Poll: Can You Drive 55? Should We Bring The National Speed Limit Back?
Remember the 55 mph speed limit? Remember... ignoring it? Wired's Autopia blog is wondering if we should consider bringing it back. Back in 1974 Congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law, and threatened to cut funding to any state that didn't comply with the new 55 mph maximum speed limit. Theoretically, forcing everyone to drive slower increases fuel economy, and the oil embargo had people stressed. But did the lower speed limit work? Did we save gas?
From Autopia:
The U.S. Department of Energy says gas mileage plummets above 60 mph and says every 5 mph above that speed is akin to paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas. But the American Heritage Foundation claims 12 years of 55 mph speed limits cut fuel consumption by just 1 percent. After Congress repealed the National Maximum Speed Law and 33 states raised their speed limits, the Cato Institute said traffic deaths dropped to a record low.
More than fuel economy and traffic deaths are at stake now. "Emissions increase pretty appreciably above 55," McNaull says. drive55.org claims Washington state would cut CO2 emissions by 10 percent if it cut its 70 mph speed limit by 15 mph. But even here, the evidence is debated. The Automobile Association in England claims reducing the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 on residential roads would increase CO2 emission by more than 10%.
What do you think? Should we bring back the national speed limit?
With Gas Prices Rising And The Planet Warming, Is It Time To Drive 55 Again? [Wired]
Post a comment
Comments:
I could see it being safer to have a higher speed limit. You chop 20mph off of the speed limit when you have people who have been commuting to jobs for years, many will probably drive as fast as they always have instead of leave earlier. Leading to a mix of people driving 55mph and 75mph, which can be dangerous.
Heres the thing, with a 65mph limit , if you want to drive slow, move to the right line and drive slow.
Well, by driving my gas guzzler, I am forced to have to drive 55.
And you know what? I SAVE MONEY!
Given how rarely I drove 55 under the old law, I suspect that we will be creating a Death Race 2000 mentality on the roads. I vote for alternative fuel technology.
55 will guarantee one thing - more people reading, watching tv or trying to do other inappropriate things while driving. 55 is boring.
Umm wouldn't having your engine run longer cause more co2 emissions? Since it would take longer.
Helllls Noes.
And 55mph, how much is it in kmh?
I watched a documentary on the auto ban, and it is rated one of the safest highways in the world.
So while I love the government regulating every single thing I do, NO. Fuel economy is a personal choice. And until we are so low that we have to do rationing, the government needs to let me get a good or bad gas mileage as I want.
Why not just push for more high mpg cars and penalize those who drive SUV's that don't have an need for one.
A road full of cars with a 50mpg consumption rate going 70mph has to be better than a bunch of SUV's getting 12mpg going 55mph.
I used to do 75-80 on the highway on my way to work. In the past couple weeks, I've forced myself to do 65-70 and it seems to give me about a 4MPG gain (mid-sized 4cyl seden).
This actually brings up a separate pet peeve of mine: if there's going to be a speed limit, enforce it. The problem that exists right now is that if you drive the speed limit, while everyone else is speeding, you're creating a danger to yourself and to the other people on the road. But if you speed like everyone else does, you're opening yourself up to a ticket ("I was going just as fast as everyone else" doesn't hold up if you get tagged by a speed trap). There's nothing I hate more than driving on the New Jersey Turnpike, going 10mph above the speed limit in the right lane, and still getting tailgated and honked at.
@CharlieInSeattle: Don't bring data into context. I hate that.
It's just like ethanol. It's 20% cheaper. Don't tell me nonsense about it being 20% less efficient.
Its legal to drive 55 now if you want to. If you feel like saving gas go for it!
55 IS the speed limit on the interstate where I live. Noone pays attention to it. So bring it on, Department of Energy!
@44 in a Row: Don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but with speed and safety having almost 0 relation, one must wonder if speed limits are set simply for the city to make a little extra money in tight times.
bring it back?? its still 55mph through from Jimmy Carter Blvd through Atlanta! No one ever drives that slow.
@AlteredBeast: I agree, the maximum speed doesn't affect safety, it has always been the difference in speeds on the road. Many, if not most, accidents happen when merging, changing lanes to pass, coming up on traffic, and other events which disrupt the flow. Lowering it to 55 would add more speed variation, as people will still generally go 90 (in the case of the Mass Turnpike, for example), but others will make an effort to go a hazardous 55.
Do the figures about going over 60 take into account modern aerodynamics, and computer controlled engines?
@Bladefist: I watched a documentary on the auto ban, and it is rated one of the safest highways in the world.
You forgot to note that people in Germany spend much much MUCH more time and money investing in learning how to drive. Now imagine for a minute what driving on a US Autobahn would be like.
The correlation between raising the speed limit and traffic deaths dropping sounds like a load of bullshit, and I'd expect no less from the Cato Institute.
Did they consider that it could have something to do with seatbelt laws appearing during that time? Did they consider improved safety measures such as airbags, crumple zones, etc?
No, probably not, because they're the fucking Cato Institute, and they'll do anything to to "prove" that less government will make you safer.
I wouldn't trust the conclusions of either of these groups on something like this.
@Balisong: Good point. I forgot we have idiots talking on the phone, watching a movie, shaving their beard, and eating cupcakes all at the same time.
@B:
I'd say we're likely to lose more lives, as more people recklessly try to get around that ninny actually obeying the speed limit.
I remember this was one of my Econ profs favorite examples of... something (he was kind of a douche so I rarely paid attention). Anyway, he was always talking about how accidents decreased when our state raised the limit to 70 because it decreased the difference between speeds people were driving on the road.
But that's safety related. This is debating gas costs. So we can save money by lowering the speed limit and then spend it scrapping bodies off the freeways.
@B: accidents increase with the lower limit. when traveling at highway speeds, the largest causes of crashes are speed variance & lane changing, both of which increase with lower limits.
i don't think the feds really have the power (of the purse) to implement this anyway - next year's budget allots only ~$12 billion in funds for the national highway system & interstate maintenance ([www.dot.gov]).
i guess that's one good thing about bush's legacy. washington's lack of funding = lack of ability to bypass states' rights (to manage the highway systems that they are primarily responsible for maintaining).
I never, ever ceased to be amazed by pure utter "it's all about me" mentality that folks have when it comes to saving energy. I can't wait to tell my sons when they grow up that the planet is a mess because my generation didn't want to drive a little slower, or turn out the lights, or reduce their meat consumption, and on and on.
Don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but with speed and safety having almost 0 relation, one must wonder if speed limits are set simply for the city to make a little extra money in tight times.
I don't know if I'd go that far, because I do think there's a point to having some sort of speed limit (let's face it, this is America, and idiots will go as fast as he can without regard for safety if there's no posted limit), but there are definitely instances where this is the case. There's some evidence that red light cameras, for example, actually increase the accident rate at intersections where they're put up, because people begin to stop short at the first sign of a yellow light in order to avoid a ticket. Those are, without a doubt, purely a money-making wolf in a the sheep's clothing of safety measures.
frankly it doesn't matter what the speed limit is. You follow traffic and anyone that doesn't is just being that person on the road causing accidents. i'm in NJ and speed limit is 55 in some parts but everyone is going 70. anyone going 55 or under is making everyone change lanes, hit their breaks etc and making everyone else's life difficult.
as for fuel consumption, i don't think many people are going to worry about that. if they were then they'd buy a prius or something with better mileage but still go the same speed.
@winnabago: I agree as well. I wish cops would ticket more dangerous activity - weaving, darting between lanes, not using turn signals - This obesession with speed is pointless and just encourages bad driving behavior as long as you're not speeding while in range of a cop car. I guess it's just easier to ticket people with the hard evidence of speed than "I saw you jump in front of that other car."
@44 in a Row: I dunno still. I fully agree on the cameras. Read a story from Texas, about a city that was turning them off, because people started obeying the law, and they weren't able to write any tickets. So they publically turned them off to bring in more revenue by using regular cops.
Once again, conspiracy theorist me, but I don't think the government cares for our safety, unless they can see a profit in it. If you look at most regulations, you'll find a government tax, or fee, that brings in the dough.
I doubt that they factored in how much energy it took to make and install all the new signs.
New Jersey citizens most likely wouldn't abide by the 55mph speed limit - state troopers sure would be happy. The "speed limit" on the expressway and turnpike is 80.
Just what we need, more government intervention...
@bravo369: if they were then they'd buy a prius or something with better mileage
Or a Metro! I've heard you can get 'em at a bargain in some places for $7300. /sarcasm
Technology and automotive design has come a LONG way since 1974. I am having a tough time believing that 55MPH (assuming there was ever any real science behind it) is still the magic number where most cars are at the peak balance between drag and thrust.
Finding out what the sweet spot is either in general or for each car model and encouraging drivers to use that speed might not be too awful. Just lowering the speed limit that most drivers are already ignoring is not going to help. You need convince people that there is a real benefit.
@Bladefist:
Or rather than rationing, we could say, tap all of the oil sources under our country and in the arctic circle...Not only does supply go up (meaning prices go down), but it also increases our independence from foreign oil.
@Toof_75_75: But the polar bears will be floating on broken off pieces of ice into the ocean. It's not worth it.
Btw, don't ever watch national geographic. Turns out polar bears get on the ice, break it off, and it takes them out to sea to fish, and then they swim back.
@Balisong:
HAHA Good call. I actually caught a piece on my local news talking about how used car salesmen are selling Geo Metros for 4-10 times their blue book value. People are so stupid LOL You couldn't pay me to drive a Metro.
@mc101: If there's any part of your life that is not absolutely 100% as green as it can be, and if you haven't sacrificed everything but basic survival on the altar of common good, I'd back off on the snarkiness about other people's choices.
You're surfing the internet, so I seriously doubt you've lowered your fossil fuel consumption to it's bare minimum.
And oh man, how did I forget about this! [www.thenewspaper.com]
Virginia's going to jump right on this 55 mph thing. More $3000 speeding tickets!
They need a third option on the poll:
Yes, for everyone except me.
@Bladefist:
HAHA I debated this with someone, but they refused to believe me. They were convinced that the poor polar bears just floated off to nowhere...I never could get them to explain what they thought happened to the polar bears...I guess they ended up in the Bermuda Triangle or something...
Fuel economy is a personal choice. And until we are so low that we have to do rationing, the government needs to let me get a good or bad gas mileage as I want.
That makes sense. Hey, until I see brain matter, I'll keep banging my head against this wall. Because severe head trauma is a personal choice.
I loooooove republicans.
55? Pssshaw. Sure we might save a few lives, but millions will be late.