55MPH National Speed Limit ?

Let's see, since my last tank was 88.1 for 278.4 miles I could do almost 90. But wait, if I went that fast I wouldn't get the mpg then I couldn't go that fast. I guess it's one of those vicious circle things.

 

55 mph wasn't a popular decision back in the 70's, and it wouldn't be one now. The federal gov't gives highway money to the states so long as they have the federally mandated 65 mph limit (70 mph in rural areas) for cars.

Now, if they would lean on the states to ENFORCE the 65 mph speed limit, that would slow traffic flows down a bit from the 70-75 mph average that I typically see. If the feds actually wanted to lower the speed limit, I'd say do it down to 60 mph, not 55 mph....and ENFORCE it.

 

No. Since the age of the 1970s we now have distractions such as cell phones, ipods, GPS screens, and we have created new problems for ourselves with "road rage" being seen as some sort of an affliction. We have far more lawyers who are out to make every nickel they can due to the all too frequent condition of misplaced responsibility.

The last thing we need to do is to further incite drivers who are already upset at paying $4.00 or more at the pump, frustrated at the value of their gas hog suddently becoming "upside down" on the trade in value, prices of food and basic essentials skyrocketing out of control, and our mass transit air carriers scaling back flight schedules and charging for luggage.

This is not the time to crunch the speed limit down to 55 on roads that were designed for 70 mph.

In Maine, we have such long stretches of similiar scenery a mandate was issued in the 1960s that no two bridges could look the same in an effort to decrease the boredom of long distance drivers and hopefully reduce accidents. 55 is not the answer as it only addresses a small symptom of our dysfunctional mentality.

I have had the priviledge of being stuck on I-5 in California, experienced driving crosstown in NYC at 8:00am on a Monday morning, and been caught on the Chicago loop at rush hour.

The ultimate solution is a combination of significantly enhanced mass transit options but where I live the "Park and Ride" facilities are not large enough to hold the cars.

Far more fuel is wasted in stop and go traffic and through poor traffic signal management than would be saved by reducing the speed limit.

In my opinion, the best revision to our traffic infrastructure would be to steamline the roads we currently utilize for maximum efficiency.

Portland Maine, for example, is geared toward favoring pedestrians. Great. I have no problem with that until it contributes to the larger scale problem of wasting our resources. The traffic signals (North South) through the city are designed to slow down cars and favor foot traffic. Stop and go driving, especially from a dead stop, is the worst fuel economy point for most conventional vehicles and around here everyone drives as it can easily be 10 miles simply to go to a grocery store... Nobody (hopefully) is riding a bike in Maine in February.

As we build a societal structure based on instant cell phones, text messages, broadband internet access, and "instant everything" slowing down traffic will produce a far greater negative result today than it ever did in the 1970s.

55 is a bad idea.

 

I have been doing a lot of driving in our 05 and drive about 5 MPH under posted speed limits. I am noticing I am not along. I seem to be staying up to the rest of the cars and I am even passing trucks. I think market forces are lowing the highway speeds.

 

You make excellent points. I have driven I-5 at morning rush hour in Los Angeles pulling a fifth wheel and surrounded by 18-wheelers. I have ridden on a New York City parkway at 8 p.m. on a Saturday night in bumper-to-bumper traffic changing from dead stopped to 45 mph. I have been in rush hours in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City and Seattle, among others. Only L.A. and Dallas don't have significant mass transit, but buses still can't keep up with the people. We do love driving our cars, as evidenced by the cvery existence of this site.

 

No. No. No. Back when the 55 speed limit was in effect, my Mustang got about 15 mpgs. My Prius gets 50+ at 70+ mph. Why would I want to go back to the future? The 55 was a joke then and would be a joke now. Un-enforceable, and makes "criminals" out of 90% of the driving public, including this Prius driver. I got a ticket in Utah on radar for 70 in a 55. It cost $15 at that time. I'd hate to think what a ticket these days would cost. Before you name me a a speed crazed lunatic, my last ticket was in 1979, in that same red Mustang. I'd rather see a reverse HOV (Hybrids Only Lane) for snails willing to creep along at 55 or less. No more Richard Nixon and no more 55. Both bad ideas, then and now.

 

ooooo, i like the HOV lane idea

 

I for one am for a "Reasonable and Prudent" speed "limit" nationwide on the Interstates and an increased qualification/testing for getting a drivers license.

Mike

 

I believe Brock Yates expounded on that concept about a decade ago and put forward the concept of a "super license" that hebelieved would save lives on our roads.

 

I tested my new 2008 P#1 with 800 miles on it and here is what I found:
55 mph=60.6 gpm, 60 mph=55.2 mpg and 65 mph=48.2 mpg.
We are heading out on a round trip from California to Minnesota and I'm not sure I can stand to keep it at 55 for the majority of the trip. I'm thinking of taking the most direct GPS route, avoiding freeways, to keep from setting the cruise at 65 (or 70) but I suspect the start and stop of small town driving would destroy any fuel savings achieved because of the lower average speed. Any ideas?

 

switch drivers every hour. get off the freeway. if you have the time, take side trips, see the country. to drive that far and not take advantage of the local scenery as you pass it is criminal.

make the money you pay out in gas work for you. sure this will add a few days to your trip, but if you can swing it, your trip will be much more enjoyable.

we are going to a wild animal safari park. we will take one entire day to drive there (about 250 miles) with stops along the Columbia River, etc. (a small detour)...spend the night. then see the park. then spend another 4 hours driving to our next hotel along the Oregon Coast. spend the night there... then another day along the Or and Wa coast home. all told, about 110 miles on I-5. the rest, other major surface streets, secondary thruways, etc.

i did this trip about 15 years ago. it was all done in one day... it was still fun... but i did all the driving and it was about a 16 hour day for me... that pretty much sucked. i have driven on several long car trips with a half dozen over 2500 miles and most had time constraints. but this was back when driving was simply cheap, much more convenient that flying, and a LOT cheaper... well, in the Pri, it still is cheaper... in some of the cars i drove in, it would not be anymore