Will the 55 mph speed limit be reintroduced?

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Firebot
You spend much more gas going from 0-30 then you do from 30 to 65. Eliminating stop n' goes (i.e. lights and traffic) would do far more then lowering the speed limit.

Damn, there is somebody else in the world that feels the same way I do. I hate the stop lights in Lexington, KY. They are poorly synced and almost always stop lines of traffic for one car. If a light has not cycled in a longer time period for a side street and a car pulls upon the road sensor, the light will be given to the side street within a few seconds....always. However, many times, a long line of traffic has just been released from the previous light on the main street and every one of those cars will stop for the benefit of letting just one car out. My vote is to hold up the one car for a short while longer and let the longer line of cars to keep moving. With all of the communications networks and sensors available, it's very possible to do just what I propose. 40 cars sitting idle and then accelerating from a dead stop is really stupid if you can have just one or two for a short while longer. /rant

 

[brandonb]

I would support a 55 mph speed limit.

It sucks that you can't drive as fast as you want, but the gas mileage in your vehicle is so much more suited for 55 mph than say 70 mph.

In my car (3.8L Pontiac Grand Prix), at 55 mph, my gas mileage is about 32 mpg. At 70-75 mph its less than 22 mpg. Of course the manufacturer of the car can change this with gear ratio's and what not, but most typical american cars, this is true.

I haven't gone 70 mph in a long time, on a 70 mph freeway, I usually drive about 65-70 just so I'm not a jerk on the road but I'd probably stick to 65 or slower if it was my choice and nobody else was on the road.

 

[Lemon law]

The idea that an auto or a truck would get better fuel milage at 80 than at 55 cannot be explained by mere aerodynamics.
As charrison points out---------I highly doubt this is the case. Above around 50mph, wide resistance because a huge factor. The rule of thumb is for every 10mph faster you go, it costs you 4mpg.

And if there are a few case where better milage is achieved at a higher speed, it can only be explained by extremely bad gearing and valve design. A gasoline engine can produce power over a wide RPM band, but operates efficiently in only a small range of rpm.

 

[piasabird]

It work better to have a higher tax based on the MPG rating for cars. Make people with Low MPG rating pay even more taxes. We will not make it illegal to own a hummer or extra large SUV, we will just tax you appropriately, and reward people who purchase smaller cars. Maybe we will give people a tax credit if they are married and have lots of kids if they have an actual reason for a larger vehicle.

 

[K1052]

I'm sure all the commuters up here would be relived so they can sit in their 2-20mph traffic jams all morning and night in peace....

 

[Robor]

Absolutely not. They can go 55mph in the center or right lane if they want though.

 

[piasabird]

Just make smaller cars! A while back one of the things that Glen Beck said is that people fare better when the Government does Nothing. When was the last time that the goverment passed a law that made your life easier?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: gypsyman
I fear that in another effort to save us from ourselves, congress will resurrect this monster in an effort to save on the national fuel bill. Just think of the additional revenue the tickets would produce. Would you support it?

There's nothing to prevent us poor, working-class folks from driving 55 mph on the highway right now, is there?

Yes there is.. safety.

I'd support a 60mph limit. People could still drive 70 if they want to waste fuel and arrive 16% earlier, or think that highway driving is exhilerating and fun.

What is unsafe about it? Speeders don't bother you when you're in the slow lane any more than they would if you were in the fast lane.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Just make smaller cars! A while back one of the things that Glen Beck said is that people fare better when the Government does Nothing. When was the last time that the goverment passed a law that made your life easier?

The problem is when you drive a small car you're at a disadvantage in an accident against the fares of Hummers, Expeditions, Escalades, etc. I drive a VW GTI and my wife has a Mazda3. I'd hate to imagine either of us in a serious accident with a vehicle that has a bumper at window level and nearly 2x the curb weight. I know people who drive large vehicles now who want to give them up for something with better gas mileage but they don't just for that reason.

 

[OutHouse]

the 55 limit was put in place during the 70's during a REAL oil shortage. there is no oil shortage today. Plus why would the government want to reduce their tax income by putting a limit on how much gas we use? less gas consumption = less money the government has.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
What is unsafe about it? Speeders don't bother you when you're in the slow lane any more than they would if you were in the fast lane.

If you're in the fast lane doing 55 - we'd bother you.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
What is unsafe about it? Speeders don't bother you when you're in the slow lane any more than they would if you were in the fast lane.

If you're in the fast lane doing 55 - we'd bother you.

Like going around them and using a right turn signal as a hint to GTFO of the fast lane?

 

[glugglug]

Other than ultra-compact hybrid/electric vehicles & motorcycles, I doubt there is a highway-legal car manufactured today whose peak fuel efficiency is at below 85mph.

Speed limits exist solely for "revenue-enhancement", meaning they are a way for the state to steal more money. They never have, and never will, have anything to do with safety. (Other than REDUCING safety through speed enforcement).

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The idea that an auto or a truck would get better fuel milage at 80 than at 55 cannot be explained by mere aerodynamics.
As charrison points out---------I highly doubt this is the case. Above around 50mph, wide resistance because a huge factor. The rule of thumb is for every 10mph faster you go, it costs you 4mpg.

And if there are a few case where better milage is achieved at a higher speed, it can only be explained by extremely bad gearing and valve design. A gasoline engine can produce power over a wide RPM band, but operates efficiently in only a small range of rpm.

Name ONE model of truck that gets better mileage at 55 than at 90. I don't believe one exists. I know my first car got much better mileage at 150 than at 50, because at 50 it was still in 1st gear.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: glugglug
Other than ultra-compact hybrid/electric vehicles & motorcycles, I doubt there is a highway-legal car manufactured today whose peak fuel efficiency is at below 85mph.

Speed limits exist solely for "revenue-enhancement", meaning they are a way for the state to steal more money. They never have, and never will, have anything to do with safety. (Other than REDUCING safety through speed enforcement).

Get off the highway or stright areas and you will find that speed limits are usually set within 5-10 miles of safest controlled speeds.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: charrison
I highly doubt this is the case. Above around 50mph, wide resistance because a huge factor. The rule of thumb is for every 10mph faster you go, it costs you 4mpg.

And where did you learn that, some wonderfully insightful CNN article? Give me a break. "Rules of thumb" which are linear (as is the one you suggest) are useless in the case of turbulent boundary layers because they obviously neglect every factor that was used by an engineer somewhere upstream to arrive at the 4 mpg figure. If your rule of thumb was true, then some cars would actually get negative gas mileage above 90 mph. So please, keep your rules of thumb to yourself and go take a class on boundary layer theory rather than getting all of your information from some BS online news article.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It work better to have a higher tax based on the MPG rating for cars. Make people with Low MPG rating pay even more taxes. We will not make it illegal to own a hummer or extra large SUV, we will just tax you appropriately, and reward people who purchase smaller cars. Maybe we will give people a tax credit if they are married and have lots of kids if they have an actual reason for a larger vehicle.

The gas tax already taxes based on mileage. Worse mileage pays more, better mileage pays less. No need to look at ridiculous manufacturers estimates. In addition, mileage changes constantly based on many factors: tire pressure, payload, etc. There's no way you could simply tax based on some magical "MPG rating".

Too bad that dumb bitch Hillary and the buffoon McCain want to remove the gas tax for political purposes.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can fat people be turned into diesel?

 

[CycloWizard]

As I have been saying in this forum for almost 4 years now, the key to beating high gas prices is an investment in improvements in our dilapidated rail system. Trains are much more cost-effective than are cars. However, we have become myopic and won't make a substantial capital investment for very significant long-term savings. I like driving as much as anyone, but the current American lifestyle isn't sustainable. The oil companies have found out how inflexible we are in our demand and have raised prices accordingly. Demand hasn't changed much at all since I started driving 11 years ago, despite a quadrupling in the price of a gallon of gas.

I did a fairly extensive economic analysis on all cars costing less than $25k after my car died. At current gas prices, the Yaris, Fit, and Elantra were close to the bottom of annual costs. The Prius and Civic Hybrid, which are the only two cars that get anywhere close to decent gas mileage in this price range, are marginally more expensive. If gas goes up to $5, which my projections indicate is the equilibrium cost when oil is around $110/bbl, then the cost of owning a Prius becomes almost equal to the cost of owning even the subcompacts because their mileage is still pretty bad (32 tops for the Yaris IIRC). As the cost of gas increases, the Prius becomes the only viable option with the Civic Hybrid lagging behind due to higher cost, worse mileage, and higher insurance premiums. So I put down a deposit on a Prius this weekend.

Sadly, the mileage of the Prius (estimated at 45 mpg combined) is still pretty poor compared to a lot of cars in the 60's and early 70's. The addition of catalytic converters and other downstream processes to eliminate NOx and COx from exhaust has compromised the efficiency of engines and added dramatically to the complexity and maintenance costs of these cars. If we lightened up on these requirements, gas mileage would soar with minor environmental impact. If we release 100 pounds of exhaust at 1% pollutant concentration to go 100 miles or 50 pounds of exhaust at 5% pollutant concentration to go the same distance, which is really worse? The latter releases less CO2 but more NOx and COx, while the former burns more gas and releases more CO2. *shrug*

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
What is unsafe about it? Speeders don't bother you when you're in the slow lane any more than they would if you were in the fast lane.

If you're in the fast lane doing 55 - we'd bother you.

I'd bother you too

 

[Vic]

The national speed limit was a bad idea in the '70s and it's still a bad idea today.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As I have been saying in this forum for almost 4 years now, the key to beating high gas prices is an investment in improvements in our dilapidated rail system. Trains are much more cost-effective than are cars. However, we have become myopic and won't make a substantial capital investment for very significant long-term savings.

I've always been curious as to why we don't have a high-speed rail system. Of course we've got to deal with Earthquakes but I don't think that'd be impossible to deal with.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
As I have been saying in this forum for almost 4 years now, the key to beating high gas prices is an investment in improvements in our dilapidated rail system. Trains are much more cost-effective than are cars. However, we have become myopic and won't make a substantial capital investment for very significant long-term savings.

I've always been curious as to why we don't have a high-speed rail system. Of course we've got to deal with Earthquakes but I don't think that'd be impossible to deal with.

iirc japan has one of the best highspeed rail systems around

 

[IGBT]

..I expect rationing to return. even/odd. Raising the driving age to 21 is also on the horizon.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

practical and affordable mass transit is what should be the focus.