Return to the Double Nickel? AYFKM?!?

[Overpaid Slacker]

The Insanity of Drive-55 Laws
By STEPHEN MOORE
July 24, 2008; Page A15

It didn't seem possible that politicians could think up a sillier energy proposal than Barack Obama's windfall profits tax on oil companies, but Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia has done just that.

Earlier this month, Mr. Warner suggested a return to the federal 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on America's highways, as a way to save on national gasoline consumption. "I drive over 55 miles an hour, . . . sometimes 65," he said on the Senate floor. "But I am willing to give up whatever advantage to me to drive at those speeds with the fervent hope that modest sacrifice on my part will help those people across this land . . . dealing with this financial crisis."

Meanwhile, environmental groups across the country are also pushing a lower national speed limit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The notion here is that if people simply lift the pedal off the metal on the highways, they will help avert an environmental apocalypse.

Mr. Warner may be willing to drive slower to save gas. The vast majority of Americans surely are not. The original 55 mph speed-limit law, enacted in October 1974 after the OPEC oil embargo as a way to save energy, was probably the most despised and universally disobeyed law in America since Prohibition. In wide-open western states, driving at 70 mph or even 80 mph on miles upon miles of straight, flat, uncongested freeways is regarded as a God-given right. In the 1970s and '80s, the federal speed limit was a daily reminder of the intrusiveness of nanny-state regulation.

States were bullied into complying. If they didn't, they risked losing federal highway money -- which came from the gas taxes paid in part by their own residents. The law -- "double nickel," as it was called -- was so hated in Montana that the state legislature passed a law capping speeding tickets at $5. In Wyoming, the highway patrol told speeders to hold on to the tickets they issued because they were good for the whole day.

In 1995, the newly ascendant Republican Congress repealed the 55 mph limit. Most states acted quickly to allow speeds of up to 65 mph or even 75 mph on their interstates, and for good reason. As an energy saving policy, the double nickel was a bust. The National Motorists Association reports that about 95% of American drivers regularly exceeded the federal speed limit. Does it make sense to resurrect a law that 19 out of every 20 Americans disobeyed?

In the first few years when the law was strictly enforced, according to the Congressional Research Service, gasoline consumption was reduced by about 167,000 barrels a day. But over time the law was increasingly ignored, and average speeds on the highway fell by only a few miles per hour. The National Research Council estimated in 1984 that Americans spent one billion additional hours a year in their cars because of the speed limit law.

Mr. Warner repeats the myth that a lower federal speed limit will increase traffic safety. Back in 1995, Naderite groups argued that repealing the 55 mph limit would lead to "6,400 more deaths and millions more injuries" each year. In reality, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data reveal that in the decade after speed limits went up (1995-2005), traffic fatalities fell by 17%, injuries by 33%, and crashes by 38%. That's especially significant because in 1995 far fewer drivers were gabbing on their cell phones or text messaging while driving.

In a study for the Cato Institute in 1999, I compared the fatality rates in states that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more (mostly in the South or West) with those that didn't (mostly in the Northeast). There was little difference in safety. Of the 31 states that raised their speed limits to 70 mph or more, only two (the Dakotas) experienced a slight increase in highway deaths. The evidence is overwhelming that traffic safety is based less on how fast the traffic is going than on the variability in speeds that people are driving. The granny who drives 20 mph below the pace of traffic on the freeway is often as much a safety menace as the 20-year-old hot rodder.

Retail gasoline stores report that Americans have already reduced their gas purchases by about 5% this year -- presumably by driving less and buying more fuel-efficient cars. At $4.59 a gallon, motorists don't need to be lectured by politicians on the financial savings from cutting back. Those who want to stretch their dollars can drive 55 mph on their own (though they are well advised to stay in the right lane).

But many liberal and green do-gooders want the double nickel precisely because they want to force everyone to share in the sacrifice required. As an egalitarian friend once told me, he loves traffic jams because they are the ultimate form of democracy.

To the left, fairness means we all suffer equally together. In light of this alleged moral imperative, it doesn't matter if a lower speed limit means Americans would spend two billion extra hours on the road, or that, according to the Labor Department, assuming a $15 per hour average wage means the speed limit could cost the economy between $20 billion and $30 billion a year in lost output.

Calls for a 55 mph speed limit -- and for that matter most other government energy conservation plans, such as urging people to ride a bus or a bicycle rather than driving a car -- reflect a mindset that oil and gasoline are more valuable than human time.

But America is not running out of energy. We have potentially hundreds of years of oil and natural gas and coal supplies in America alone, if Congress would only let us drill for it. What is in short supply -- the only truly finite resource, as the late economist Julian Simon taught us -- is the time each of us spends on this earth. And most of us don't want to spend it sitting longer than we have to in traffic.

Mr. Moore is the senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial board.

[sammyg2]

Not quite as bad as that but close, the dems are also quietly debating adding an additional 10 cent federal tax to gas. Wasn't it just a little while ago they were talking about temporarily getting rid of the gas tax?
Didn't take em long to flip flop on that one, as soon as our backs were turned ............

[The Gaijin]

When did Virginia become the new Massachusetts??

Oh yeah - when all them Yankees moved down to escape high taxes and onerous regulations..

[cairns]

Yes I read this too. John Warner doesn't even drive so why should he care?

I can't wait to see the tree huggers on here try and defend it. And if Obama is elected this will be only the opening scene in the sequel "Jimmy Carter II- the Obama".

Starring: Barack "Hussein" Obama, Michelle ("kill whitey") Obama, Nancy ("I'm already dead") Pelosi, Harry ("I've been dead for sixty years") Reid and Hillary ("I'm going to kill all of you") Clinton (up for a best non-supporting actress nomination already!)

Better get your cardigan sweaters out.

[Pazuzu]

55mph will ONLY work if you also drive a 3 cylinder hatchback, with the A/C off, and convert all roads to toll roads.

Therefore, we should institute the above as required for everyone. Tomorrow. It's for the Earth people!!

[legion]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

When did Virginia become the new Massachusetts??

It's funny. People are leaving the over-regulated, high tax (left-leaning) states in droves, but when they get to the "destination state", they try to introduce the same kinds of regulations and taxes that prompted them leaving in the first place.

They are moving from California to Arizona and Nevada...

And from New Jersey to Florida...

And from Michigan to Indiana and Tennessee...

And from Illinois to Wisconsin...

[dd74]

Originally Posted by cairns

Yes I read this too. John Warner doesn't even drive so why should he care?

+1.

Originally Posted by cairns

I can't wait to see the tree huggers on here try and defend it.

Tree huggers like to go 75 mph, too.

Originally Posted by cairns

Starring: Barack "Hussein" Obama, Michelle ("kill whitey") Obama, Nancy ("I'm already dead") Pelosi, Harry ("I've been dead for sixty years") Reid and Hillary ("I'm going to kill all of you") Clinton (up for a best non-supporting actress nomination already!)

Better get your cardigan sweaters out.

Just so you know, Bill Clinton, who repealed the 55 mph limit, which allowed states to increase it on their own.

In November 1995, President Bill Clinton signed legislation that returned the jurisdiction for setting speed limits back to the states. This act, which eliminated the national speed limit of 55 mph, passed the Senate by a vote of 63 to 35. States were permitted to raise the speed limits as of 8 December 1995. By 2002, some states had still not changed the speed limit on urban interstates, but most had raised the maximum speed limit to 65 or 70 mph in rural areas.

Nixon (Republican), was who instigated the 55 mph limit:

While the speed limit was signed into law by President Richard Nixon to save fuel, in 1973 Congress responded to an oil shortage facing the United States and other countries by instituting a national maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph). A serious conflict with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had resulted in a 130 percent increase in the price of oil and eventually an oil embargo. Prior to 1973, speed limits were set by the individual states, and regulating such safety matters was not considered part of federal jurisdiction.

[legion]

We still have 65 mph on all interstates in Illinois and 55 mph in urban areas.
***
WBBM has been running a report all week stating that accidents and traffic congestion are down dramatically in Illinois while number of speeding tickets issued is stagnant. I can't help but think to myself this is because most people speed and the number of tickets issued is more a function of number of state troopers than number of speeders...

[Overpaid Slacker]

c'mon, dd -- the CONGRESS drafts and passes the laws; giving Clinton credit for what the Republican Congress did is just daffy. Granted, he didn't veto it. So kudos there to Slick Willy!

Similarly, our Congress instituted the benighted program ... during a time when we thought there was going to be a coming ICE AGE! Dayum, you'd think they would've wanted more greenhouse gases!

JP

[onewhippedpuppy]

Looks like it's time for me to buy a V1. Washington doesn't give two *****s what we think, representation went out the window long ago. Now it's nothing but a bunch of rich lazy do-nothing professional politicians, pondering what is best for the unwashed masses. Offshore drilling isn't a good idea, but this is?! Please......

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by legion

It's funny. People are leaving the over-regulated, high tax (left-leaning) states in droves, but when they get to the "destination state", they try to introduce the same kinds of regulations and taxes that prompted them leaving in the first place.

They are moving from California to Arizona and Nevada...

And from New Jersey to Florida...

And from Michigan to Indiana and Tennessee...

And from Illinois to Wisconsin...

Thankfully, they still skip KS. Keep on flying over, we don't want you here.

[The Gaijin]

In the 70s, remember reading my dad's vintage R&T from about 1967.

A profile of the new Oldsmobile "Turnpike Cruiser" edition Tornado.

Designed to motor along the highway at 80 MPH.

The testbed was the newly opened Kansas Turnpike.

Something about how the Interstate highways were designed for that speed and now finally cars can go that fast!

A depressing read in the years before I got my license and not much better now.

[onewhippedpuppy]

The Kansas turnpike.....on a calm day (rare) you could set your cruise and take a nap. There are few flatter, straighter, or more boring roads.

I'd really like to see some real engineering data on this. Considering most modern cars are designed for approximately 70 MPH highway speeds, I wonder how well they actually do at lower speeds. Seems that it might actually defeat the effectiveness of overdrive, cylinder deactivation, etc.

[RANDY P]

55 was before cars had OD. I've always lost a MPG or two at 55 vs. 65.

[Pazuzu]

I keep tellin' you guys, if you don't like the laws where you are, get 'em changed or move!

In AZ, they had 55mph along a stretch of I-10 in Tucson, 65 on the edges, 75 everywhere else. They wanted to get rid of the 65 and make it all 55. After doing some tests, they found that even when it was 55, people drove 65...not 70, not 90...and there were very few accidents. So, they decided that since people preferentially drove 65, AND it was found to be safe, that they would make the road 65 instead of expanding the 55.

THAT'S a state that still cares about it's citizens!

[dd74]

Psychologically, 55 mph is a lot slower than 70 or 80. It's as if the world is going by in slow motion, which tends to cause me to become more tired behind the wheel. 70 or 80 is much more exciting. I'm more alert at those speeds. Other drivers have told me this as well.

Now there's a good safety study for someone inclined to debate the benefits of 70 or 80 over 55 mph.

[rcecale]

Originally Posted by Overpaid Slacker

...Earlier this month, Mr. Warner suggested a return to the federal 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on America's highways, as a way to save on national gasoline consumption. "I drive over 55 miles an hour, . . . sometimes 65," he said on the Senate floor. "But I am willing to give up whatever advantage to me to drive at those speeds with the fervent hope that modest sacrifice on my part will help those people across this land . . . dealing with this financial crisis."

What a dumb-a$$!!! It's not a shortage of oil that is causing this "financial crisis"! Hasn't anyone told this moron that???

Randy

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Never underestimate the willingness of politicians and government to exploit a situation to put more power, control and money into their pockets at the expense of the constituency. You guys should expect this kind of crap by now.

[dd74]

Yeah, we expect it. What I want to know is why we keep voting guys like this back into office?

[David McLaughlin]

In MA, speed limits are only a suggestion and a way to collect taxed via the blue car tax collectors. Because of the price of gas lately, I'm trying to lower my regular highway speed and also reduce hard acceleration. Let me tell you... it's dangerous! At 10mph over the limit on RT-3 and 128, I'm a rolling chicane. Slowing acceleration at lights (not much mind you but enough to reduce passengers being thrown into the seat backs) and I'm honked at and passed.

They can legislate this all they want, but most people won't pay much attention except around those tax collector cars.