It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should The Government Lower The Speed Limit to Save Gas?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I saw this on yahoo today.

"In tests by Consumer Reports, driving at 75 miles per hour instead of 65 miles per hour reduced fuel economy by between 3 and 5 miles per gallon, depending on the vehicle."

Theres alot of things going on right now dealing with oil. Theres the climate bill by warner and lieberman, which would basically increase gas by about 50 cents. Theres a push by the government for more fuel efficient cars. The govt is pleading oil producing countries to increase output. Both presidential nominees are considering a gas tax holiday, etc.

This sounds like a simple solution. Lower the speed limit. How much gas could the nation save if the speed limit was dropped 10 mph. Lets look at my vehicle, assuming the quote from consumer reports above is true. I have a 14.5 gallon tank. By driving 65 instead of 75, I can get an additional 43.5 to 72.5 miles per tank. Thats roughly 2 to 3 gallons of gas, or 8 to 12 dollars (assuming $4 gas) everytime I fill up, which is once a week.

Now, multiply that by all the drivers in the USA and now how much is the country saving? Lowering the speed limit sounds like one of the most simple solutions to solving the gas problem. If everyone is getting more mileage out of their cars, demand for gas might decrease, thus decreasing the price.

I will admit it will be a hard sell since most everyone speeds, myself included. But if gas prices continue to rise, many more people will begin to change the way they drive in addition to those who already have. So, anyone have any thoughts on this?




posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tdubz
 



. . multiply that by all the drivers in the USA and how much is the country saving? Lowering the speed limit sounds like one of the most simple solutions to solving the gas problem. If everyone is getting more mileage out of their cars, demand for gas might decrease, thus decreasing the price. I will admit it will be a hard sell since most everyone speeds, myself included. But if gas prices continue to rise, many more people will begin to change the way they drive in addition to those who already have. Anyone have any thoughts on this?


Been There, Done That.

Yes, in 1974, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Arabs formed OPEc - Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries - to punish the West for supporting Israel once again. en.wikipedia.org...


The National Maximum Speed Law (in the United States) was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that capped all speed limits at 55 mph (90 km/h). This cap was intended to conserve gasoline in response to the 1973 oil crisis. This law was modified in the late 1980s to allow 65 mph (105 km/h) limits. In 1995 it was repealed, returning the power of setting speed limits to the states. en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 6/8/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
There will be a lot of folks that think it draconian, but it should be reduced to 45 MHP. Stop and think: most travel is for such a short distance that the difference between 45 and 65 means almost nothing in time saved. (Cross country interstates/ autobahns are a different story.)

I have seen so many vehicles pass me, (I'm a slow driver) and then see the same car 15 miles later waiting for a red light at the edge of town. I roll up, the light turns green, and once more they shower down on the pedal. They gained almost nothing, except a testosterone rush from the wind passing through their "just for men" dyed hair as they fought vainly to recapture some sense of days gone by.

(I might add those executive type female "Donald Trump" wannabes that think they are being efficient by doing the "Highway 500" while talking on a cell phone about nail polish while weaving a lane change traffic pattern that would do justice to a tweed jacket)

I get 26 miles to the gallon with a '92 Ford Supercab, mostly pulling a small trailer. I'm almost never late to anything. And I can actually see things along the road.

America, Too Fast For It's Own Good.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
i think more aero dynamic research should go into it.
an 1/4 throttle at 70-80mph i get almost 30 mpg in my car. how much faster do i need to go on the interstate? and don't make me go slower.
at 55 mph i get much less mpg- i don't know why.
in town thats different.
funny thing is i had my car lowered by an inch and 'thinner' tires palced- 205mm vs. 225's and this upped my economy.
what's wrong here? nothing less drag and rolling resistance it works i don't need to pull 1 g on the skid pad. i have a toy for that- and it can run on ethanol too...so who cares?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 


so what was the outcome of this. sorry, i wasnt alive back then. obviously gas was cheaper but was this do in any part to the legislation that you mentioned?



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:27 PM
link   
no the government shouldnt reduce speed limits.

The gas supply isnt the problem here, it is the gas prices.

Also the government would lose the extra tax dollars from the gas that is wasted by speeding.


I dont believe this story though.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I am with xstealth. There is no shortage of gas. This wouldn't change prices at all. If the consumer wants better mileage then the consumer should voluntarily slow down. If we start running into shortages at the pump, then maybe the govt should step in and lower the speed limit. Until it actually becomes a supply issue, the speed should remain the same.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Few in-town road have speeds higher than 45-55 so what they're talking about is freeways and interstates. That would make my 3.5hr trip to see my mom a 5 hour trip.
The only big plus would be that the song "I can't drive 55" would be relevant again.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
i thought opec was saying there were supply issues. maybe i am mistaken. also, i was reading somewhere that the ideal speed for best mileage is around 55. it drops a little when you get up to 65, but after 65 mpg goes down fast.

as someone else mentioned, you could just voluntarily slow down. some times you can do this, and others you cannot. if your driving on the freeway and lets say you are going 55, speed limit is 65, you could very well cause an accident because you are driving to slow with all the cars around you going so much faster. normally i drive about 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit. i tried going 10 mph under the speed limit the other day just to see if it worked. i had to cut my experiment short due to the cars behind me tailgating me so bad.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   
It's not really about how slow or fast you go...
There was a test done here in Denmark where the object was to get as far as you could on one tank of gas.
I can't remember how far the guy who drove best got, but it was quite quite far.

His trick was to drive consistently. You see it's about how many RPMs you force upon the engine. If you can maintain a steady RMP at say 70miles per hour I bet you could reduce the amount of gas spent to the same as a guy who drives 60 miles per hour in the "normal" way.

Instead of using the break, just release the speeder and let the natural break of the engine do the work. Don't speed up hard and fast. Do proper gear shifts.
During my 30 hour driving lessons (yep, that's required in DK by default), my teacher constantly stressed one thing:
a good driver doesn't need to stop for red lights, he will hit all green instead.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tdubz
 


www.ireland.com...

That article kind of sums up what is going on. People are pushing OPEC to increase production but OPEC won't do it because it isn't a supply issue. Oil prices are high due to speculators and tension in the Mid East.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tdubz
 



so what was the outcome of this. sorry, I wasn’t alive back then. obviously gas was cheaper but was this do in any part to the legislation that you mentioned?


The 55 mph speed limit was very unpopular. Especially west of the Mississippi where vast distances between cities are normal. Not at all like driving from Dayton to Columbus. The Fed Govt finally had to threaten to cut off highway funds if the states did not enforce the speed limit. The Feds would park their cars fitted with radar but only to record the percent of drivers that exceeded 55 mph. Car makers were required to limit the car speedometer to 85 mph which was believed would discourage fast driving.

Speed traps began to spring up all over the country. It was the era of radar detectors. People put crumpled aluminum foil in their hubcaps to foil the radar. (It won't). Most of the time cops "gave" truckers 64 mph before they were cited. The best us ordinary mortals could "get" was 59. Some states like Ohio would stop you at 56. I would set my cruise control at 59 - except in Ohio and parts of Georgia.

Gas was indeed cheaper then but for us it was the first time it had ever been so high. All old guys have their cheap gas story to tell but my first job in 1951 was at a Shell Service Station as a “pump jockey.” Gas was 28 and 30 cents. 28 for regular, 30 cents for premium. My story of the cheapest gas I ever bought was probably in 1950, 19.9 cents at a discount station during a price war. But price was relative. I was young and poor and I ran out of gas many time. Today I never run out of gas.

The legislation was prompted by a real shortage of gasoline. OPEC had reduced its supply and there were long lines in many places waiting to buy gas. The US is still the 3rd or 4th largest oil producing nation. Back then we probably produced 70-80% of our own daily requirement. Today we produce about 35%. This is why those of us who oppose drilling in Alaska don’t feel badly. If there is as much oil there as there was a Prudhoe Bay, that would still leave us short by more than half of our daily consumption. No matter how much we drill we will never again be “energy independent.” That is a politicians dream-world. An urban myth.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 



That article kind of sums up what is going on. People are pushing OPEC to increase production but OPEC won't do it because it isn't a supply issue.


I read the article. I have heard the same at other sites. The underlying problem is what was once ballyhooed as the SAVIOR of the world, the so-called Reagan Revolution. It was his idea to DE-REGULATE everything and let the Free Market FIX our problems. Reagan was the first Neo Con. Unfortunately as we have just learned in the mortgage meltdown business, there are too many of us dependent on rules to let scoundrels have free rein. The Commission charged with regulating the futures market has 405 enforcement agents. They need 4,000. Which means in effect there is NO regulation of the futures traders IN THE PUBLICS INTEReST.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
No the "Neo-Eugenicists" need high death rate for speeders as a means of depopulation itll never happen.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 



People are pushing OPEC to increase production but OPEC won't do it because it isn't a supply issue. Oil prices are high due to speculators and tension in the Mid East.


Here follow some selected numbers showing great improvement in US highway safety, along with my own commentary on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy - CAFÉ - and other important issues related to motor vehicles.

2004. 42,636 people died on the nation’s highways down from 42,884 in 2003. The fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled was 1.46 in 2004, down from 1.48 in 2003. The fatality rate has been steadily improving since 1966 when 50,894 people died and the rate was 5.5.

NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) also shows that, between 2003 and 2004:

1) Motorcycle fatalities increased from 3,714 to 4,008, an 8 percent rise.
2) Alcohol-related fatalities dropped from 17,105 to 16,694, a 2.4 percent decline.
3) Rollover deaths among passenger vehicle occupants increased 1.1 percent from 10,442 to 10,553.
4) Pedestrian deaths declined 2.8 percent from 4,774 in 2003 to 4,641.
5) Fatalities from large truck crashes increased slightly from 5,036 to 5,190.
6) Total fatalities in sport utility vehicles (SUVs) increased 5.6 percent, from 4,483 to 4735, while fatalities in passenger cars, pickup trucks and vans decreased a total of 834.
7) Passenger vehicle occupant fatalities dropped to 31,693 – the lowest since 1992. Declining fatalities in passenger cars are consistent with more crashworthy vehicles in the fleet and increases in safety belt use.

In 2004, 55 percent (down from 56 percent in 2003) of those killed in passenger vehicles were not wearing safety belts. This underscores the value of the need for states to adopt primary safety belt laws. usgovinfo.about.com...

NHTSA has estimated that highway crashes cost society $230.6 billion a year, about $820 per person. www.nhtsa.gov...
In the United States, nearly 44,000 people die each year from transportation-related crashes usgovinfo.about.com...

Compare the US highway death tool with three other countries.
1979 Fatalities versus 2002 Fatalities and the Percent Change
1979 United States, 51,093; 2002, 42,815 down 16.2%
1979 Great Britain, 6,352; 2002, 3,431 down 46.0%
1979 Canada, 5,863; 2002, 2,936 down 49.9%
1979 Australia, 3,508; 2002, 1,715 down 51.1%
en.wikipedia.org...

For a wide range of motor vehicle data from 1994 to 2006, of highway fatalities, see the very excellent FARS - Fatality Analysis Reporting System website
en.wikipedia.org...
and also, the www.nhtsa.gov...

Worldwide, more than a million people die each year because of transportation-related crashes. To highlight this problem, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is joining forces with the World Health Organization, other U.S. federal agencies, and public health and transportation partners holding the first World Health Day in 2004.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (C A F E )
First enacted by Congress in 1975, the purpose of CAFÉ is to reduce energy consumption by increasing the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. Regulating CAFÉ is the responsibility of NHTSA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NHTSA sets fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.; EPA calculates the average fuel economy for each manufacturer.

The CAFÉ began in 1977, fixed at 17.6 mpg. By 1987, the CAFÉ was raised to 27.0 mpg. However, compare that increase (30.6%) with the current CAFÉ with 1994, 27.5, and the current industry standard set in 2004, 29.3 giving an increase of 6.5%. About one-fifth the former increase. The American car maker industry has steadfastly resisted any increase in the CAFÉ. Congress has cheerfully gone along. Now WE must pay for bad government. www.nhtsa.gov...
www.nhtsa.gov...

Lesson. How to be “cute” and evade the intent of the CAFÉ law at the same time? Ford’s entry level half ton pickup, first called the F1 in 1946, then the F100, was well within the new CAFÉ law that covered all vehicles up to 6,000 lbs. gross weight as rated by manufacturers. Ford, along with GM and Chrysler, created a NEW gross weight series of truck to evade those standards.

In Ford’s case it was the F150 introduced in 1975 to circumvent coming emissions requirements. The new rating was 6,050 lbs. GVW. With the old ½ ton F100 still in production, the new half ton F150 was referred to as the "heavy half" ton by some people. Chevy 1500 and Dodge 1500 are the “heavy half” ton versions of the Ford F150.

Congress quickly became aware of this evasion but “let it rest.” This maneuver by the truck makers did save buyers between $1,000 and $2,000 per truck as the estimated cost of new EPA and CAFÉ requirements. OTOH, this also allowed perhaps 30 million vehicles on the road to pollute the atmosphere which did not belong just to the “Good Ole Boys” or the truck makers.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tdubz
 

My husband says that today's engines are not the engines of the 1970's, that they can run at higher speeds without causing a great increase in fuel consumption, until at 65 as you stated. And, oh, yes, to voluntarily drop to 55 or lower may not only be unsafe but illegal.

I did notice while driving on highways that the traffic that normally would pass us, because we stayed close to the speed limit, were not passing. On our local two lane (where we might go up to 60 from the posted 55) we drove for 50 miles without anyone passing us! That was unusual, as some people normally would zoom by at much greater speeds.

reply to post by flice
 


yes! It's more about how you drive. Keeping vehicles tuned up and driving as you stated would make for better fuel usage. My ex and I would drive the same car same route, but I consistently got better gas mileage.

Also, not using the brakes as much makes them last longer between adjustments. Keeping tires properly inflated, balanced, rotated means not paying more often for new tires at increasing prices. All this means less money put out in the long run.


Here's a thought I had. It certainly is true, that there is no shortage in supply, nationally. However, I think that a serious personal supply shortage is starting to happen. The higher fuel prices means that more people are maxing out on what they personally can buy. So, personally, they have to severely limit the amount they can buy. A "personal shortage".



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:22 AM
link   
If you think prices for the staples you pay now are high, try reducing the speed on highways. Between 4000 and 5000 trucks a month are NOT running because they cannot break even because of fuel prices. This is a statistic born out by independant truckers associations. They are NOT crying wolf either! Slow them down and it only gets worse. If you notice in the stores that shelves are not as tightly packed as they once where its because of slowdowns in shipping due to the lack of transport. Truckers are being driven out of the bisiness at an alarming rate. You may hate trucks on the highway but thats the ONLY way to get what you need to live in your towns.

Zindo



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 



If you think prices for the staples you pay now are high, try reducing the speed on highways. Between 4000 and 5000 trucks a month are NOT running because they cannot break even because of fuel prices. This is a statistic born out by independant truckers associations. They are NOT crying wolf either! Slow them down and it only gets worse . .


The American Enterprise Highway System (AEHS)

A new super interstate system
but made more affordable. Built in 400 foot wide right of ways. Build 4 driving lanes in each direction. All roadways 8 lanes wide. Build each lane 15 feet wide over the current interstate standard of 12 feet lanes. Build to 50 year German standards instead of our 20-30 year standard. This will allow raising current per axle weight limits from 18,000 lbs to 30,000 lbs. Retain the 12,000 lbs on the front axle. Gross vehicle weight would rise for an 18 wheeler from 80,000 lbs current to a new 132,000 lbs. Raise speed limits to 150 km/h. (95 mph).

Build on the cheap.
Build a system for the eastern US and another for the western US.

The eastern system would be shaped like the letter “Y” with the right arm at NYC, the left arm at Chicago, the fork at Atlanta and the base at Miami. But respecting the 30 miles approach limit.

The western system would be shaped like a chicken’s wishbone laid on its side. The apex would be at St. Louis, the lower arm ends in San Diego and the upper arm ends in Seattle. But respecting the 50 miles approach limit.

Let no AEHS highway come closer to a major city than 30 miles in the east, 50 miles in the west. See above. Allow only ONE interchange per large city. Great savings. And safer for the higher speeds. For example, the road running from Chicago to Miami would have interchanges at Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Tallahassee, Orlando and terminate in Miami.

Last.
Make the system a toll road. Stick a bar code on each vehicle as it enters the system. Sell 2 days right to use without regard to times entering or exiting, at $20 per axle. Passenger cars would cost $40 for a two day pass. 18 wheelers would cost $100 for a 2 day pass. Local weight laws would have to allow heavy trucks to go directly from the AEHS road to a warehouse for off-loading to reach the local weight limits. Like the German autobahns the center two lanes would be for passing only and the outer two lanes for cruising. Cops would look the other way on cars driving safely in the 2 center lanes up to 120 mph. (200 km/h). Trucks could drive as fast as GOD would let them.

Note.
The western system would pass through 7 states on the south leg and 6 on the north leg, counting MO two times. Total states involved, 12. On the eastern system the NYC (right) arm would pass through 7 states to Atlanta, the Chicago (left) arm would pass through 5 states and the base of the “Y” would pass through 2 states. Atlanta has been counted 3 times. The total number of states would be 11 states. National total states: 23. There would be no connection between the eastern and western systems. I estimate 80% of long distance trucks would be pulled OFF the existing interstate system.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


A star for you!! Everybody is in too big of a hurry. I drive the speed limit and get passed like I am standing still. Everybody complains, but nobody slows down. It makes a real difference too, but folks would still rather feed their paychecks to their fuel injectors or carburetors.



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


So you are saying that going slower is going to cause truckers to use more gas and have higher overhead? I don't get your reasoning.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join