Simple Way to Reduce Foreign Oil Use, But Not Mentioned ...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Iria @ Jul 1 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]279815[/snapback]</div>

That might work; the traffic where I drive might slow to 75 then (in the already posted 55 and 65 zones) B)

 

This time the national speed limit should be 39 MPH, the preferred speed of Prius drivers. I believe it's called "a level playing field". B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Iria @ Jul 1 2006, 03:59 PM) [snapback]279815[/snapback]</div>

The national speed limit was lowered to 55 mph in 1973, during the presidency of Richard M. Nixon.

 

NO. Lowering the speed limit is bad for the economy. By lowering the speed limit, transportation takes more time, and the value of the fuel saved is less than the value of the time saved. For example, a truck taveling 3000 miles will take about 6 hours longer. which could easily equate to one day longer delivery, 12 man-hours of pay to two drivers and 6 hours less of service the truck could have been in service somwhere else making money.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Iria @ Jul 1 2006, 09:15 PM) [snapback]279888[/snapback]</div>

Wow. Slippery slope eh?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmann @ Jul 1 2006, 06:45 PM) [snapback]279878[/snapback]</div>

Of course it will affect the economy. These are complex systems. You can't change one variable and expect everything else to remain the same. Lowering the speed limit to 55 would have significant effects on a wide variety of items. It's not "what can we do that won't change anything else?", it's "what is the most important element of the picture?". If environment is the highest priority, then effects on the economy loose. If it's the economy, then the evironment looses.

I think there are several reasons you haven't seen the 55 limit suggested:

1) It would be a major shift of this administration to focus on environment over the economy.

2) Whereas the price of oil is a temporary pain-in-the-neck to the Bush administration, I doubt there's much interest in dealing with long-term oil dependancy. Recognize that the Bush fortune was made from oil, and curbing oil use isn't something their family embraces or (I suspect) desires.

3) Despite the positive benefits (i.e. saved lives), I think the 55 MPH speed limit was generally considered a failure politically. Suggesting it could easily be political suicide from a reelection standpoint.

Bottom line: don't hold you breath waiting for someone to suggest it. And if someone did, the chances of it actually turning into law would approach absolute zero.

My $.02. B)

 

I agree!!! Lower it! Set it at 55, everyone will drive 60 or 65 anyway. As it stands now, people are driving at 80 plus on most interstates. We are all very aware how speed affects fuel economy. I say let's slow down and enjoy the journey more. We rush around too much.

 

One unintended consequence of lowering speed limits is that the same highways carry fewer cars without turning into gridlock. Faster speed limits have eased traffic congestion tremendously in large metro areas.

If you actually get everyone to slow down, you'll be slowed WAY down, in stop and go traffic!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Iria @ Jul 1 2006, 10:15 PM) [snapback]279888[/snapback]</div>

Remember that moron vice president in Day After Tomorrow who complained that the economy was just as important as the environment? No, dufus, without the environment there wouldn't be an economy; or the human race for that matter.

 

Why do so many people assume mileage is better at 55 mpg. The speed at which cars get the best mpg varies car to car. Based on wind resistance profile, transmission and other design factors, it seems cars could be designed to get the best mileage at 80 mph or more. Driving faster means the engine is running for a shorter period of time on the same length trip. It seems gearing, wind resistance, tires, etc could be set up so the motor isn't working that much harder at 80 mph than at 50. If the shorter drive time more than offsets the extra engine effort, the car gets better mileage at faster speeds. Hybrids could be designed to run on electric only at highway speeds. Perhaps that's one thing the 08 Prius will do to get better mileage.

Also, the US interstate highway system was designed when speed limits were rising. Many of the interstates were designed for an 80 mph speed limit. Driving at 55 mph in open country on a straight road that could handle 80-90 mph is a waste of time, unless you're sight seeing. As others have said, a 55 mph speed limit would waste money and inconvenience many drivers. Accident reduction would probably be minimal since most accidents are caused by drunk driving, cell phone use, tiredness or being distracted in some other way.

There are far more effective and productive ways of lowering carbon emissions and improving national energy efficiency, such as increased CAFE standards, improving home/office/factor lighting/HVAC/windows/insulation, etc. Probably the most effective way to improve energy efficiency is charge the correct price for gasoline and other fossil fuels. The real cost of gasoline is probably in the $10-20 per gallon range. Most of the cost is externalized on taxpayers and future generations. Externalized costs of gasoline (ie: real costs that aren't paid at the gas pump) include military costs to ensure gas supply, the cost of treating illness and premature deaths resulting from CO/NOx/SOx and other emissions, time lost in road congestion caused by subsidized fuel prices and many other factors.

In reality, we do pay $10-20 per gallon for gas. Most is paid through higher taxes and reduced quality of life. A large part of the cost is pushed off to future generations. It is far cheaper to prevent problems, such as illness and pollution, than to remediate them. If we internalized the full cost of gas, the actual price would probably drop by 50% because we'd be preventing problems rather than cleaning them up.

So when you hear someone say, we could never charge $7 dollars for gas in this country, remind them that we're already paying twice that. If we changed the real price for gas, total out of pocket costs (gas prices, taxes, etc) would be lower and current and future generations would have a better quality of life.

The problem is how to we implement accurate fossil fuel prices and other system changes. Our economic and political systems are massively complex and difficult to change. However, if we don't change them voluntarily and align human actions with nature and reality, our systems will change on their own, almost certainly in ways we don't prefer.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyprius @ Jul 2 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]280073[/snapback]</div>

You'd have to repeal the laws of physics in order to be able to achieve that. Regardless of how aerodynamic a car may be, air resistance goes up at an exponential rate to that of the increase in the speed of the vehicle.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmann @ Jul 1 2006, 06:45 PM) [snapback]279878[/snapback]</div>

Are you factoring in the cost of the environmental and health damage? Or just the cost of fuel and wages?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyprius @ Jul 2 2006, 07:10 AM) [snapback]280073[/snapback]</div>

I can't think of a single vehicular situation in which a car could be designed for lower energy consumption at 80mph, than it could be designed for at 55mph.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 2 2006, 03:40 PM) [snapback]280183[/snapback]</div>

Are you saying it's impossible to design a car that gets optimal mileage at 80 mph? If so, I think you're wrong. While drag is generally equal to a constant times speed squared, weight and shape of the vehicle are highly relevant factors. Air resistance can be greatly reduced by shape. And heavier vehicles have more power to move large amounts of air out of the way more quickly. I bet smart engineers could figure out how to make a car that got best mileage at 80 mph.

 

Not all cars obtain best mileage at 55. My camaro obtains bets mpg numbers between 78-80... My Bonneville does better at 68....

55 will create a greater difference between speeders and non speeders resulting in a higher accident rate (as was proven the last time we did this( look at Montana for example)). More accidents = more traffic jams...

I think it would make more sens eto eliminate the speed limits and charge $5.00/gallon for gas and use the windfall to produce more energy efficient vehicles. Let the economics slow people down or speed them up.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jul 2 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]280264[/snapback]</div>

The best mileage from a gas guzzler isn't saying much, though, is it? You yourself would do better at 65 in a Prius

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jul 2 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]280264[/snapback]</div>

The rationalizations of a speeder As if it's ok to break the law like that. 'Well, everyone else does it. Let's just do away with speed limits so I don't have to change my behavior.' Make it a felony to go above five miles per hour over the posted speed limit, enforce it with cameras and computers and you won't have more accidents. The idea that we have to accommodate people who break the law and can't control themselves is assinine. If you insist on that kind of behavior you're part of the problem. We're supposed to eliminate speed limits and people who don't drive like out of control idiots are supposed to change our behavior so that you won't have to just slow down? Forget it, pal.

 

jbarnhart says: "... if you actually get everyone to slow down, you'll
be slowed WAY down, in stop and go traffic"
.
wrong. Google for "traffic waves" and read the "amateur scientist"
studies of traffic dynamics and related links.
.
It's not the speed, it's the proximity. That's the killer, both of
people and of efficiency.
.
_H*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyprius @ Jul 2 2006, 02:17 PM) [snapback]280220[/snapback]</div>

It would be very easy to design a car that got better mileage at 80 than at 55. Just gear the thing way too high for 55mph. And if you never drove anything but 80, that would make some sense. However, if you ever did drive 55, then you'd be throwing away all kinds of energy. That same car - if designed for efficiency at 55mph - would get WAY better mileage at 55 than it ever could at 80. Am I making any sense here? This is a basic concept that there can't be much argument on. But I'm probably not explaining it very well.

All else equal, it takes more energy to push through the air at 80mph, than it does at 55mph. You cannot design a car that gets better mileage at 80 than it does at 55 - if the car is designed for optimum efficiency at each of those speeds.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tnthub @ Jul 2 2006, 04:22 PM) [snapback]280264[/snapback]</div>

Or... let's charge for gas what it actually costs us as a society - about $10/gallon - and see what that does to the "free market" of speed and vehicle choice. As long as we don't much at the pump, we really don't seem to give a damn.

 

How much oil did we save last time we did this? Seems to me we had about a 10 year period with a slower speed limit (1973 to something like 1985, perhaps later). Did our consumption of oil go down during that period on a per-capita basis, or did the rate of increase at least slow?