lowering the national speed limit

[greyghost4x4]

Has anyone heard anything on lowering the national speed limit? My friends at work were telling me about it, but all they knew was it might be lowered. Personally I am for it, I drive 65 anyway on the interstate.

Evan

 

[Jeff Kleb]

55-MPH Speed Limit


I am old enough to remember the "first time" when the speed limit was lowered -- back in the 1970s. It was a bad idea then, and is an even worse concept now.

First of all, it is unconstitutional -- at least if you believe in Article I, Section 8 where actual federal powers are enumerated. The only honest exception would be for vehicles engaged in interstate commerce, such as tractor-trailers and buses. Check out Amendment Ten as well, which proscribes such power grabs by the feral gub'ment (although nobody in DC actually would think of adhering to the Constitution they all took an oath to uphold & defend). What they'll try to do is blackmail each state into enacting it......by threatening to withold federal highway funds (which are obviously needed by every state to maintain existing highways or to build new ones) if a state would not go along with Uncle Sham in implementing this crazy law.
:cursin:

Second, the "energy savings" argument is dubious at best. Today's cars - almost all of them - get far better fuel mileage at 75+ mph than most any 1974 cars could dream of getting at 55 mph. Besides, our current energy "shortage" is as contrived as the "fake shortage" of the 1970s was. There is not a supply problem - just distribution, production and refining issues; most of which were caused by the same politicians who want to re-implement poorly-designed idiotic policies from the past.

Third, the real reason for this power grab is revenue enhancement - plain and simple. Don't let anyone fool you about concern for the environment, saving the polar bears, global warming, carbon footprints or any other catch phrase of the day. This is nothing but another power grab, folks. Many states are experiencing budget problems - usually caused by too much spending, rather than insufficient revenue; and voters are reluctant to accept more tax hikes. Revenue from tickets, they believe, may help to close the gap somewhat.

The 55-mph won't end up saving much fuel (congestion resulting from it, etc.) and I doubt many lives will be saved. Our average speed of vehicles has climbed over the years, yet our accident/crash/fatality rate per million miles driven has fallen consistently. The "powers that be" just don't want the truth to get out - but at least there are a few of us 'old geezers' who know better.

Insurance companies are probably salivating at the idea of reduced speed limits, though, as "surcharges" on drivers who are ticketed will be nothing but pure profit for them. Rest assured that the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) is behind this somewhere and their lobbyists are wining & dining every politiican higher than dog catcher in order to see their dream fulfilled.
:bash:

Don't be fooled!!

 

[greyghost4x4]

Wow Jeff that was a great. I really do appreciate the time you took to type all that for me. I was not around for the first time the national speed limit was lowered. To me it just sounded like a good idea because I do not speed anyway.

Evan

 

[toto]

Forget MPG for a minute. Doesn't it stand to reason that you're burning twice as much gas at 2000 RPM as you are at 1000 RPM? If the cylinders are firing twice as often, you've got to be squirting gas in there twice as often.

So, if the trans shifts into overdrive around 45-50 MPH, isn't that the most fuel-efficient speed - right after the upshift? Beyond that, you move faster, but your speed doesn't increase proportionally with increased RPM's. You're not going twice as fast for twice as many RPM's.

I don't know about the "why", but I think that's "how" they picked the magic number 55 in the 1970's.

While there may be other motivations here, revenue enhancement through speeding tickets can't be one of them. The Illinois State Police could write hundreds of tickets a day right now in interstate work zones (big, big fines!) if they had the manpower. Despite the speed limit being 45 in a work zone, you'll get run over doing less than 65.

 

[alaskaman]

speaking as a driver who just drove across the country and back regarding the proposal for a lowered speed limit on the interstate system.

F'ing ridiculous

(that's Friggin' for you East enders and Frikkin' for the west coast):biggrin2:

 

[Jeff Kleb]

Forget MPG for a minute. Doesn't it stand to reason that you're burning twice as much gas at 2000 RPM as you are at 1000 RPM? If the cylinders are firing twice as often, you've got to be squirting gas in there twice as often.

That is way off base, and you are not considering vehicle or engine design - as well as the "gearing" of different types of vehicles. Besides, no car on the road is going to "cruise" at 1000 RPMs. Even a large diesel needs to be turning faster than that in order to produce enough torque to maintain speed without lugging the engine.

The typical family car needs to be between 2000 and 3000 RPMs just to keep up with traffic. Try to maintain your speed on the highway at 1500 RPMs without downshifting or lugging; especially on a long hill. Ain't gonna happen! (unless you have a high-torque engine under the hood such as a Mustang GT, V8 Camaro, F-Series truck, etc.)

So, if the trans shifts into overdrive around 45-50 MPH, isn't that the most fuel-efficient speed - right after the upshift? Beyond that, you move faster, but your speed doesn't increase proportionally with increased RPM's. You're not going twice as fast for twice as many RPM's.

Again, it varies by vehicle. I drive tractor-trailers for a living and they are optimally "geared" to go 70 to 75 mph. If I have to go only 55 or 60 all the time, I will have to keep downshifting into 9th gear - to avoid lugging the big Cummins diesel engine - and negating any fuel economy advantage because my RPMs will be higher. Some trucking companies have "governed" their trucks back to 62 mph recently, to save fuel, and it has been bad for the drivers in the short term and may end up being bad for the trucks in the long term (but only time will tell).

There is also increased drivetrain wear because of more frequent shifting, more fatigue on the driver (me) and less "net pay" because I will be able to drive fewer miles in the same limited time, or I will have to work longer hours (more likely) to earn the same amount of money.
:bash:

I don't know about the "why", but I think that's "how" they picked the magic number 55 in the 1970's.

No, they picked it because it was far below the "85th Percentile Rule" for establishing posted speed limits; thus making for easy pickings and the ability to easily rack up many violations.


Seriously, though, most states had already established 70 mph as their limit during that era and 60 or 65 did not seem to be enough of a drop to make a difference in fuel consumption savings. Since most cars did not have overdrive (most automatics were two- or three-speed designs and stick-shift cars had either three or four cogs), those behemoths could indeed save fuel by slowing down 15 mph to 55 from 70.

Today, however, the 'average' car will still do much, much better on fuel going 75 mph than almost any car from 35 years ago could dream of doing at just 55 mph. Today's cars are also safer - since airbags, ABS, radial tires, crumple zones and traction control are found on almost every car sold nowadays. Most of you don't remember the big "family sedans" of the early 1970s that averaged 8 to 12 miles per gallon! (My '02 Sentra gets 33+ miles per gallon at 70 miles per hour; and even my '08 Mustang GT can break into the low 20s at steady speeds aproaching 75 mph.)

While there may be other motivations here, revenue enhancement through speeding tickets can't be one of them. The Illinois State Police could write hundreds of tickets a day right now in interstate work zones (big, big fines!) if they had the manpower. Despite the speed limit being 45 in a work zone, you'll get run over doing less than 65.

If you lived through those times - as I did - you would know how many "speed traps" there would be on roads that are now virtually unpatrolled. Aside from that, look at how much money the insurance companies stand to "win" by hiking surcharges on drivers who would now get tickets they would not oridinarily be receiveing. Follow the money, son!

Finally, if you still don't think the 55 mph "national limit" is a bad idea, try driving across Pennsylvania on I-80 at 55 mph. Better yet, traverse Montana or North Dakota and just try to stay under 60 mph without driving youself nuts!


http://www.motorists.org

 

[alaskaman]

55 on I 80 in PA would be very unsafe. trust me. I also lived through the 55 hupla in the day.We rolled consistently at 75 to 80 and achieved 21 mpg with the V6 sport edition. at 55-60 we got 23 to 25 mpg. If we had gone 55 the whole way we would have saved $241.00 for the 5800 mile trip. Hardly worth it and mos def not worth the increased risk associated with 55.

If you want to save lives stop drunk drivers from getting in a car.

 

[josh220]

Considering the average flow of traffic here in Southern CA is 80-85mph, and the faster traffic goes closer to 90, lowering the speed limit would just make that more illegal, it wouldn't change anyones driving habits. Everyone is still going to get where they are going, as fast as humanly possible.

 

[Jeff Kleb]

Thanks to the last to posts for reminding us of the "truth" about this issue. Hard to believe it, but going faster sometimes is safer. I've been to Germany and you must pay attention to what you are doing in order to survive over there!

Let's get the people out of the 'passing lane' who impede the flow of traffic (regardless of its speed) and start ticketing the dolts who fail to signal their turns or lane changes. Solve those two offenses and we would be well on our way to being a society that strives for motoring excellence - rather than mere mediocrity.
:girl:

Haven't we "dumbed down" our society enough already?

 

[loudog2]

Around Chicago(I-80, I-55, I-294 ,I80-94) if your not doing at least 10 over the limit, you'll get run over. I think it is safer to just keep up with traffic. Less accidents.

In Illinois they passed the left lane law. I haven't seen any state troopers enforce it yet. Around here, it is the pimped seat all the way back lane. These people don't move. They give you dirty looks, when you have to go around them. I don't understand it.

 

[gizmopt2002]

In my 2 years of driving and my many, many miles and hours on the expressway here in Illinois, and other states I DO NOT agree to lowering the "national" speed limit. (Jeff Kleb already said it all)

After you get out of Chicagland, the speed limit increases to 65, which is nice, but in Nebraska, it was 75 there! On the way the visit my GF's relatives in Iowa I took my mom's 4Runner (the 4th gen) I was doing 80 all the way. The GF was nervous and warned me of the 2 non-existent speed traps (at the time) there (200 miles). In all honesty I have noticed traffic slowing down a little bit but it still goes constantly at 65.

toto, I personally stay in the right unless I pass someone. I have since I got my permit and always will, hell, I even do it around town. If I see someone closing in I usually speed up to let them pass the dumbass in the left lane not willing to move over. I do get pissed when I see people going 90+ and weaving in and out of traffic. I remember taking my GF to Chicago for a nice dinner (her birthday) and I got passed on the shoulder!! AND I was going 65! I was like WTF!

I agree stop ticketing speeders, get the drunk drivers, and the ones who weave in and out and cut people off.


On a side note, a friends friend from England came to America for the first time. He was amazed at our roadways, and the expressways, and the tollways, ect. At an intersection (with a crosswalk) he said he would never cross it for fear of getting hit by all the traffic. When he saw that some of the expressways had 4 lanes EACH way he was astounded.

We went up to Wisconsin in my 4Runner (2nd gen) and did 70-75 the whole way. It was usually the flow of traffic, but sometimes we would pass some people. TO be honest, I would have gotten 2+ MPG better at 65 (speed limit) than 75 but the savings were negligible and we had to be there by 11 and it was 11, and we still had an hour to go, we didn't want to piss off the rangers.

Jeff, I was wondering why when I trailed a semi pack it was going exactly 62, not 60. now I know

 

[RonMAIDEN]

It won't slow down traffic much and police wiould be handing out plenty of tickets.

 

[JP4RNR]

It won't slow down traffic much and police would be handing out plenty of tickets.

I agree. People are still going to drive as fast as they have been. This is just another way for the states to make more revenue,

however, I do think the enforcement of the law, if the national speed were to be dropped back to 55MPH, will be very much selective and up to the discretion of the individual traffic officer. In my expeirience the real speed limit as to not get a ticket is what ever the flow of traffic is. If the flow is 75MPH then that is the speed limit for the prevailing condition which is not to say that you could not get a ticket but your chances are less if you go with the flow of traffic.

To me what makes driving more dangerous is having someone deviate from the flow of traffic speed greatly either going fast or slow. In fact drivers that impede the flow of traffic make conditions dangerous for others

 

[Jeff Kleb]

I do think the enforcement of the law, if the national speed were to be dropped back to 55MPH, will be very much selective and up to the discretion of the individual traffic officer.

Unfortunately, that will not be the case. The federales will have "enforcement goals" (another word for quota) for every state - as a standard velocity - and any state not meeting it (not writing enough tickets) will be in jeopardy of losing their federal funds.
:bash:

In my expeirience the real speed limit as to not get a ticket is what ever the flow of traffic is. If the flow is 75MPH then that is the speed limit for the prevailing condition which is not to say that you could not get a ticket but your chances are less if you go with the flow of traffic.

Oh, trust me........that will change if federal money is involved. Most states cannot build or maintain their roads without the money coming in from DC (money, ironically, which came from the individual taxpayers of each & every state through direct taxation).

This is the reverse of the old "carrot and stick" system of mandating certain types of behavior.

To me what makes driving more dangerous is having someone deviate from the flow of traffic speed greatly either going fast or slow. In fact drivers that impede the flow of traffic make conditions dangerous for others.

Absolutely correct, although the biggest problem is lack of lane discipline and failure of slower traffic to keep right. Going too fast is a problem, no doubt, but failure of slower people to get out of the way just multiplies the danger.

I drive almost 100k miles per year, and people who impede traffic (as you mentioned) are much, much worse than someone who is traveling well above the posted limit. This, obviously, is because most everyone else has to bob & weave or take evasive action to avoid the slowpoke. If you want to drive 55 or 60 or even 65, just stay in the right-hand lane and we'll be okay.
:biggrin2:

The second-biggest problem is those who fail to use their directional signals - which forces everyone else to be clairvoyant when driving.....as we try to "guess" what they're going to do. Some states enforce this sporadically, but I have yet to see anyone in VA even get pulled over for it. Yes, it is an infraction under our vehicle code - but is typically ignored (much the same as failure to move to the right).

 

[TheBlueWave]

MN needs highway funds so badly right now that they will gladly without a fight accept whatever Washington dictates.
That being said, people don't drive that fast up here normally. Hardly anyone goes over 80, even on long trips.
All I want is consistency. Nothing worse than driving down the road at 70 and some a-hole is going 50. Its like you jumped on them. Any laws for setting a minimum speed limit would be wholeheartedly supported by me.
Very insightfull, Jeff. A true veteran of the road, and people still want to argue with you :bash: .

 

[RonMAIDEN]

Colorado has impeding left hand traffic laws on highways even if passing is going over 80 as long as it's with the flow.

 

[Cornfed]

I feel some of the comments in this thread border on ridiculous, If the speed limit is reduced to 55, I don't think people will be doing 80mph, especially if the authorities are determined to enforce it.

If you don't think they can enforce it, take your not so smart self to Virginia and try it, anything over 4mph faster than the posted limit and you will be contributing greatly to local road maintenance.

I personally hate driving thru there, but I'm not so stupid that I go thru at Florida, or S.C. speeds.

Do cars today get better mileage than cars from the 70's? You bet, and I had a '75 Monza with a factory 350CI V8 with a whopping 125hp (cali car) and a '77 Vega So now you know why I don't buy GM cars anymore.

Will they get better milage at 55mph vs 70mph? Again, yes. I average 24mpg city/highway combined here in the Keys, fastest speed limit is 55mph, but only 21mpg interstate when on the mainland at faster speeds.

Would I like driving at 55mph on long trips? No way!!

There's no doubt that a 55mph speed limit will save gas, but I don't think that will happen until the Dems get their $5 a gallon target price, after that things will change quickly to hold prices there.

That said, anyone want to buy a 22' power catamaran, gets great gas mileage (3.5mpg) :dancin:

 

[BenSD]

For the past few weeks, I've been doing 55, and I'm not alone. I'll throw it in cruise control at 55, and go in whichever lane that puts me in. I usually end up with quite a few people hanging out behind me, but not in an impatient way. Even if all the other lanes are empty, they are simply cruising at 55 as well with no intention of passing me.

I have noticed a definite difference in MPG with the difference in speed. Also, it makes for a much less stressful commute. Just lock it in 55, and go for it. It's a very zen experience.

 

[alaskaman]

I feel some of the comments in this thread border on ridiculous, If the speed limit is reduced to 55, I don't think people will be doing 80mph, especially if the authorities are determined to enforce it.

If you don't think they can enforce it, take your not so smart self to Virginia and try it, anything over 4mph faster than the posted limit and you will be contributing greatly to local road maintenance.

I personally hate driving thru there, but I'm not so stupid that I go thru at Florida, or S.C. speeds.

Do cars today get better mileage than cars from the 70's? You bet, and I had a '75 Monza with a factory 350CI V8 with a whopping 125hp (cali car) and a '77 Vega So now you know why I don't buy GM cars anymore.

Will they get better milage at 55mph vs 70mph? Again, yes. I average 24mpg city/highway combined here in the Keys, fastest speed limit is 55mph, but only 21mpg interstate when on the mainland at faster speeds.

Would I like driving at 55mph on long trips? No way!!

There's no doubt that a 55mph speed limit will save gas, but I don't think that will happen until the Dems get their $5 a gallon target price, after that things will change quickly to hold prices there.

That said, anyone want to buy a 22' power catamaran, gets great gas mileage (3.5mpg) :dancin:

Having lived through that time I can tell you that the only thing ridiculous was the 55 mph limit and the fact that successive administrations believe that to control people you create a crisis. sound at all familiar?