The latest lame brain idea from the Washington set....reintroduction of the 55mph national speed limit. :mad:

A lot less fuel saved at this speed. Also a lot of lives saved.

I know it is not a popular idea but it takes a lot of extra fuel to push a vehicle faster than 55,

I am not sure what the increase in consumption is but if I find it I will post it OR some other member may know.

The only reason I disagree is that we now live in a world where vehicle safety is 10 times better than it was in the 1970's and we are slowly moving to vehicles that are not dependent on fossil fuels, making the arguments for 55mph from back then mostly irrelevant.

The only reason I disagree is that we now live in a world where vehicle safety is 10 times better than it was in the 1970's and we are slowly moving to vehicles that are not dependent on fossil fuels, making the arguments for 55mph from back then mostly irrelevant.

Amen brother. Why should a Tesla Roadster be forced to travel at 55 mph?

I would agree to a short-term reintroduction. Say until 2010. But, as with the hands-free law in CA, I'd like to see an 18 month delay of implementation for us to get used to the idea. ;)

No need for big brother to force me to save money. I'm quite capable of making my own decisions. If this law is for social reasons (to make rationing of gas easier), it would be completely pointless for vehicles that run on alternative domestic energy (CNG, Electric, etc...).

Some states during the 80's posted the speed limits (just so they could get federal funding), but didn't really enforce them unless a driver went over 70MPH. Anyone caught going between 55MPH and 70MPH (that they bothered to pull over) were simply ticketed with an "energy wasting" fee of hardly nothing, like $5, just so they could show the federal government that they were trying.

It's sad that states are under so much control ($$$) by the federal government.

When the speed limit was 55, did anyone actually drive that fast? When they raised it up to a more realistic 65, I didn't notice much difference in driver behavior. In fact, people can get much better mileage out of the cars they have now by just driving 55 or 60, but do they? Even with $4+ gasoline, I don't see anybody slowing down. Even the ubiquitous (in my area) Prius is going 75. Bottom line; people want better mileage out of their cars but they don't want to go any slower even if it costs them.

Lowering the speed limit to 55 is dumb.

Bottom line - lower speed means lower fuel consumption- God knows we have all screwed up and wasted gas by excess speed and unnecessary mammoth vehicles- we need to stop this piggish behavior.

Please remember that this would only be a short term interim solution until alternates get us off this black crap.

Everyone needs to be a part of the solution and not contribute to the problem. Wasting fossil energy in any way is a kick in the ass for all of us ---

SO - conserve as much as you can and keep pushing for alternate propulsion --

One more thing - a friend of mine is an excellent electrical engineer - I spoke with him today and he told me something I and many others already know - we have had the technology to get off oil for many years - but the bloodsuckers got all of us "hooked" and just kept feeding us the habit (shall we continue or go to rehab?)

The sooner we smarten up the better - It makes no sense to continue helter skelter using fossil fuel foolishly - we need to conserve every drop. If people have not changed to "gentle driving" (IE - avoid heavy acceleration and braking, drive ahead of yourself to avoid stop and go situations, avoid traffic congestion and unnecessary idling, lower speed etc etc.) then shame on them - they are hurting everyone.

We made this problem for ourselves!

JUST MY OPINION YOU KNOW!

Last time we did it the country's gasoline consumption went down by 2%. That's more savings than what we would gain drilling ANWAR and it would start almost immediately!

Also note that it would be a form of taxation. Of course nobody is going to drive that slow. Thus, police can stop as many people as they like and make a killing on fines! It would be like shooting fish in a barrel... Of oil.

Total mileage driven in the US has dropped considerably since last year. What I recall reading was mileage from March or was it June ?? 11 billion miles less, a 4% annual decrease, the largest since 1940 - something........ A $1 a gallon spike did that, and has killed off any chance the Big Three Auto makes had at any recovery or profit. Where the price of fuel will end up is anybodys guess.

You may not like a 55 mph limit, and there are many sound reasons for doing so. But to say its stupid is not rational. The majority of vehicles, the ovewhelming majority, will show a significant fuel savings with a 10 mph reduction in velocity. It does not matter if they are electric or gas or diesel, they will expend more energy at 65 than 55 mph. The energy has to come from some where, and it takes more. Simple.

The enforcement and compliance are social issues, not technical ones. I have noticed one segment of the driving population that has slowed down. Its those whose livliehood depends on their driving, and its costs. Commercial trucks. Their speed is way down here in California. But yeah, I still see 6 out of ten vehicles on the freeway at 06:00 hrs on the commute blasting past me at 70-75 mph in 6, 8 and 10-cylinder trucks that weigh 5- 7,500 lbs, all with one driver.

I recall a TV interview from several years ago, when their was a spike in gas price. The subjects didn't mind the high price, rather, it was the uncertainty of the future that made them park the Expedition and drive the Saturn. At $4.49 a gallon it may be a different story.

Where the freeways are crowded, 55 mph is safer than 65 mph, of that there can be no doubt. Excessive speed is right up there with intoxication as the leading cause of fatalities.

Excessive speed is an easy scapegoat. In reality it is driver inattention and the resultant errors that are the leading cause of accidents.

Put me next to someone 100% focused on their driving and doing 65-75mph over some chick putting on her makeup at 55mph any day of the week!

Now that cars and trucks are electronically controlled, it would be easy to install speed governors that would limit top speed to 55mph. Why stop there? We could set them at 45 or even 35 and save even more fuel and more lives! Then we could ban any non commercial vehicle over 1 liter in displacement (this would go for motorcycles too). Class C commercial could be 2 liters, Class B 4 liters and Class A 6 liters. Remember, we're only going 35 mph, so with multispeed transmissions this is easily doable. Perhaps we could put an annual mileage cap on our cars and trucks too. When the odometer goes past say 8,000 miles the engine shuts down and can't be restarted until January 1st when it resets.

We don't have to stop with just cars, we could mandate an internet linked thermostat in our homes so that the feds could make sure we're not heating or cooling our houses too much. A nice energy conserving 80 in the summer and 60 in the winter. Oh, wait, we could also mandate that all houses install 20 amp service max, that way we would have to choose wisely which devices we use and no household could exceed 20 amps of power. Ban all incandescent bulbs and of course an annual household inspection to assure compliance.

What's the biggest energy consumer of them all? Why people of coarse! It would be required to limit each household to just one child. This would be more sustainable. If we just implement these simple measures, we could be free of foreign oil, safe from global warming and all in compliance. :rolleyes:

I better stop. There's probably people copying this all down.

Now that cars and trucks are electronically controlled, it would be easy to install speed governors that would limit top speed to 55mph. Why stop there? We could set them at 45 or even 35 and save even more fuel and more lives! Then we could ban any non commercial vehicle over 1 liter in displacement (this would go for motorcycles too). Class C commercial could be 2 liters, Class B 4 liters and Class A 6 liters. Remember, we're only going 35 mph, so with multispeed transmissions this is easily doable. Perhaps we could put an annual mileage cap on our cars and trucks too. When the odometer goes past say 8,000 miles the engine shuts down and can't be restarted until January 1st when it resets.

We don't have to stop with just cars, we could mandate an internet linked thermostat in our homes so that the feds could make sure we're not heating or cooling our houses too much. A nice energy conserving 80 in the summer and 60 in the winter. Oh, wait, we could also mandate that all houses install 20 amp service max, that way we would have to choose wisely which devices we use and no household could exceed 20 amps of power. Ban all incandescent bulbs and of course an annual household inspection to assure compliance.

What's the biggest energy consumer of them all? Why people of coarse! It would be required to limit each household to just one child. This would be more sustainable. If we just implement these simple measures, we could be free of foreign oil, safe from global warming and all in compliance. :rolleyes:

I better stop. There's probably people copying this all down.



Yeah, Things could definitely get difficult in the future with less oil. Aside from your joking it’s worth thinking about what are we going to do. All the things you mentioned (well, some of the things) would do the job but only one thing really needs to be done - raise the price of oil. No amount of government intervention can equal the hit in someone's pocketbook. Look how fast Americans can change! Mandate SUVs? Not needed.

About the population issue. I know there is a lot of joking around about this and we also have a lesson learned from the the disaster China is going though right now - they limited families to one child and now there is a gross ratio of boys to girls. Do you know what history shows what happens next? Yep... War. Why? Well, men that can't get wives get angry easily. It's that simple.

We now live in a world where economies rely on continuous growth to be successful. In a world with limited resources this is obviously unsustainable. Do you want NY city to grow to 100 million people like the movie "The Fifth Element"? Could anyone even enjoy the parks (if they are not divided up for apartments)? Would the quality of life be acceptable with crowding 10 times that of Tokyo at rush hour? Doesn't seem too good to me. Will we humans fill every crevice of land with our flesh? I'm glad I'll be dead before I find out. However, it begs the question of how the world will decide how to use limited resources in a peaceful and equitable way. Just think if all the citizens of China were to consume as we do. We would need over 5 planet earths worth of energy and resources. What if everyone on the planet used the energy of the typical American? Ouch is right!

I have thought about this and have determined that the governments of the world will probably come to some agreement on population targets. They will then use taxation and incentives to keep the populations at agreed upon levels. Fines for noncompliance would be used as leverage. I know that sounds like crazy talk but if you think so, what are your ideas? Keep the poor at their current levels? Knock down Americans to lower energy usage? What if in the future we do perfect fusion power generation and have the energy production 1000 times what we have today? Wall to wall people does not sound civilized.

I think in the future people and governments are going to have to make decisions that have been left to nature and markets thus far. Medical advances is another issue. In a few decades we may have figured out how to control how a body ages and could extend life as long as we wish. That’s a lot of old people to take care of.

Economies are going to have to change from growth to sustainable strategies. I wonder what system will work best...

As horrible as it sounds, we really need a global pandemic to thin populations near to post WWII levels. Otherwise I can foresee a very bleak world in about 20 years. I mean, look what they are saying about arable farm land right now....that it willl need to be 60-65% more productive than it is now by 2030 to keep up with world demand for food! :eek:

Perhaps we should consider limiting reproduction to those who can prove the ability to provide for their offspring.

Require mandatory birth control for those on public assistance.

For the troublesome third-world countries with exploding populations, we could provide food laced with birth-control drugs.

Perhaps we should consider limiting reproduction to those who can prove the ability to provide for their offspring.

Require mandatory birth control for those on public assistance.

For the troublesome third-world countries with exploding populations, we could provide food laced with birth-control drugs.


Yes, I know it sounds like Big Brother but what do you suggest? Just take a completely hands off approach? That seems even more comical. More like a tragedy.

Yes, I know it sounds like Big Brother but what do you suggest? Just take a completely hands off approach? That seems even more comical. More like a tragedy.

Who said I wasn't serious with my suggestions? ;)

I agree that our total economic and social package-is based on growth.

you have to have more growth, so you can sell more junk to more people, so you can make more money to buy more cars and bigger homes because you need the room for more junk and look how important you will look!!!!!!!!!!

Who is driving this? The stupid politicians wanting votes based on promised of prosperity by growing the economy and the bussiness people who only think $$$$$$$$$$$$$ at any cost.

Enough is enough - we have people starving in this country with no access to medical. We have drug addicts and alcoholics up the ying yang. We have major desperation in our youth created by the ever present drive to learn how to make money so they can have more stuff.

Well- if we keep going the way we are we are all going to hit a brick wall.

We don't need any more cars, any more Chinese or Asian crap from Walmart or oil from OPEC. What we need is to be satisfied with what we have and make it better -Better is not more - it is quality of life, it is your health, it is about having fun, not living in the mall etc etc.

So what has this got to do with the Volt - even if the Volt is a great success - we will find a way to screw things up UNLESS we change our attitudes about unnecessary material things.

Its time to smell the roses/

Where were we ?? Oh thats right, a rumor about "Washington" considering the 55 mph speed limit. :)

Where were we ?? Oh thats right, a rumor about "Washington" considering the 55 mph speed limit. :)


A bit more than a rumor, I'm afraid:

"Sen. John Warner (R-Virginia) has suggested that the U.S. Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices, The Associated Press reported.

However, Warner has not specifically sponsored legislation calling for a roll-back to 55 miles per hour: he has only asked U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to research which speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology, and also wants to know if the Bush Administration would support a Congressional effort to mandate a lower speed limit, The AP reported."

Yes, I know it sounds like Big Brother but what do you suggest? Just take a completely hands off approach? That seems even more comical. More like a tragedy.

There's always Soylent Green or the Logan's Run approach.:D

I would drive 55 again. Actually I'd like to slow down to about that speed now, but to do so I'd get run over by everything on the road including 18 wheelers. 55 is a good idea.

Now chew on this suggestion...
How about gas rationing? That would certainly save lots of gas, help the national security situation, and encourage alternative fuels faster than anything else I can imagine.

There were stuides highlighting that a national 55mph speed limit didn't really save gas. A lot of people ignored it and thus ended up driving much more aggressive by slowing and speeding up wasting more gas. If your afraid of a cop around the corner you will slow down and speed up once you passed that mark. Radar detector companies can rejoice at this one. Good thing I have my valentine one. More aggression on the roads will make them less safe. If you cruise at 70mph you will use less gas then speeding up to 65 and back down to 55. People would get to places slower which means they will be on the roadways longer causing more traffic. Traffic = wasted gas. A smooth flow of traffic always saves fuel.

I'm actually surprised at how many people are willing to allow the government to tell them how to live their lives. To me this is kind of scary.:eek:

I would drive 55 again. Actually I'd like to slow down to about that speed now, but to do so I'd get run over by everything on the road including 18 wheelers. 55 is a good idea.

You have every right to drive 55. Just do it in the very far right lane and let everybody go around. I really doubt that you'll cause a crash, it just takes some getting used to mentally. I drive class B and class A trucks on occasion as well as tow my jet ski trailer, and in California, the speed limit is 55 for both trucks and trailers. I have to admit I don't go 55 because it is pretty dang slow, but I do set the cruise control to about 63 because I am concerned about getting a ticket on my commercial license. At that speed in California, I get passed by everybody. Like I said though, get in the right lane and let 'em go. You'll get used to it. If you drive 55 in any other lane than the far right one, then yeah, people are going to be rightfully mad.

For the troublesome third-world countries with exploding populations, we could provide food laced with birth-control drugs.

This is already being done.

"As horrible as it sounds, we really need a global pandemic to thin populations near to post WWII levels. Otherwise I can foresee a very bleak world in about 20 years. I mean, look what they are saying about arable farm land right now....that it willl need to be 60-65% more productive than it is now by 2030 to keep up with world demand for food! "

We can only hope you'll be one of the ones taken by the pandemic.

But dont worry. If I actually believed half the things some of the idiots on this board are spouting, it wont matter. The world will flood from global warming, there will be some bird flu pandemic to kill the rest, and if that doesnt get us, peak oil will happen sending the world into a massive war for resources, millions will be killed by the dropping of nuclear bombs. Whoever is leftover by that will probably be finished off by a massive tidal wave from an oncoming asteriod that plunges into the ocean.

The world will flood from global warming, there will be some bird flu pandemic to kill the rest, and if that doesnt get us, peak oil will happen sending the world into a massive war for resources, millions will be killed by the dropping of nuclear bombs. Whoever is leftover by that will probably be finished off by a massive tidal wave from an oncoming asteriod that plunges into the ocean.

Holy crap! I'd better quick get my butt to church!!