Driving 55

[Barcelona Red]

Roadshow: 55-mph bet gets people talking

By Gary Richards
Mercury News
Article Launched: 07/31/2008 01:31:27 AM PDT


Q Gary, now I know why folks hate reporters. My point of view was completely ignored in the bet over the impact of slowing down to 55 mph vs. driving faster. Kirk Fry
Palo Alto
A I'd rather be hated than ignored. Kirk wagered that I'd find less than a 20 percent improvement in mileage if I drove 75 mph on one tank of gas vs. 55 mph on a second tank. The results: stunning. I got 59.9 miles a gallon going 60 or under in my Prius compared with 42 mpg at faster speeds - a 42.6 percent improvement. I drove an extra 117 miles on a tank by just slowing down.
So far this week I'm getting better than 57 mpg. The best I normally get when driving the speed limit is around 50 mpg.
But Kirk has a bunch of good ideas. He believes the high price of gas is reason enough to slow drivers down. He thinks a national speed limit of 60 mph, as proposed by Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, is not needed. Her legislation is not gaining traction in Washington, yet the bill has brought attention to the benefits of going slower, and that is a big part of the battle if we want to pay less for gas. Who else but Speier, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and Roadshow are talking about this on a national level? Few, if any. Now to Kirk and his ideas.
Q You blew off the way to really save gas - raise taxes and carpool - because they don't fit into your pet economic theory. Getting folks to slow down will be pure fiction. I lived through it the last time
Advertisement

they tried it, and so did you. What happened? You will make a fine candidate to join the prohibition party. What is the fleet average of cars in Germany? They don't have this silliness with 55 mph. They tax gas so folks buy itty-bitty little cars that get great mileage. Admit it - 55 mph is pure fiction as a national policy to actually save gas. I will drive one week at your silly 55 if you print my point of view. Kirk Fry

A Kirk, you should read Roadshow more often. I've advocated hiking the gas tax or tying it to inflation for another reason: It saves us money by avoiding huge interest payments with bonds, something voters are willing to approve even though it's a lousy way of raising money. The $20 billion transportation bond approved two years ago will require $20 billion in interest payments over the next three decades. That's right: For every $1 raised by the bonds, it costs $1 to pay off the debt. This year a $10 billion bond measure to build high-speed rail will be on the ballot. That, too, will cost $10 billion in debt payments over three decades. With payments like that, it's little wonder California's budget is in such sorry shape.
Because gas prices are so high, we are driving less, carpooling is increasing and transit use is up. You occasionally carpool with your wife. My son and I will carpool to school and work this fall to save 80 miles a week in driving. The market can work, as you say. But efforts like our bet and Speier's bill also help push the pluses of slowing down - by showing drivers how much they can save when filling up.
Q I experimented with mileage on trips to Walnut Creek. At 55 mph: 34 mpg. At 65-85 mph, 22 to 29 mpg. Wow!
Bill Fitzgerald
Campbell
A Another "wow" coming.
Q I drove our Prius to Healdsburg and stuck as closely as possible to 55 mph. Mileage: 57 mpg. I came back home at 55 mph. Mileage: 58.5 mpg. I was not alone driving 55, and this mileage was the highest yet achieved for our car.
Jackie Hall
Los Altos
A And . . .
Q What speeders don't seem to understand is that if they choose to drive at 80 mph, it affects everyone else. Their increased gas usage incrementally raises the cost so long as the law of supply and demand applies. The increase of greenhouse gases and smog contributions from their exhaust pipe affects you and me. You and Jackie Speier may not be nuts after all.
John Hessel
Portola Valley
A I may be hated, but at least I'm not nuts!

Contact Gary Richards at mrroadshow@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5335.

Columnist for Mercury News who has a Prius.

[David Beale]

So you really want to get "run over"? While I agree with the thought of slowing down, I would say (legal opinion here, from someone without qualifications) driving at 55 in LA (or any other large city in the US and Canada) would constitute "dangerous driving, being a hazard to traffic, etc, etc".

[kimgh]

I read Gary's column religiously, but I have to say:

Here in CA, if you go 55, you'll get run over by all the yokels going 70+.

I've always thought that safety is a concern of at least equal weight with FE, and it's simply NOT safe to tool along at 55 when the prevailing traffic is going 65 or more.

The old saying that "speed kills" is wrong; it's "differential speed kills".

[hill]

Originally Posted by David Beale

So you really want to get "run over"? While I agree with the thought of slowing down, I would say (legal opinion here, from someone without qualifications) driving at 55 in LA (or any other large city in the US and Canada) would constitute "dangerous driving, being a hazard to traffic, etc, etc".

Great to hear from Canada ... and thanks for your 'expert' opinion on U.S. driving law . We're just 35-45 miles south of L.A. and have no problems driving 55mph. In fact, much of the freeways have a 55mph MAX speed for trucks w/ trailers. That works for me, as MPG improves when I tuck in behind them (not too close though) ... and if any body races up behind "us" ... well, the racer understands it's simply the trucks speed. 55mph? heck, during much of daytime driving in the L.A. area, you can't even get up to 45mph what with grid lock ... why do you think folks are willing to pay a $3K premium for a Prius w/ solo car pool stickers?

As for the article, the author would ALSO find that if he drives 50mph-51mph, that his mpg would go up to even more, to about 63.5 mpg (with one person, and 61.3mpg with two people). For me, at 4am there's little traffic on the road, and doing 51mph doesn't bother anyone.

[Godiva]

You can drive 55. Just not in the HOV lanes.

You find yourself an old truck or clunker on the right and either get behind them or get in front of them.

[mingoglia]

I think we can safely say that the slower you go, the better your fuel economy. Obviously, if you're driving 55 you're going to get better fuel economy than if you're driving 70. But where do we draw the line? You're going to get better fuel economy at 35mph, than at 55. Should we make a national speed limit of 35? Would be a sight to see having thousands of people driving 35 mph on an 8 lane, 12' wide per lane highway. Heck, we can get rid of airbags if we lower the speed limit and deaths on the freeway should plummet.

Reasons to make a 35mph national maximum speed:
1) Even crappy cars can get better fuel economy.
2) Lower-tech suspensions for lower travel speed = lower vehicle cost.
3) No need for airbags.
4) Vehicle maintenance, such as lubricants, will need to be replaced less frequently due to lower operating temperatures.
5) Only a 10mph difference in speed between yourself and the bicycle going 25mph next to you would mean bicycling would be safer.
6) Would promote the use of a bicycle as you're only able to go 10mph faster in your car.... so suddenly that $200 bicycle makes sense over the $20,000 car.
7) Horseback may make a comeback as an alternate source of commuting.

The list goes on and on.

[rfred]

Can you say the word, "Addiction?" There, I knew you could.

I read today that a certain oil company is making $1,500 a second!

And it's one, two, three what are we fighting for? O I L

Let's remember who is in the White House and which segment of the population is profiting from the high price of oil.

I find it incredible that we're even having this debate. Let's drive 55 to save lives and fuel.

And maybe for once we can return to the days when this country acted as a positive example for the rest of the world instead of acting like a goddamn herd of sheep.

[mingoglia]

Originally Posted by rfred

Can you say the word, "Addiction?" There, I knew you could.

I read today that a certain oil company is making $1,500 a second!

And it's one, two, three what are we fighting for? O I L

Let's remember who is in the White House and which segment of the population is profiting from the high price of oil.

I find it incredible that we're even having this debate. Let's drive 55 to save lives and fuel.

And maybe for once we can return to the days when this country acted as a positive example for the rest of the world instead of acting like a goddamn herd of sheep.

So why not drive 35, and save more lives and fuel?

[MagneticGrayIndy]

I'm sorry but I have to say this.. I've seen it posted in many different threads that you are somehow creating a dangerous situation by driving the posted speed limit...

BS!!!!!!!!!

Others are creating a dangerous situation by driving over the limit.. and you are simply not perpetuating it! If you were driving 45 in a 55 w/ no hazards.. or 35, etc... yes, dangerous.. But the limits is just that, the LIMIT.

The only two speeding tickets I've had in the last 10-15 years have been while I was "keeping up" with traffic... The police don't care that "everyone else is doing it!".. it's illegal to exceed the speed limit. Always. Period.

[sdtundra]

Drove 65 going to Irvine last week. My route was 15N-78W-5N-405N.

I averaged 50mpg for that trip.

On the way back at 10:30PM, i drove 55 the same route just reversed obviously.

Average for that was 68mpg