Slower speeds would reduce congestion on the highways. A reasonable distance for automobiles at 70 mph is 200 feet, approximately 2 seconds apart. At 55 mph you can space automobiles 160 feet apart with the same two second spacing, which will let you space an extra 7 cars per highway mile.
Plus, being realistic, with any congestion the whole thing goes out the window. If you’re travelling during peak commuting hours you probably average closer to 35 mph than 65 mph.
Then why do gas prices cycle from $2/gal in winter to $3+/gal in summer when demand only fluctuates 5-6% (9M barrels/day to 9.5M/day) between winter and summer?
Gas prices fluctuate wildly, and demand doesn’t fluctuate all that much. The reason is that the supply curve for gasoline is almost vertical because the producers are tapped out on refinery capacity. Raise prices to $5 and it’s still going to be the same producers putting out 100% of capacity, there are no new entrants, no new supply, no new competitor to bring prices down. Small increases in demand (5%) result in big increases in prices (50% - $2 to $3+), but it works in reverse too.
I say before we start forcing regular citizen types to drive more slowly in order to get a pretty marginal increase in fuel efficiency it would behoove the federal government to raise the CAFE standards for automakers significantly, remove the exemption that allows automakers to classify large SUVs as trucks–which they are not (thereby removing them from consideration in said CAFE standards,) and abolishing that infernal tax incentive that encourages small businesses (and the self employed) to buy big honking SUVs instead of smaller cars. Link
After the above three solutions have been enacted then and only then should we look to incentives and disincentives on average citizens to decrease fuel use.
While we’re at it, where’s that neat 42v battery Delphi came up with almost ten years ago–the one that is powerful enough not only to run the heated seats/DVD players/subwoofers/etc. in modern cars, but is also powerful enough to allow the engine to be turned off when sitting idle, then to start the engine again when the gas pedal is depressed, thereby saving huge amounts of gas by eliminating idling at stop lights, not to even mention the reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gases? When it came out I read that if this higher voltage system were used in such a manner we’d see Chevy Suburbans getting about 35-40mpg IN TOWN, where we need to improve fuel economy the most. As has been pointed out upthread, highway driving is NOT the biggest culprit in high gas consumption, stop and go traffic IS.
There are lots of solutions out there that would make much more immediate and significant reductions in oil consumption that are well within the scope of federal legislation and that are infinitely more implementable and enforceable than the already proven failure of the double nickel speed limit.
Fifty five sucks.
Stupid five minute edit window…
Here’s a link to a study which explores the need for a change to 42V systems in automobiles. The 42V battery is the same size as the standard 12V but the gains in efficiency and the ability to use the alternator/braking to charge the battery makes it an irresistably easy and cheap starting point to more efficient and economical vehicles. There are also benefits to using electrical power to run ancillary systems in cars such as steering and cooling (not to mention the infinitely spiffy electromagnetic suspension systems–see GM’s Magnaride) as well as the expanded prospects for new toys and gadgets that aren’t feasible with current power systems in vehicles.
What really got me in the 70’s and 80’s were all these politicians who would bring up polls that indicated nation wide support for the double nickel. I would scream at my tv set like a deranged owl: WHO? WHO? Nobody was driving 55 on the freeway. Who was saying they supported the limit when nobody obeyed it?
I’ve often wondered if any mental health studies were done on it. I mean, it was almost psychologically impossible to drive 55 on a freeway built for 75 for an extended period of time. Common sense would continually pester a driver that what they were doing was not logical and they should speed up. I drove across North Dullkota once during 55. It almost drove me nucking futs!
Or to put it in a less tendentious way (i.e. comparing daily time, to make the sacrifice look small, to annual costs, to make the cost look big, which is what you did), assuming your numbers are right, you’ll spend an extra 50 hours a year in your car, for which you will save $300, or $6/hr.
My time is worth a lot more than that, and my time at work or at home is a lot more pleasant than the time I am spending sitting in traffic.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
All I can say is that in my senior year of high school (1986-1987) the state rep for our district came and gave a talk to our government class and one of the things that we discussed was the 55 MPH speed limit, and according to her, the state, along with several others had a suit pending against the Feds over the speed limit. Some months later, there was a news story announcing the decision. I’ve no idea how to search SCOTUS decisions, but presumably some of our legal Dopers could track this down.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
I’ve been searching the web like crazy and I can’t find any such ruling. If it did happen I’m doubting it did in your time frame. Once again, I’m not saying it didn’t happened, but you’ll have to provide a better cite than “I remember from high school”.
My searching did come up with some erroneous facts that are on floating around the web, however:
*There seems to be a belief that Jimmy Carter signed the 55mph limit into permanent law. Untrue. it was Nixon.
*Bill Clinton is heralded as repealing it. While Clinton did sign the law to repal the national speed limit, the fact is he didn’t want to. The only reason he did was because it was attatched to a highway funding bill he wanted passed.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Well, in this case, I think that unless you’re searching legal specific sites, that are databases of court rulings, you’re wasting your time, as the general internet tends not to have a memory that goes back farther than 2000 or so.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Wha…? I’m coming up with all sorts of stuff going back as far as the 40’s and beyond.
[QUOTE=pkbites]
Actual cases and related documentation? Or just mentions of them? And how many of them are related to a current event?
South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
“Federal blackmail” is generally constitutional.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
They’re all over the map.
The problem is, I’m uncertain what terms to search for. If your supposed case actually happened, did it happen as a case regarding the national speed limit, or was it another case similar to it that would include such laws.
I’ve also searched about unfunded mandates, however 55 wasn’t really one of those as the feds dumped a ton of money into enforcing it (as I spoke about earlier).
Are we sure it was a SCOTUS case and not a lower federal court ruling?
Because no one paid attention to the speed limit when it was 55?
Ah. So it was ruling that was not directly involved with 55 but would include such blackmail.
*
We have also held that a perceived Tenth Amendment limitation on congressional regulation of state affairs did not concomitantly limit the range of conditions legitimately placed on federal grants.*
I’m wondering how a more conservative court would rule on the standing of the 10th amendment in cases like this. My arguement is that the result of such laws (national speed limit/drinking age/seat belt) circumventing the will of the individual states should be unconstitutional regardless of how such result is obtained. The money does not originate from the feds but from the states themselves in the form of taxes. Therefore the fed has no right to withhold such funding to over ride the states 10th Amendment right to create their own laws.
I think the 10th was created to prevent such action on behalf of the feds, and any legislation that results in laws that would be unconstitutional for the feds to create if created in another manner should also be unconstitutional. Ergo, using funding to circumvent the 10th Amendment (economic blackmail) should in and of itself also be unconstitutional.
But I’m not a lawyer. Just a poor lawman who had to enforce such insanity. :mad:
SUV’s are all too often a complete waste, Some people have a real need, for most people they just like them better.
A few people could move closer to work, but so many US families are two income now. My house is very close to my wife’s job and nearly 40 miles from mine. So moving closer fails to work for us. Before you say it, I would love to find a job closer to home, so far I cannot.
55 mph won’t work because it did not work. When an experiment fails as badly as the 55 speed limits did, why revisit it?
We could save as much gas with better traffic light system and better mass transit in cities.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has proposed and is pushing for congestion pricing plan in hopes of reducing smog. He is mandating a switch of the cities Taxi fleet to hybrids by 2012. that will be 13,000 new hybrid cars. He is also planning to enforce not “blocking the Box” much stricter than currently. These are proposal that can all work. The congestion pricing plan will have an uphill batle however. As seen on the link I provided. I doubt this one will go through. The other two will.
One more note of the MPH debate. A highway moving at 65-75 mph carries more cars than one that moves 55-65 mph and can therefore reduce congestion and in doing so in some cases save more gas than is being consumed by driving over 55.
Of course the more we push for better mileage vehicles and lower emission vehicles, the better off we will collectively be. Hybrids and then plug-in hybrids will be a help.
Jim
How is ‘liking them better’ not a real need? What would you consider a ‘real need’, and how does it differ from liking something better? If I do a lot of camping, and therefore need the space, does that make having an SUV a ‘real need’? Couldn’t I just stop camping? After all, I only camp becasue I ‘like it better’ than alternative recreations that wouldn’t require an SUV.
This is a pet peeve of mine - people that are always talking about other people’s ‘needs’ and their foolish decisions. The fact is, all we ‘need’ is a haunch of meat and a cave to sleep in. The rest of it is all just personal preference and values. The guy who ‘needs’ an SUV because he tows a 5000 lb RV trailer could just stop towing trailers and stay in a motel 6. The guy who ‘needs’ an SUV because he likes to do a lot of off-roading could just stop off-roading. I see very little difference between those choices and the person who ‘needs’ an SUV because, well, because he likes driving it.
For that matter, people don’t ‘need’ large sedans, sports cars, and other gas-guzzling vehicles. Why limit your disdain to SUV owners? A Chrysler 300C sedan gets less than half the mileage of a Honda Civic, which is a perfectly good car. It also gets poorer mileage than my SUV. Yet I don’t see a lot of scorn being heaped on large sedan drivers.
That said, just because a person drives 80% of the time in the SUV by himself, going to work and back, doesn’t mean that he lacks a ‘need’ for it. If during the other 20% of the time he goes camping, or flies model airplanes and needs a big space in back to put his planes, or he needs to take his lawnmower in for service, or he occasionally needs to buy a large item like a chair or a bicycle for the kids, then the SUV starts to make a lot more sense. In the end, that’s why people buy them - 80% of the time they could drive a smaller vehicle, but not having the SUV during the other 20% of the time puts a major crimp in their lifestyles.
As a homeowner, I couldn’t live without my (mid-sized) SUV. I quite frequently have to pack bags of fertilizer, or 7 ft lengths of lumber, or a barbecue or lawnmower, or other large items. I can’t afford to buy and insure two vehicles, so I have to commute in the SUV, even though I could commute just fine in a smaller vehicle that gets 40 mpg. The gas savings wouldn’t come anywhere close to making up the cost of owning a second vehicle for commuting.
Strange, I can get my purchases home pretty well in my little Ford Focus Wagon. Your complaint sounds spurious and defensive to me. I would like to see far less gas guzzlers on the road. It is not only SUVs. I was specifically responding to a prior poster. I also think your 60%/20% split is really a 98%/2% split for most people. Maybe you are and exception and as you have a mid-size, maybe you actually get over 20 mpg.
Jim {BTW: I do a fair amount of carpentry, I bring home stacks of 2x4 8’ long and plenty of other stuff on my non-SUV.}
Buy an SUV, & you can get a big tax credit.
I’d like to see the same for motorscooters.
Actually, I’d like to see better! :mad:
Thank you. This annoys the hell out of me. I tend to think that SUV’s garner the most hatred out of some weird sense of jealousy, although I can’t think of a reason one would be jealous – there are other equally priced vehicles that don’t garner such hatred. No one ever mentions pickups as a rallying cry, or Corvettes for that matter.
FWIW I rid myself of my Expedition because I had no need for it. I kind of regret it, because the need is back.