrid-not particulary engaging to drive-four wheel strut suspension, I’d take the Altima hybrid if it were offered outside the small markets.
Honda’s dedicated hybrid model, when is that coming out? Honda’s Civic hybrid-I have to give this one a ‘yuck’ but even its worst mileage is equal to the regular Civic’s best mileage.
VW diesel Jetta, you better get the extended warranty.
Most BMW’s in the US don’t really get great mileage. [no lean burn direct injection-N53] The N52 & N54 are decent, but not exceptional, maybe 25mph@100 at best.
Don’t forget German law prohibits the speedometer from reading low, so an indicated 80mph is more likely 75.
Wasn’t 35mph the limit in WW2.
{Wasn’t 35mph the limit in WW2}
That is correct. The rest of the analysis still stands.
no 55 mph limit :
James Young You do not get it along with a bunch of you others. Getting into the most right lane only pertains to large cities and maybe California. The rest of us have only one lane or at the most two.
As far as slower speeds causing more accidents I would probaly say you are right. With some people driving the lower speeds and others on this board that feel it is their right to drive 85 then there are going to be a lot of accidents.
People on this board say they get better gas mileage at over 65. Get rid of the big engine and that will not be true and you will also double your gas milage.
Also you say you get pretty good gas milage at 80 at 33mpg. I have to say that is about what I could get also. But right now my meter is saying I am getting 42 mpg average including some stop and go driving. That is a 27 percent increase in milage. Do you know how little foreign oil we would need if we all increased our mileage by 27 percent?
As far as time management for the most part that is true. I would bet 95 percent of the time or more you could have been ready to leave to go somewhere 5 minutes earlier if you had planned to. That is an not an excuse. Oh, except maybe 5 percent of the time if even that much.
I forgot one thing. Statistics can sometimes not show the exact reasons for many results. Single car crashes. Is it not true that there was a tremendous amount of manufacturing during WWII. When that happens workers often work a lot of hours and also work night shifts. Accidents are much more likely to happen because people get tired working long hours or driving home when they should be in bed.
I said it before I will say it again.
The 55 is bad policy.
It assumes that every one values fuel efficency above all else.
Granted we would all love to get 40 mpg. But there are other condiserations.
Time. Now maybe some people might have a low value of time and a high value of fuel. Nothing wrong with that, all I ask is you be considerate and keep right.
But most people have a higher value of time. I don’t want to spend 20 mintutes, or 20 hours more on the road over time just to save a few cents. My time is worth more than that.
The bottom line is is let the drivers decide.
If you want to go 55 go for it. You can leagally do it.
If you don’t (like me), go 70,75, or even 80 mph. A lot of rural expressways can handle speeds of that with perfect safety.
I think we are all adult enough to make that choice without a bunch of micro managers trying to tell the U.S. Citzens how to live.
The 55 was a bad idea, still is. When you have polls that show even after $4.00 a gallon gas, most Americans saying no to 55. I think people have made their choice. (Bill O’Reilly poll had 70% said no!)
Besides, we are not going to conserve our way out of this. It is time to replace oil with something else.
Randy writes: {James Young You do not get it along with a bunch of you others. Getting into the most right lane only pertains to large cities and maybe California. The rest of us have only one lane or at the most two.}
Oh, I get it; in fact, I’ve expended great effort and time (50 years) to “get it.” Anti-impeding laws exist in several states and are implied in others. Slower traffic still has a legal obligation to move to the rightmost lane of travel. Period. Slower drivers also have a social obligation to not impede others. When this simple act is performed we all benefit and it costs nobody anything at all.
{As far as time management for the most part that is true. I would bet 95 percent of the time or more you could have been ready to leave to go somewhere 5 minutes earlier if you had planned to.}
Once again, you miss the point. A safe optimal driving speed is determined by one’s internal calculus totally unrelated to the need to a specific destination at a specific time.
{I forgot one thing. Statistics can sometimes not show the exact reasons for many results. Single car crashes.}
I have never seen data that suggest that single-car crashes increased dramatically during WWII. The real reasons that the fatality rate increased was that prior to the war, drivers were primarily men; women rarely drove. During the war, all the experienced drivers went to fight in that war, leaving new, inexperienced women to drive. Inexperienced drivers make more mistakes than experienced drivers, so the fatality rate increased, especially since gasoline was rationed and VMT (vehicle miles traveled) decreased. The point to all of that is twofold: (1) we always need to examine the phenomena behind events and statistics are a tool to help us do this and (2) a dramatically reduced speed limit did not operate to make us all safer.
During NMSL and currently continuing is an interesting trend that NHTSA seems intent to ignore and that is the increase in single-car crashes relative to total crashes. During NMSL, especially the “55” era, we found that single-car ran-off-the-road crashes increased and, although NHTSA doesn’t assign it to falling asleep, that is probably the phenomena behind the trend. Driving across West Texas at 55 mph is boring, fails to engage the mind, and tends to put drivers to sleep.
Now, compare that with the single-car crashes we have had in the past 10 years or so where we get an increasing number of single-car “ran off the road and struck a fixed object” type of crash. What is going on? Suicide. Suicide by vehicle crash is often mistaken for something else and not assigned as suicide, which is a way to protect life insurance payments that would be eliminated if suicide were the cause of death. Note that NHTSA does not recognize suicide at all but we know that there must be some finite number of suicides. Various independent studies have pegged suicides at anywhere from 4% to 16% of total vehicular fatalities.
Just food for thought.
I’d like to second what Stephen said above:
“Besides, we are not going to conserve our way out of this. It is time to replace oil with something else.”
That needs to be emphasized.
With world population continuing to increase, and countries like China and India quickly modernizing, there is just no way that mandating a lower speed limit or higher mileage vehicles will solve our energy problems — not in the long run.
We need something like solar generated hydrogen — clean, renewable, and made in the USA.
Trying to push public transportation (BTW, I work for Metro in D.C.), car pooling, “smart” growth, etc, etc on people will not save us. We need clean renewable energy.
Then we can all drive whatever we want, as fast as we want (within reason) and not worry about energy usage.
*********************************************
I would like to know how others on this post feel about the use of natural gas(CNG)as a fuel for cars. I am a proponet of it as I used it in the early ’60’s. Can anyone tell me if it was also rationed in WW2? I know electric is being touted but its range/recharge capability has been a turnoff for me as well as an electric field danger presently being discussed relative to cell phones. If oil is a problem,is CNG better?
Baja Joes,
You would have better luck starting a new thread for this topic, but briefly —
I have a 1985 Impala that used to be a MSP cruiser. I converted it to run on CNG at Automotive Natural Gas (ANGI) in Illinois back in the late ’80s.
It ran well, but did lose some power when burning CNG. At the time, natural gas was relatively cheap — about $0.65 for the equivalent of a gallon (same number of BTUs). It could still run on gasoline as well.
The tank is heavy (maybe 300 pounds), bulky, and expensive — but very strong. I had to get extra heavy rear springs from a Chevy dealer so the rear end wouldn’t sag. The trunk in the Impala is big, but the cylinder is takes up a good portion of it.
It’s still difficult to find refueling stations. When I was driving it, I had to go about 16 miles (R/T) out of my way to the gas company lot to have it filled, which burned the equivalent of a gallon and the cylinder only holds the equivalent of 10 gallons (actual _liquid_ volume is 25 gallons, IIRC).
A lot would depend on the price of natural gas now.
Also, natural gas is essentially non-renewable, like oil (although some methane is recaptured from landfills) — so I wouldn’t say it’s better than oil.
If you start a new thread for CNG you should get more replies.
James Young, you do not get it. Since it sounds like most on this board are democrats, they do not want to start any new drilling for oil in the US. You want to drive faster. How is that done without using more oil? That means you want more foreign countries to drill for more and you want to send them all your cash becasue since we would be using more the price will go up.
The fact is that if the entire country cuts back on usage we will not have to buy as much foreign oil. You are so self centered that you do not care about anyone else.
As far as speed is concerned for the most part we do not have to reduce limits much at all. Do like they are doing in many states and have automatic cameras that send out automatic tickets. In our state they are $375 in construction zones for the first ticket and $1000 for the second and a suspension of license for the third. If they had that on many more streets we could leave the speed limit the same and save gas and lives by not having speeders.
I have to say that just a few years ago I was one of those that did about 8mph over the limit. For one thing it was safe becaues the traffic flowed at about that seed but when the gas price increased and I got a higher mpg car and a meter that showed instantly what differences in speed does, I changed. I never go over the limit now unless it makes it very unsafe otherwise. The reason I go the limit or a little more now is because on the two lane roads that I drive we have absolute idiots that will pass you if you are going the speed limit and only to save them 30 seconds to get somewhere and also do it in unsafe places to pass.
Now that I am driving slower I am never late because anyone can figure the time it is going to take or estmate it. I am also saving well over 30% in gas than I used to use just a year ago just by going slower when possible and a more fuel efficient car.
If you want to have everyone drive like crazy and use a lot more gas then go ahead. We will have gas lines for sure and when you run out of gas you can start riding your horse at 5 mph.
I also liked the posts about the guy blaming the goverment about all of our problems. How can the goverment do anything to help us if we do not think we have to follow any of their laws anyway. One of the very huge expenses our goverment has is protecting the oil supply and routes that go by and through other countries. This huge expense is due to the high use of fuel that James Young has the right to use and we are all paying for it.