Gubmint at work: "Bring back the national speed limit"

[Porsche-O-Phile]

And this was from a REPUBLICAN. . . Unreal.

Grandstanding blowhards. The lot of 'em.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/03/warner.speed.limit.ap/index.html

National speed limit pushed as gas saver

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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 has asked the Energy Department at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient.

Sen. John Warner has asked the Energy Department at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient.

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 The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide, with oil hovering around $145 a barrel.

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.

Warner asked the department to determine at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered.

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner's letter but added, "If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production."

The department's Web site says that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated to cost motorists "essentially an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs," Warner said in his letter, citing the DOE data

[Jim Bremner]

get a rope!

[onlycafe]

noooooo. no. no. no!

[Jim Sims]

Hopefully, it will include a provision that no elected members of the federal legislative bodies will be allowed to travel by aircraft within the contiguous United States. They can drone along the highways or rattle on the rails with the electorate they represent.

[Hugh R]

Hey Jim, nice to "see you" I still have a "Jim Sims Subcooler" in my Targa, which I thank you for the idea/design!

I'm for the free market. If you want to drive at higher speeds, go for it! After all it's your money. Fuel consumption goes up roughly with the cube of the speed.

[widgeon13]

Wasn't it proven that 55MPH was not safer and did not afford greater fuel efficiency.

Warner is ready for a dirt nap anyway.

Happy 4th of July.

[red-beard]

How does going faster cost more per gallon?

This guy doesn't have a clue. I bet he lives in Alexandria and takes the Metro to the Capital...

[9dreizig]

We should launch an investigation into what lobbiests have contributed to his election fund. I'm guessing there's some serious insurance money going his way..

[ChrisBennet]

Originally Posted by widgeon13

Wasn't it proven that 55MPH was not safer and did not afford greater fuel efficiency.

Warner is ready for a dirt nap anyway.

Happy 4th of July.

I think it's pretty well known that driving faster uses more fuel (air resistance increases with the square of speed or something like that).

The "safety" thing is a load of cr*p though. The highway death (rate per mile?) went down when the speed limit was lifted. This the first hit I got when I Googled "55 limit death rate":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/11/02/MN65128.DTL

Higher Speed Limits, Lower Death Rates
Statistics surprise many observers of state's highways

"When California revved up speed limits nearly three years ago, critics predicted highway carnage as drivers sped past the new 65 mph signs -- and into trouble.
It didn't happen. Fewer people died in California auto wrecks last year than in any year in the past four decades, despite a doubled state population and triple the number of vehicles on the road. "

-Chris

[Joe Ricard]

If you want cars to get better gas milage stop putting everything including the kitchen sink in them.
Really!!!!! a 4000 pound Mustang. They need 350 HP just to move down the driveway.

My 914 is right around 1850 pounds 120 HP and make 28 MPG cruising around 75-80
Slow it down and the thing will over heat. or I run it in 4th gear.
I'm going to go listen to Sammy Haggar "Can't Drive 55"

[Jim Richards]

Normally I am a big supporter of Sen. Warner (used to be one of his constituents ), but this is ca-ca. I hope this idea dies a quick death.

[Dantilla]

Prior to the 55 limit, if an accident victim died within one year of the accident, it was included in the stats as a traffic death.

When the 55 limit was imposed, the stastistical system was changed- Only people who died within one month were counted as traffic deaths.

The stats were skewed on purpose to show a drop in traffic deaths with the slower speeds.

[Flatbutt1]

I can tell you for certain that when I commute on the bike averaging 35mph I get 35-38 mpg. But when I go superslab I rarely get less than 48-50 mpg. Came home from a PGR mission this week on I295 at 80 mph all the way. I covered 152 miles on 3.2 gallons. Yes obviously the bike has less air resistance so I guess everyone should get on a motorcycle.

[Joe Bob]

Let's look at the pension funds and other speculators in the oil futures market before we start mucking about with the speed limit......

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by mikez

let's Look At The Pension Funds And Other Speculators In The Oil Futures Market Before We Start Mucking About With The Speed Limit......

+1

[Mule]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

We should launch an investigation into what lobbiests have contributed to his election fund. I'm guessing there's some serious insurance money going his way..

Ins co's love 55. More tickets, more points, more $$$$.

[74-911]

Originally Posted by red-beard

This guy doesn't have a clue. I bet he lives in Alexandria and takes the Metro to the Capital...

I suggest we put him back in touch with the reality of us common folk. Let's fly him to San Antonio, put him in the rent car of his choice and tell him his return ticket home waits for him in El Paso. By the way, your rent car has a good A/C which you will definitely need this time of year but also has a governor set to 55 mph max.

When he arrives in El Paso (550 miles away) in 11-12 later hours depending on stops, I think any notion of a 55 mph speed limit will be gone.

The current posted speed limit for most of this trip is currently 80 MPH.... and after a few hours that seems like your just crawling along...

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by Mule

Ins co's love 55. More tickets, more points, more $$$$.

*Ding Ding Ding Ding!*

We have a winner!

Mule gets the prize for figuring out what this is REALLY about.

[cashflyer]

It's true that fuel efficiency decreases with increased speed, and this is not something that has changed in the last few decades. However vehicles and technology have changed a lot.

How do the numbers generated from studies with 70s era gas-hogs compare to the numbers that would be generated using today's more aerodynamic and more fuel efficient vehicles?

The study Warner cites is outdated. I want to know what the real world, TODAY numbers are.

[teenerted1]

i get get better mpg at 70+ than i do at 55