 Probably what John Warner drives forth-and-back to Congress |
An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.
Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.
Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.
Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country’s highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.
“Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America’s highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater,” Warner wrote Bodman.
The article ends with a stupid question to Energy Department flunkeys – with an even dumber answer that illustrates how the Energy Department actually is the “Butt-Kissers for the Oil Patch Boys” Department.
But, seriously, is someone bringing back the double nickels in an election year? I think not.
Won’t happen for four reasons:
1. Won’t play in the western states, which have significantly more political power than they did in the 70’s.
2. Won’t play with the truckers unions, which have significantly more political power than they did in the 70’s.
3. Won’t play with the oil lobbyists, which have significantly more political power than they did in the 70’s.
4. Won’t play with growing states, which don’t need federal highway matching funds like they did in the 70’s. (Double nickles was never law, it was simply policy enforced through funding.)
Nice idea, but outside of New England, it doesn’t make sense.
#5 said it: “The coming years will be a battle between personal choice and freedoms against the common good.”
I can’t point to a constitutional right to emit dangerous, damaging chemical pollution, which is what we’re talking about.
The market has had 30 years to ‘fix’ this problem, it hasn’t happened, and it isn’t going to happen because vast numbers of people simply don’t understand the issue, or don’t care enough to change their behavior.
Most people like to grip about fuel prices but they aren’t trying to save fuel or not much. I think they’re waiting for the gas fairy to come along and use it’s magic wand to make it all better.
When the pain gets bad enough people will modify their behavior. Until then forget it. They’d rather hurt than change.
#36. I agree with your comments. But with a proviso, that cars have power transmissions which make them run most efficiently at around a steady 63mph.
I drove to Miami from Jacksonville in February. I drove on average 90 MPH. I got 29.8 MPG on that run. I don’t think there would have been any way of getting that by driving 55MPG.
And that’s almost the theoretical high of 30MPG highway on the sticker.
#39
I don’t think it’s the long haul driving that blows your gas budget. It’s the stupid daily trips that most people take.
The classic is getting in the SUV to drive across town to buy a case of diet Coke that’s $2 less than the local store. Of course, the diet Coke is for the overweight kid…
I don’t know if anyone’s said this since I’m too fucking lazy to read the 39 comments above me, but:
WARNER IS A SHILL FOR THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY!!!
This has nothing to do with fuel economy and everything to do with lessening the “burden” on auto insurers. Less speed = less death/injury = less payouts. Lower speed limits = more citations issued = more premium hikes. Win-win for Allstate, Nationwide, Progressive, GEICO, et al.
To paraphrase MagnoliaFan from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, “Fuck Warner. Fuck him up his fucking ass.”
I need to say something here…
This has been proven false, long ago.
there are a few factors in this that are not stated.
A car can be tuned to go at a certain speed and get GOOD millage.
ASK any old timer about it..
you set the timing, the fuel/oil/air, and piston rod for the speeds you want.
WHAT CAUSES more LOSS in gas is FAST acceleration, and NOT coasting to a stop..
For some reason, i think some of those folks have forgotten or missed classes on BASIC PHYSICS…
#39..
Very true..
I get 35mpg at 75-80mph, easy.
1986 Olds..
#23. Funny how all the people who grow their own food, etc, are working and hoping like hell that they can turn an ignition key or flip a light switch.
You wanna go live in a thatched hut and poke berries up your nose, be my guest. Of course, there’s no DSL out there, so we shall miss your insights …
#40 who said less speed is less deaths? The reverse is true, as higher speed limits put more people on the highways instead of the dangerous city roads.
Re: the photo above.
I just have to say that my mother was absolutly right about the Edsel. The front does indeed look like a gaping vagina.
Re: the issue of saving gas, I’m not sure this is the best way. However, regarding infringement on personal freedom, reducing the habitabity of the biosphere doesn’t help personal freedom much either. Tough call.
#34 – MikeN,
Please cut down on the hallucinogenic drugs while blogging. Bobbo has not made a single comment on this thread.
#39, Bryan
I drove on average 90 MPH. I got 29.8 MPG on that run.
Bullshit. Only if you were riding a small bike could that be possible and at that speed even that would be pushing it.
#42, ECA,
I get 35mpg at 75-80mph, easy.
1986 Olds.
More bullshit. Read your own comment first before posting garbage.
For some reason, i think some of those folks have forgotten or missed classes on BASIC PHYSICS…
The air resistance is exponential. It takes 25-40% more power to move air at 75 mph as it does at 55. It takes even more power to go the next 15 mph.
The only 1986 OLDS that got 35 mpg was being towed. Downhill.
Antisocial Scott said: “The front does indeed look like a gaping vagina.”
LOFL. It does kind of have the Georgia O’Keefe steampunk look to it. I guess I could make some comment about the hood ornament being a….
Never mind. Someone nice might be reading this blog.
#39 – Bryan Price,
And that’s almost the theoretical high of 30MPG highway on the sticker.
The EPA is supposed to be an average, not a max. I routinely get 27 city and 32 highway in a car that has EPA estimates of 21 city and 27 highway.
#51 Bobbo. Go for the health care. People driving at higher speeds are more likely to require state funded medical care due to a discretionary activity.
#48 – QB,
Never mind. Someone nice might be reading this blog.
Hey!! That gaping vagina comment really is my mother’s. Are you implying that she isn’t nice?
How about every car/truck with > than 4 cylinders must drive 55.
50,
You don’t know much about Germany, do you? Some stretches of the autobahn have no limit, there is no “unlimited left lane”. Why not check German vehicle accidents, you’ll see what it “seems” to be. Dumbass.
As for good ideas, why not do what Germany does and tax a car based on engine displacement?
Thanks a lot you government idiots! Don’t tell them if you set your household thermostat to 50 degrees in winter it saves many, many barrels of oil. I hope all you citiz.. er, sheep, get used wear coats indoors!
Dear Mr Scott: No matter what your mother has said or done, she is a saint. Your mother and all mothers gave us life and should be revered at all times.
Dads, on the other hand, are all going to hell.
Nevermind bobbo, I mistook someone else’s post as yours(the one about rights).
Fine by me! Its a good day in the morning when I can reach 55mph on the highway! I spend more gas money idling, lets see congress fix that one.
I’ve had this idea, too. And I’m not a Republican. Nor do I care about the Insurance industry. Nor do I feel that squandering limited, finite natural resources to save a few minutes per trip is ultimately moral.
55 accomplishes three things:
1: Slower average speeds = better milage. A world resource is a bit more preserved by people willing to sacrifice a little time for a little more concern.
2: A natural result is that traumatic impacts average slightly less, geometrically expanding the life-preserving features of airbags and seat belts. The 4000 people who survive won’t know, definitively, if their lives were the ones saved, but hey, 4000 people is more than were lost on 9/11. But not more than have been lost in Iraq. But that’s another story.
3: City, county and state revenues go up. Fines for doing 70, 80, 90 and 100 will increase quite a bit. A spirit of reserve and the dropping of speeding habits will either infect drivers or they will pay. Certainly law enforcement attitudes will include the added notion that speeders are being extra wasteful, and that will likely lead to heavier fines.
Eventually people who are sacrificing road time for better milage will be buying better-milage cars. As gas moves into the $8/gallon range, the current attitudes that treasure the freedom to speed will have to be brought into reasonable perspective.
I think the idea of giving up speed for lives and preservation of natural resources is worthy. The majority of posts here seem to be from people who think unlimited speed and SUVs were in the Bill of Rights.
When cars are all-electric, all computer-piloted and far better controlled than living drivers achieve, the speed limits will rise to a faster pace, naturally, and the resources that an enforced conservation will preserve can work elsewhere.
Insurance companies won’t make much money then, though.
The days of death by driver error are numbered, but it will take time to work out the next paradigm.
Best use of oil: lubricant. Even at $50/gallon it’s affordable for that. Lets’ hope we don’t use it all up.
#47, look it up…MY CAR STILL GETS THE same mpg AS POSTED THE DAY IT WAS RELEASED…
at higher speeds you created a wind shock effect around the car…Just as a fighter jet at MACH…
Im not breaking the sound barrier, but Im creating a wind foil…
Go look at aerodynamics, 101…
59,
almost true…
the car i want is to expensive, and I cant afford building my own..
This is a great idea! No one is in a hurry anymore.
Why don’t we drop the limit to 5 MPH. Then we would burn less gas and never have crashes.
When I drive my car I’m not looking to save gas. I’m looking to get from one point to the next as quick a I can.
#60, eca,
#47, look it up…MY CAR STILL GETS THE same mpg AS POSTED THE DAY IT WAS RELEASED…
Ya right. I am really going to look up a car I don’t even know the model of.
First, the EPA fuel rating is an estimated number by taking several factors. It never was a qualified or experienced number. It was intended for comparison only.
Secondly, while they did say, “your mileage might vary”, no one ever actually achieved those numbers.
Third, that estimated mileage would only have been achieved when the car was relatively new and under optimal conditions. After the engine, tires, suspension, and transmission all start to wear the fuel efficiency will decrease.
Fourth, point the car at a hill, it goes down. Use the car on a cool day, it will go down. Use the car on a hot day and it will go down. Use the air conditioner and it will go down. Turn on the lights or use the fan on high and it will go down. Drive with the windows open and it will go down.
Fifth, so much depends upon the type, and even brand, of fuel. The more alcohol in the fuel the less mileage you’ll get. In cold weather additives to help your car start decrease mileage. Moisture in the fuel (comes with the alcohol) will decrease your mileage.
Don’t believe me? Look it up.
http://tinyurl.com/ypzcqm
#59 – Peter,
Well said.
#63 – Mr. Fusion,
Some of us exceed EPA mileage regularly. I have a 1992 Camry with 115,000 miles on it. When it’s foggy, the original window decal still shows 21 MPG city and 27 MPG highway. I typically get 27 or so around town and 30-32 on the highway.
Admittedly, that mileage is craptastic for a 4 cylinder car. My ’87 got 40 on the highway. That was a great car, geared for mileage instead of speed. This one is 10% heavier with a 10% larger engine and geared for speed. Yecch!
But, I do get higher than EPA estimates and the car is 16 years old.
FUSION,
Its funny that they say THIS WORKS, THAT WORKS..
they said that changeing to aluminum would make cars lighter, and more efficient.
After they included all the reinforcements, It almost weighed as much as the STEEL CARS..
Smaller engines will give us better economy…NOT..
On 18 gallons i can get from Boise ID, to Portland OR.. on 1 tank.
All the testing of motors was done on the OLD engines, to find what worked..the OLD big bore 292…then they reduced the engine size, and its CRAP.. a HIGH HEAT engine with an aluminum HEAD, and steal BLOCK(aluminum cant take the strain.
I get the idea that you dont know much about motors or engines..
#47 Mr. Fusion.
EPA MPG estimates are based on conditions no car will actually see in real life driving. They are for comparison, and they tell you explicitly on the sticker. Because of those conditions, I consider the figures to be a max.