Federally mandated speed limit?

[2005Explorer]

First of all I am not in support of a Federal speed limit mandate again, however with things going the way they are does anyone think that congress will start to talk about a lower speed limit again?

 

How about a lower speed limit on trucks?

 

I know that research over the years since the 55 MPH speed limit has shown overall fuel use was only slightly lower, however it seems to me that if everyone drove slower it would conserve fuel.

 

I am just surprised that no one is discussing speed limits with fuel soon to average $4.00 a gallon. I am even more surprised at people who pass me when I am driving 75 on the Interstate. Whenever I see someone in a Suburban blowing by me at 85+ I wonder if fuel prices are really effecting some people?

 

I have noticed however the general flow of traffic is now a little slower and for the most part semi trucks are driving much slower.

 

I remember the days of 65 on the Interstate and 55 on the highways and it wasn't too bad. 55 is way too slow for the Interstate.

Edited May 15, 2008 by 2005Explorer

[xr7g428]

Wash your mouth out with soap. It took us years to get rid of the 55 mph limit. When it proved to not save gas, it was sold to us as a safety measure, when the numbers didn't support safety they finally repealed the damn thing. The law of unintended consequences did work though. Fifty five was just fine if you were driving a tin box Datsun or Toyota. There were few things that did more to make those cars sell here.

[Furious1Auto]

First of all I am not in support of a Federal speed limit mandate again, however with things going the way they are does anyone think that congress will start to talk about a lower speed limit again?

 

How about a lower speed limit on trucks?

 

I know that research over the years since the 55 MPH speed limit has shown overall fuel use was only slightly lower, however it seems to me that if everyone drove slower it would conserve fuel.

 

I am just surprised that no one is discussing speed limits with fuel soon to average $4.00 a gallon. I am even more surprised at people who pass me when I am driving 75 on the Interstate. Whenever I see someone in a Suburban blowing by me at 85+ I wonder if fuel prices are really effecting some people?

 

I have noticed however the general flow of traffic is now a little slower and for the most part semi trucks are driving much slower.

 

I remember the days of 65 on the Interstate and 55 on the highways and it wasn't too bad. 55 is way too slow for the Interstate.

 

Most states already have a separate speed limit for trucks set at 55 MPH, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oregon, Texas, and many many others. If they are going to lower the limit for trucks they should also do the same for cars. Not only is it less discriminatory, but it would be more effective if everyone has to abide.

 

Do you think it is fair to punish truckers, while some weeny gets to speed to pick up a pack of smokes?

[mettech]

Indiana speed limit for trucks is not 55 MPH. :reading:

[Trimdingman]

Most states already have a separate speed limit for trucks set at 55 MPH, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oregon, Texas, and many many others. If they are going to lower the limit for trucks they should also do the same for cars. Not only is it less discriminatory, but it would be more effective if everyone has to abide.

 

Do you think it is fair to punish truckers, while some weeny gets to speed to pick up a pack of smokes?

 

 

If traffic moves quickly, people get to where they are going quicker, so there are fewer cars on the highway at any given time. This helps eliminate the rush-hour bottle-necks. That is what wastes gas; moving at a snail's pace in heavy traffic. Another thing that holds up traffic is transit buses that stop every other block. The stops should be farther apart, and they should have a space to pull over at each stop so that the traffic can pass. We need more subways. I can't see why they cost so much. All they are is fancy mine shafts. Socialists always come up with "solutions" which make the problem worse; like lower speed limits, more buses, speed bumps, and more stop signs. Their "logic" is to make driving so terrible that people will stop driving.

[NickF1011]

The stops should be farther apart, and they should have a space to pull over at each stop so that the traffic can pass.

 

Well, with most buses being used in urban areas, many times there simply isn't any room to build a place for them to pull over. And putting the stops farther apart, you'd probably discourage more people from even using mass transit. Agree with most everything else you said though.

Edited May 15, 2008 by NickF1011

[Furious1Auto]

Indiana speed limit for trucks is not 55 MPH. :reading:

It's 60 MPH!

[Ralph Greene]

I'm not in favor of the fed lowering the speed limits for several reasons. One being some people purchase smaller aero efficient cars that get good mileage at current limits.

 

But....My beater 98 Explorer gets much better mileage cruising in the 60's VS 70's. I recently returned from a 2000 mile driving trip, and got slightly over 24 MPG on several tanks cruising at 65 MPH (according to my Garmin....68 indicated). far better than I get at 72 or so.

 

I have noticed many other people are driving in the slow lane with me, and I was mildly surprised how relaxing it is to drive slower and let everyone pass me by.

 

I would be in favor of some public announcements about saving fuel by driving slower. Some people just don't know. And you folks who want to fly by at 75 or more in your trucks and SUV's, well....just keep your wallet open.

[Trimdingman]

Well, with most buses being used in urban areas, many times there simply isn't any room to build a place for them to pull over. And putting the stops farther apart, you'd probably discourage more people from even using mass transit. Agree with most everything else you said though.

 

Good, if they stop using mass transit. Mass transit screws up city traffic. I would also eliminate buses on every parallel street and just have them on every other parallel street.

Why is it that they have to tear up streets for years and spend billions to build a subway line? Why can't they just bore out the tunnel like they do for a mine shaft? They could sell concession space underground in the subway stations and make the buyer dig it out at his own expense.

Why do car drivers have to subsidize bus riders? It doesn't make sense. Transit should be private and for profit. Let the public own the infrastructure and private companies run it. Give each company a zone and encourage them to compete against each other. If the fares get too high and people stop using it, then stores will start giving away free transit tickets to attract customers.

[armadamaster]

All that 55 MPH speed limits will get the public is more speeding tickets....because they continue going the speed of traffic or 70 MPH+ anyway.

 

I have taken notice of more people slowing down through these days with the increased fuel costs.

Edited May 17, 2008 by Armada Master

[Trimdingman]

All that 55 MPH speed limits will get the public is more speeding tickets....because they continue going the speed of traffic or 70 MPH+ anyway.

 

I have taken notice of more people slowing down through these days with the increased fuel costs.

 

Driving slower means that people will take longer to get to where they are going, so there will be more cars on the road. More cars leads to more traffic jams and more wasted gas. Highway widening to accomodate this added vehicle traffic also cuts into resourses and uses energy. Socialists live for problems. The last thing they want is for them to go away, so they always come up with schemes to make problems worse while pretending to be trying to solve them, and at the same time laying a guilt trip on the people.

[RangerM]

Driving slower means that people will take longer to get to where they are going, so there will be more cars on the road.

 

Might need to rethink the last half of that statement.

 

Miles driven will be the same. Distance and velocity are not the same.

 

Now, if you said there are more cars on the road 'within the same period of time', you may be right.

 

I'd be satisfied if the guy doing 55 (or 65) would just move to the right hand lane, and only use the left lane to pass (as it should be). And if anyone who passes a sign saying "(Right or Left) Hand Lane Closed, 1 mile" doesn't move over immediately, or waits until the last 50 feet, they deserve to be ticketed and fined heavily.

[rscalzo]

Might need to rethink the last half of that statement.

 

Miles driven will be the same. Distance and velocity are not the same.

 

Now, if you said there are more cars on the road 'within the same period of time', you may be right.

 

I'd be satisfied if the guy doing 55 (or 65) would just move to the right hand lane, and only use the left lane to pass (as it should be). And if anyone who passes a sign saying "(Right or Left) Hand Lane Closed, 1 mile" doesn't move over immediately, or waits until the last 50 feet, they deserve to be ticketed and fined heavily.

I've seen a definite slowdown on the highways. I travel back and forth from NH to NJ every few months. The last trip two weeks ago I drove my normal 65 to 70mph on the roads that were for the most part a 65MHH speed limit. Few pasted me. 29 mph in the Passatt wagon is decent. Up that to 75 or 80mph and that number will drop like a stone.

[Trimdingman]

Might need to rethink the last half of that statement.

 

Miles driven will be the same. Distance and velocity are not the same.

 

Now, if you said there are more cars on the road 'within the same period of time', you may be right.

 

I'd be satisfied if the guy doing 55 (or 65) would just move to the right hand lane, and only use the left lane to pass (as it should be). And if anyone who passes a sign saying "(Right or Left) Hand Lane Closed, 1 mile" doesn't move over immediately, or waits until the last 50 feet, they deserve to be ticketed and fined heavily.

 

If people drive faster, then they are on the road for a shorter period of time. That means fewer cars are on the road at any given time. Say if you are driving down the highway, you will not encounter the fast car which is ahead of you, whereas you would encounter the slow car, catching up to it. Slow moving cars slow down other cars, thereby creating more cars on the road that should be home in their driveways already. They eventually slow traffic to stop-and-go. Socialists like to play tricks on peoples' logical thinking process. You have to forget what they tell you and look at it yourself.

[RangerM]

If people drive faster, then they are on the road for a shorter period of time. That means fewer cars are on the road at any given time. Say if you are driving down the highway, you will not encounter the fast car which is ahead of you, whereas you would encounter the slow car, catching up to it. Slow moving cars slow down other cars, thereby creating more cars on the road that should be home in their driveways already. They eventually slow traffic to stop-and-go. Socialists like to play tricks on peoples' logical thinking process. You have to forget what they tell you and look at it yourself.

 

What tennis ball are we serving?

 

I concede that if we all drive faster, then we all are on the road a lesser amount of time, but does that mean that fewer cars were on the road? I'd say no, unless several of us didn't go to work that day.

 

All I have said is that (all things being equal), reducing the average speed of all cars equally, only increases the amount of time each car spends on the road. It does not mean that there are more cars on the road.

 

Think about it. If my velocity is reduced, then in order to compensate for my driving distance, I start earlier. (as far as your example is concerned: I didn't get in your way, because I'm already 20 minutes down the road and the 10mph difference between you and me isn't going to matter, unless our commute is more than 2 hours long. In fact, I actually do start my day at 5:45AM and go home after 6:00PM just to avoid the traffic.)

 

We may be two cars on the road at the same time, but over a given day, we are still two cars on the road no matter when or how fast we happen to be driving.

 

I'm the first to acknowledge the illogic of the 55 mph requirement, but I'm not confused by the math.

[jpd80]

Nah, leave the speed limits alone rising gas prices is changing people's ways more than anything else.

[Trimdingman]

What tennis ball are we serving?

 

I concede that if we all drive faster, then we all are on the road a lesser amount of time, but does that mean that fewer cars were on the road? I'd say no, unless several of us didn't go to work that day.

 

All I have said is that (all things being equal), reducing the average speed of all cars equally, only increases the amount of time each car spends on the road. It does not mean that there are more cars on the road.

 

Think about it. If my velocity is reduced, then in order to compensate for my driving distance, I start earlier. (as far as your example is concerned: I didn't get in your way, because I'm already 20 minutes down the road and the 10mph difference between you and me isn't going to matter, unless our commute is more than 2 hours long. In fact, I actually do start my day at 5:45AM and go home after 6:00PM just to avoid the traffic.)

 

We may be two cars on the road at the same time, but over a given day, we are still two cars on the road no matter when or how fast we happen to be driving.

 

I'm the first to acknowledge the illogic of the 55 mph requirement, but I'm not confused by the math.

 

If the highways have the capacity to handle the volume, then speed doesn't matter. If the speed limits are higher, traffic has less of a probability of getting snarled during rush hour. It is like clogged arteries. The build up in your arteries would equate to either too few lanes, or too many slow moving cars. If traffic is spread out and moving, there are fewer cars than if it is bumper to bumper and stopped. The little green men want you to see the traffic jam and say forget it. If each car is spending an extra half an hour on the road per day, then there are more cars on the road at any given time. Instead of computing cars/days, compute cars/minutes. There is a difference between a car parked in the driveway, and a car taking up space on the highway. If it is on the road for one hour instead of 1/2 hour, travelling the same distance, it is taking up the space of two cars.

 

People get rattled when others cause them to lose efficiency. What rattles you more, someone who safely passes you travelling 20mph faster than you, or someone who is in front of you travelling 20mph slower than you? Slower speeds make the highways less efficient because they force cars to spend more time on them. Therefore traffic volume is increased. Peoples' time is wasted, and if you put a dollar figure on that, it would be tremendous. If you calculate the life expectancy of the average person and the cumulative time wasted on a major traffic tie-up, it would be the equivalent of killing one person. When police hold up traffic for hours investigating a traffic fatality, they are as much as killing another person. Getting the traffic moving should be the number one priority.

Edited May 18, 2008 by Trimdingman

[92merc]

Just because the speed limit is decreased, there isn't "more traffic". It's the same number as before of cars people! Only your perception changes

 

Only problem I see with lowering the limit is it's harder to take something away than to give it. There's nothing stopping you from going slower now. If they are rear ended, it's still totally the 2nd drivers fault as before. People are just going to have to get used to having some slower and some faster traffic.

 

How much time you spend on the road is still your choice, and I'm not saying go faster. if you don't like the commute, move closer. Can't move closer, get a new job. It's not rocket science here. Rocket science isn't even rocket science...

[Trimdingman]

Just because the speed limit is decreased, there isn't "more traffic". It's the same number as before of cars people! Only your perception changes

 

You have to multiply the number of cars by time to get traffic volume. If one car spends more time travelling the same distance as another car, it creates more traffic volume. During the extra time that it is on the road, there is one more car on the road. If you halve the speed, it is the same as doubling the number of cars. Ten cars are travelling one mile. They all travel at 60mph. There are 10 cars for one minute. If they travel at 30 mph, there are 10 cars for 2 minutes. In the first scenario, during the second minute, there would be 0 cars. The average number of cars per minute during the first scenario would be 10 cars per minute. In the second scenario, there would be an average of 20 cars per minute. The amount of time that cars spend on the road has just as much impact as the number of cars. One car times two hours equals two cars times one hour. I can't make it any simpler than that.

 

If the highway is at full capacity for volume of traffic and you lower the speed limit, you will kill the highway. It will no longer be able to handle the volume. Imagine if the speed limit on the major highway was reduced to 10 mph. What would happen? Traffic would be backed up for miles in no time. Reducing the speed limit by 10mph would also have a proportionate affect. It would not be as noticable, but it would be there.

 

Imagine if you reduced the trim line to 30jph. Would there be more units in the system? All of the storage areas would fill up. Efficiency would be lost. It is the same as reducing the speed limit on the highway. I know, we are not programmed to think that way. I am in the process of de-programming myself from a lifetime of manipulation by many authorities from government to education to religion.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Trimdingman

[92merc]

I think you'd need to specify what "traffic" means to you. To me, it just means the number of cars. Not the number of cars per an hour/minute.

 

Look at it this way. You have two 100 Gigabyte hard drives. One is 7200RPM drive, the other the 5400 RPM drive. And to make it applicable to your analogy, they are both full to 100 Gig. Each car is a byte. Just because one moves data slower than the other, doesn't mean you don't still have 100 Gig. All that has changed is the users perception. His computer doesn't run as fast on the old hard drive as it does on the faster RPM one. But it's still 100 Gig of capacity.

 

So when you say traffic, I'm just thinking number of cars at a given moment. Not the number of cars per an hour. Granted, with a lower speed limit, the number of cars per an hour will go down for a given road. But dropping from 75 to say 70, is that enough to cause the mayhem described by some? I don't think so. Life won't end, it'll move on, just slower. We used to drive speeds slower than this not all that many years ago.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if they backed the Interstates from the 75 I have ,down to 70, or even 65. I live in a rural state so there is capacity at all those speeds. And some have been talking about having truck speeds slowed down to 60 or 65. You'd still have to watch out for those guys. So if you're slowing down for one, you'll slow down for slower cars too.

[Trimdingman]

I think you'd need to specify what "traffic" means to you. To me, it just means the number of cars. Not the number of cars per an hour/minute.

 

Look at it this way. You have two 100 Gigabyte hard drives. One is 7200RPM drive, the other the 5400 RPM drive. And to make it applicable to your analogy, they are both full to 100 Gig. Each car is a byte. Just because one moves data slower than the other, doesn't mean you don't still have 100 Gig. All that has changed is the users perception. His computer doesn't run as fast on the old hard drive as it does on the faster RPM one. But it's still 100 Gig of capacity.

 

So when you say traffic, I'm just thinking number of cars at a given moment. Not the number of cars per an hour. Granted, with a lower speed limit, the number of cars per an hour will go down for a given road. But dropping from 75 to say 70, is that enough to cause the mayhem described by some? I don't think so. Life won't end, it'll move on, just slower. We used to drive speeds slower than this not all that many years ago.

 

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if they backed the Interstates from the 75 I have ,down to 70, or even 65. I live in a rural state so there is capacity at all those speeds. And some have been talking about having truck speeds slowed down to 60 or 65. You'd still have to watch out for those guys. So if you're slowing down for one, you'll slow down for slower cars too.

 

If a car is going slower, it is on the highway longer taking up more space. Once it reaches its destination, it is not on the highway any more. If it is going slower, it is still there. I can't see where that is so hard to fathom. A highway with faster moving cars can handle more cars. That isn't rocket science.

 

The social planners always are working to make the situation worse for car drivers. They increase the gasoline taxes. They force us to subsidize transit. They put tolls on the roads. They have a tire tax. They have a luxury tax. They tax car insurance. They have emissions tests. They charge sales tax over and over every time the car changes hands. They limit parking spots and give parking tickets. They have photo radar to catch people speeding, when going too slow causes more accidents and reduces the efficiency of the highway. They lower speed limits in order to create more violations and make the driving experience as uncomfortable as possible. Maybe you enjoy having these leeches probing every aspect of your existence. I hate it.

 

Socialists are like Communists. They just can't stand to see people having the freedom to get into their cars and just travel wherever they want. They need control. They need to know where we are and what we are doing at all times.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Imawhosure]

i WILL PROBABLY GET FLAMED FOR THIS, BUT OH WELL-------------->If an SUV or truck is your only form of transportation, I understand the need and desire to get rid of it pronto. But, if it is your second or third vehicle, let me tell you that YOU will HOSE YOURSELF if you dump it.

 

Why?

 

Because the reason gasoline is so high so quickly is the drop in the dollar. Add to that, the speculators are having a field day, and the double whammy has added at the very least 1.50 to the price of fuel. (closer to 2 bucks in all honesty)

 

As soon as the the housing industrys bad loans are written off the books of these banks, the fed will begin to strengthen the dollar. The speculators will run for cover, and prices will come down.......way down. We will never see a buck a gallon again, but you could easily see 2 bucks or slightly under within a year to 18 months.

 

I know, I know, it seems so hard to believe when as I write this, crude is probably rising, lolol. But believe me when I tell you that many of experts are warning that their is a huge commodity bubble in oil and gasoline, and that bubble is worth 92 cents a gallon at the pump. Even without doing anything to the dollar but just stopping its downward spiral, calculate what gas costs if you could deduct that!!!!

 

Experts warned of the bubble in housing, and everyone (ok, not everyone, just most everyone) was surprised when it all went South. Some people who WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION actually purchased homes that were over priced, even as the housing market collapsed!!!!!!

 

Now they are saying the same thing about fuel. Are you gonna listen this time, or are you gonna try and close the barn door after the horse has already been long gone?

 

This is the same thing that happened in the 70s, and good people like yourselves took a bath by dumping their vehicles in a knee jerk reaction. The media sounded the same as it does today, lolol, showing gas lines, and oh whoa is us cause CALAMITY keeps you riveted to their shows and newspapers.

 

The one thing we all need to different this time is; not fall asleep at the wheel again, and FORCE the government to allow domestic production and refineries; or yes, in 5 or 6 years this WILL be the standard price for fuel.

 

You know, when you think about it, the government is pretty slick, lolol. They want to keep the other countrys happy who we support by importing their oil, so the only way to lower our need without pissing them off by getting our own is make you drive little cars. The more little cars you buy, the less they gotta piss off those countrys, and the enviro nation. They would rather you pay, then them stand up and tell them to KISS OUR AMERICAN A**, we will get our own, convert coal, do the switch grass routine, etc, etc. And when one of the Big Two come up with some way to drive our cars not using oil based fuels, tell them to take the oil and pound sand to boot, hehehehee.

 

This whole problem is political, not a shortage. It is a politically caused shortage. If the government knew 20yrs ago this was coming, (and they did, and so did a host of many people on here) explain why we haven't built a refinery in 31 years, and all the oil in Alaska and the Gulf just sit there!!!!

 

BECAUSE OF POLITICS!!!!!!! Politics that you supposedly control!!!!!

 

So anyway, before you take a bath on your SUV or truck, see what the experts are saying, then decide. You will find that I am not misleading you, and am honestly trying to help you. And if you do decide to dump it and take a bath financially, do yourself a favor and see what political group has caused this to happen. After your wallet is 4,5,6,7, or 8 thousand dollars lighter or more because of it, be smart and vote accordingly to reward the group that has caused you to take a bath.

 

It is your money!!!!!!!! Political bullshit is going to cause you to lose money. Reward them early, and often!!!!!

[Trimdingman]

The Canadian dollar has risen against the US dollar by over 25%. We are paying around $1.30 a liter Canadian for gas. If the rise in the price of gas was because of a weaker US dollar, how come we are paying more than you are and in Canadian dollars, even though our dollar is stronger? I know that a lot of it has to do with our built-in tax formula, but there is something wrong somewhere. Could it be an attempt to push inflation in order to inflate away the national debt?

[Imawhosure]

The Canadian dollar has risen against the US dollar by over 25%. We are paying around $1.30 a liter Canadian for gas. If the rise in the price of gas was because of a weaker US dollar, how come we are paying more than you are and in Canadian dollars, even though our dollar is stronger? I know that a lot of it has to do with our built-in tax formula, but there is something wrong somewhere. Could it be an attempt to push inflation in order to inflate away the national debt?

 

Speculators are also pushing up the price Trim. It will collapse, watch!

 

Sometimes you give me pause Trim, but I can see you are highly intelligent. I wish you or someone could give me a clue why most Americans do not understand that the price of oil is driven not by its supply, but rather by its availibility which is directly tied to American politics and their ass kissing of enviros.

 

I keep repeating because 1. that is an accurate statement, and 2. because I am fully convinced that much of the American public is unaware that it is so.

 

If they understood that allowing this to continue will not only cost them money at the pump, but cost them cash when they try to dump their larger vehicles, plus it is a national security issue as far as who controls our country, I wonder what they would actually decide to do and blame..............if they ever figure out the reality of it. I am not holding my breath, but I am hoping that with enough pain in the wallet, those who have designed it for enviro purposes will finally be exposed, and the wrath of informed Americans finally will crush them.

[armadamaster]

All that 55 MPH speed limits will get the public is more speeding tickets....because they continue going the speed of traffic or 70 MPH+ anyway.

 

I have taken notice of more people slowing down through these days with the increased fuel costs.

Driving slower means that people will take longer to get to where they are going, so there will be more cars on the road. More cars leads to more traffic jams and more wasted gas. Highway widening to accomodate this added vehicle traffic also cuts into resourses and uses energy. Socialists live for problems. The last thing they want is for them to go away, so they always come up with schemes to make problems worse while pretending to be trying to solve them, and at the same time laying a guilt trip on the people.

 

Oh I agree, one could also argue that driving slower means the car spends more time on the road thus equals more emissions. I'd argue it puts out more emissions or negligible emissions @ 70 versus 55 since a car burns "cleaner" the "hotter" it runs. Obviously it is going to run "hotter" @ 70 MPH.

 

The environazi though can argue that it is using more fuel and oxygen to do so. It's basically an endless argument IMHO, and an argument based on junk science at that.