I've been driving at 50 to 55 mph on highways (with 4 way flashers on) mostly NYThruway. When stopped and questioned by a State Trooper as to what was wrong, my answer "everyone complains about gas prices, I'm doing something about it". Note: 40 - 45 MPH is the optimum speed for reduced fuel consumption. That's the speed I drive at locally.

That sounds very dangerous. Driving 20 mph below the average traffic speed seems like a very good way to cause an accident. I would suggest that you drive on secondary roads if you are not willing to drive at an appropriate speed for the highway.

All this talk about "55 MPH saves gas" has one major flaw. Not all cars are designed the same! Some cars are geared for highway and/or have true overdrive. These along with aerodynamic design can greatly increase the optimum speed v MPG of a car. We need to reexamine the policies and laws put into place under the Carter administration and eliminate the current exemptions in many of the regulations on SUV and trucks. Even requiring SUV and Trucks to meet emission standards would greatly reduce our gas consumption and have much greater effect than 55MPH. In defense of the 55MPH, more income for speed trap communities, some gas savings for people choosing shorter vacation trips to reduce time on the road. Let's encourage availability of Natural Gas filling stations and cars - Honda already sells one. (along with your own hone filling unit as an extra if you have natural gas) By far the cheapest, least polluting and least barrels of oil, other than electric.

Let's step back....driving 55 mph does work. But it's more effective psychlogically if the oil producers take the consumers (us) seriously. Without getting too political, mideast war is a mess because IRAQ DOES NOT take our withdrawal seriously, kids don't behave many times because they don't take the consequenses seriously and opec won't until we make conservation measures like 55 mph, major comittments to alternate energy (please not ethanol) and stop borrowing money from abroad.

The are all painful but THEY WILL BE SHORT TERM AND HAVE A MOJOR AFFECT ON OIL PRICES. Even a major national discussion of 55 mph would cause a drop. Our present administration is an enabler for all sorts of missdeeds abroad and at home because of their ineptitude and lack of regulation enforcement. But then, most govts. are.

The people from the ground up know the importance of discipline to attain desired goals. Right now, many of your comments indicate you're not ready as you wait for someone else to do it for you though many are. You are the govt.

"The people from the ground up know the importance of discipline to attain desired goals. Right now, many of your comments indicate you're not ready as you wait for someone else to do it for you though many are. You are the govt."

Please do not associate me with the U.S. government just because I think this speed limit is a terrible idea, I really do not wish to be associated with any U.S. government. I only want and expect one thing from the government, I want them to stay the &*%$ out of my way.

Regarding discipline, most americans work very hard for what they want, and if they choose to use more (cheap) fuel they will. If you want folks to use less fuel, allow the prices to reach realistic levels. If you want to reduce imports and avoid stupid oil wars, then limit imports and let the market take care of the prices. When prices get high enough we will either drive slower, drive less, drive a more efficient car, or move elsewhere. None of these "speed limit" mandates will work, they will simply result in more people paying more traffic tickets and local police wasting resources on traffic enforcement instead of real crime. The only way to reduce fuel consumption is to make fuel much more expensive, would you be willing to do something that "painful" if you had to run for re-election in a couple of years? Also, you cannot use market forces to control OPEC prices, they will simply adjust production to maintain their target price, which they have stated to be a minimum of $90US. They can live with reduced production much longer than the U.S. can live with reduced consumption, and they know it.

Regarding Iraq, no one who is paying attention takes the U.S. withdrawal seriously. The U.S. will either have a considerable number of troops in Iraq for decades or Iraq will dissolve into several states and/or become part of Iran. There are only two realistic outcomes, the U.S. bails out (i.e., Vietnam) and lets the "majority" have their way; or the U.S. stays and supports their puppet government indefinitely. Either way, it will be very ugly and will provide a home for the next generation of "terrorists" (either by showing that they can "win" or by giving them a very visible enemy). The U.S. lost this one the minute they decided to get involved. Ironically, the U.S. revolution was won using the same strategy that the "insurgency" in Iraq is currently using. All they have to do is avoid major "battles" where they might take significant losses, survive underground, and wait for the invaders to give up and go home; just ask George Washington. Maybe the U.S. should try electing leaders who have actually read at least one history book.

General McArthur, a successful WWII veteran warned anyone who would listen or would not listen(Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson,etc.):"DON'T START A LAND WAR IN ASIA!!". He knew from experience.

Starting with the British in the 1800s in Afganistan, the Boer War, the French in Indo China, the US in Vietnam, the Russians in Afganistan, a local land war is hideously costly in human lives and money, and is virtually unwinnable.

Craig is right; politicians don't know their history or they think they can do the impossible.

Yeah...and will those savings on gas replace your back bumper when you get rearended by an inattentive motorist?

Or if you get cited for obstructing the flow of traffic?

Not trying to be an ass here, but have you really considered all options?

Gas savings probably won't replace anybody's back bumper when they get rearended by an inattentive motorist, but the inattentive driver's insurance company will. And his/her increased insurance rates may make them a more attentive driver in the future. And by the way, what does driving slower than the speed limit have to do with inattentive drivers? The problem then isn't slower drivers, it's inattentive drivers. Duh! As far as being ticketed for driving below the speed limit, in my state the minimum speed limit IS 20 mph below the MAXIMUM limit.

The problem(s) with our highway system is (are) 1. The speed limits are set at a speed where even the most brain dead motorists in the most dilapidated beaters can maintain control of their vehicles without endangering others. 2. The average motorist does not practice proper driving etiquette. Be it driving well below the prevailing average motorway speed whilst putting along in the left lane. Not using turn signals, passing on the right, talking on the phone whilst driving, etc. If you want to make the highways safer, don't worry about speeding, there are several highways (8 lanes) that would be perfectly safe at speeds around 100 MPH provided the driver and the car were up to the task. What needs to be done is for law enforcement to start cracking down on drivers who fail to exhibit proper driving manners; similar to how they handle them in Germany. As for the "But think about all the extra fuel" argument. Nobody is keeping you from driving 55 MPH; just keep it in the right lane.

"General McArthur, a successful WWII veteran warned anyone who would listen or would not listen(Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson,etc.):"DON'T START A LAND WAR IN ASIA!!". He knew from experience. "

The thought is right on IMO. Unfortunately, we are not in the mideast for anything but the oil pumps. MOST retired generals (non to eager to admitt while serving) agree to that. We treat the middle east like puppets of their own regimes. We become energy independent and leave, we are better off. We supply most of the military equipment in the mideast, our best export being war. Unbelievable, that we still believe we should have stayed in Vietnam when now they are trading partners and were never taken over by China as feared that we could have faired any better by staying. I knew that, as did most of my bros. when serving during the war.

If you can't see the link between our lack of oil conservation and our failed national policies, then by all means continue not being part of the solution because you don't want to be associated with our govt. Craig58 and run everyone who does off the road.

Being independent in deed not words is the ultimate statement of national unity.

I believe that if you can afford an SUV and are willing to pay the price at the pump, it's your right. Otherwise I can't complain about those prices if I'm not willing to sacrifice.

To think that 55 mph is big bros. intrusion into your life is to forget...WE ALREADY HAVE SPEED LIMITS or TRAPS for that matter. It's just a matter of degree.

I feel most for the ind. truckers that for some reason can't past the cost of fuel on to the rest of us. We they can, we'll see conservation in a new light.

Note: the above post is best read while playing the National Anthem in the background.


"If you can't see the link between our lack of oil conservation and our failed national policies, then by all means continue not being part of the solution"

I we really want to be part of the solution we should drive (very fast) to our local and national governmental elected folks and "get political" on their asses. The government is SUPPOSED to be of, by, and for the people - but we all seem to sit back and let our elected officials screw it up while we bicker over how fast we should drive.

Personally, I think "our failed national policies" run much deeper than energy related issues, the entire system is broken. Fixing energy issues will not even begin to fix U.S. foreign policy which has been a disaster for at least 50 years (can you name anything the U.S, has done right since the end of WW2?). I wish it was that easy.

Just to be clear, I'm not complaining about "high" fuel prices, I think all energy in the U.S. (including gasoline/diesel) is much too cheap, which has a lot to do with the current state of the energy infrastructure. If you want "energy independence," you are going to pay for it; not mandate it.

Fortunately, the current speed limits are widely ignored and not enforced in most places. They are also generally set high enough to be somewhat reasonable, at least in the west. Forcing drivers the exceed the posted limits by 30 mph will just be inconvenient for everyone. The police will have to pretend to enforce the limits, and the drivers will have to pretend to care (and pay the occasional ticket), just like last time we had a pretend 55 mph limit. Do you remember the western states giving out those silly $5-10 dollar speeding tickets to protect their federal highway funds? It would have been funny if it wasn't so idiotic. At least the folks who sold radar detectors made some money off that fiasco.

Regarding trucking, higher fuel prices may be just what is needed to get the vast majority long distance freight off the roads and to fix the U.S. rail system. That should have happened decades ago, but a combination of cheap fuel, trucking lobbyists, corruption, and a screwed up rail system has prevented it. Maybe we will end up with a reasonable rail freight system by the time diesel fuel gets to $6-8/gallon in a few years. Having 50% less trucks on the roads would go a long we towards reducing fuel consumption, but it will only happen if their operating costs increase dramatically enough to get them off the road permanently.

I wish clueless people would do some research before posting ! U S Foreign policy since WWII - start with the Marshall Plan and the Independence of the Phillipines And we're not to 1950 yet !

I wasn't referring to U.S. actions associated with the end of WW2, I was referring to all the idiotic decisions associated with the "cold war" (including korea, vietnam, the "arms race," SDI, and more than a few misadventures in south and central america, most notably cuba) right up the the U.S. governments failure to notice that the USSR had fallen apart on their own anyway. No sooner had they finished patting themselves on the back for "winning the cold war" (whatever that means), they entered into the "war on terror" (another pointless exercise, guaranteed to distract the next several administrations from doing anything useful). About the only dumber thing I can remember is the "was of drugs." This is a little like watching the downfall of the british empire 100 years ago, they are always ready to fight the last war but don't have a clue what's coming next.

Yes I can name some good things about U.S. foreign policy
The Marshall Plan
Philippine independence
And thats without going past 1950 !

"Yes I can name some good things about U.S. foreign policy
The Marshall Plan
Philippine independence
And thats without going past 1950 !"

I can agree with those two (they were both WW2 cleanup activities), how about something they've done right in the 57 years since 1950? I have trouble thinking of many U.S. actions that I would support during my lifetime. It would be interesting to hear how historians will describe the second half of the 20th century in a couple of 100 years. I'm afraid the chapter will be called, "The decline," or something similar. So far, the 21st century isn't looking so hot either.

The Marshall Plan

OK, a good thing. Rebuild Europe so that the wounds would heal and not fester like they did after WW1. Also useful for keeping much of Europe in our orbit rather than Stalin's.

Philippine independence

Um, 50 years late. I suppose late is better than never... we started the Spanish-American war on a terrorist pretext (sound familiar?) in order to obtain a ready-made empire by relieving Spain of hers. After telling the Filippinos (and Cubans, and Puerto Ricans, and...) how we had liberated them, we stuck around for a long time. This touched off insurgencies will are still going today. Read the history. The only reason we finally left the Philippines is that we couldn't keep a straight face while spouting nonsense about how great we were to rule over them so benevolently.

And thats without going past 1950 !

And I suppose things got better after 1950? Red scare/support of any dictator who could pronounce "anti-communist", Vietnam, Middle-East meddling, Cold War, Colder War, running Latin America for the benefit of United Fruit, all the way up to Bush's Vendetta (the current Iraq war).

Craig58 said: "Also, you cannot use market forces to control OPEC prices, they will simply adjust production to maintain their target price, which they have stated to be a minimum of $90US. They can live with reduced production much longer than the U.S. can live with reduced consumption, and they know it. "

That is how I feel, but furthermore, should we ever develop an alternative fuel that's cheaper than their oil, they can flood the market with oil until the oil prices collapse and make the new alternative energy source uncompetitive with their oil, unless we can come up with such a radical breakthrough that their oil is not worth shipping across the ocean if it was free. Ultimately, it will be the cost of alternative energy that sets the price of oil.

I would love to see the U.S. develop an alternate energy source that is cheaper than oil. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. All the current "alternatives" are significantly more expensive than oil, especially all the alternatives that are appropriate for transportation. The increase in oil prices (and the weak dollar) should actually help some of these alternate sources find a larger market (bio-fuels, wind, etc.). All politics aside, this is being driven by nothing except cost; the consumers are simply looking for the cheapest source of energy.

Unfortunately, the cheapest stationary energy supply in the U.S. is still coal (about 50% of electrical generation) and the cheapest transportation source is still oil (almost all transportation). In addition, much of the residential heating in the northeast U.S. is from oil, which is a very silly way to use a valuable resource. If you want that to change, you either have to find a cheaper alternative or make the current energy sources expensive enough that the alternative make economic sense. If you give some guy in boston cheap enough electricity (or high enough heating oil prices), and convince him that the price difference is permanent, he will spend several $1000 to convert his heating system from oil to electric; otherwise he has no incentive to do anything.

should we ever develop an alternative fuel that's cheaper than their oil, they can flood the market with oil until the oil prices collapse and make the new alternative energy source uncompetitive with their oil

Maybe they used to be able to do that, but isn't OPEC now pumping close to capacity? I don't think they have the spare capacity any more to pull a stunt like that. Oil prices are likely to be permanently high, which is good news for alternative energy sources.