Support for Car Talk is provided by:	Become a Car Talk Sponsor

Boycott Big Oil?

Offshore drilling: a good idea?

What's the absolute fastest speed you'll drive?

Snap on vs Craftsman ratchets

Submit a Car Question

Topic Index > Car Questions > 55 mph...it's time has come.

55 mph...it's time has come.

55 mph national speed limit.....it’s time has come.

There are many arguments against, among which is that people won’t slow down.
Many were raised in the age of the 70 mph speed limit with bigger turnpike cruisers and cheaper gas the norm and we adjusted.
I would argue that today's cars are better prepared for lower speed limits. A 4 cyl Camry gets 10 mpg better at 55 than at 75. That would imply a significant improvement in the 55 to 65 mph comparison.

-There would be less need for the 70 mph cruiser, further encouraging the use of smaller engine cars.
-Fewer traffic fatalities were consistently reported in the 70’s.
-Commuting times in congested areas would be marginally affected and.in many cases, a positive way.
-The cost of conversion, signs etc. is dumped back into the economy with domestic labor.
-Results are instantly achieved, no wait.
-Cars last longer
-Fewer repairs...
-Less road damage
-Eventually, more commuter lanes with higher speeds could encourage mass transit by bus and alternate travel.
-The Yaris, Focus and Fit are right at home.

Would compliance be 100% ? Absolutely not..but neither is it now. Speed limits of 80 mph find people traveling 90 mph. The average speed would be reduced significantly, enough to have a big effect on oil prices..... eventually, I believe, stabilizing the dollar.
Everyone touts the autobahn. The truth is, there MAY be fewer accidents per mile, but they are hugely more spectacular with greater chance of death and serious injury. Plus, the autobahn is a specialized highway with greater thought given to speed and more limited access.

Let’s make an impact NOW. It’s a struggle to come up with many down sides that don’t include the investments many of us have made in our egos.

Posted by: mconn

A lot of nails are being hit directly on the head here. It's about incentives - and cost is a good one. We do what we like and what we want until otherwise not able to. This is a good thing in my view...

So what's the problem? Why do folks like mconn want to implement change? What is gained by a little bit of fuel conservation?

I do agree with mconn that being dependent on imported oil is not good (primarily from an economic/trade balance point of view) and that is is not sustainable for the long term. However, I disagree on the method of reducing this dependence. I feel that increased cost is the only effective way to reduce consumption, while he wants to use mandates (i.e., speed limits) to indirectly reduce consumption. I believe that "a little bit of fuel conservation" would only serve to slightly lower fuel prices in the short term, which is opposite from what needs to happen (we need a sustained increase in prices to reduce consumption.

In other words, I don't believe we can have it both ways; cheap fuel prices and reduced consumption. That's just not how capitalism works.

I am not saying that people should be forced to give up SUVs, rather, the manufacturers should be required to adhere to reasonable improvements in MPG. Also, taxes should be higher on vehicles with higher emissions and lower MPG. Natural gas is a viable alternative already available at service stations in California. With proper incentives, this could be a major reduction in oil consumption. It is also very clean burning and about 1/3 the cost of operating same size vehicle on gas. Check out the Honda Civic, compare their Natural Gas with gas models. You will be surprised at the economy. Oil companies will resist the conversion because it will cut into their profits. We need government to help push this type alternatives.

"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"

That's a bridge we can't recross. Studies have been done to the point of boredom, that our social structure developement has advanced so far beyond the reintroduction of the rail system for trans. of goods is not possible. Eminent domain and the upgrading of rail beds would infringe on individual property rights to the degree that NO ONE is willing to accept. With the intro of "container" system we have vastly outgrown our capacity to serve entire towns and cities that have grown up in areas unservicable by anything but long haul trucking. The closest we could get IMO, is truck restricted lane traffic. Good luck....already big hoopla about the trans. Mexico/US/Canada highway that WILL make us all one citizenry. Big rigs are here to stay...rail is out and will never return as anything but public transportation in a very limited way.

We will see what happens when fuel costs get high enough. I'm not saying that all long haul trucking will go away (although, that would be nice), but I would hope we see maximum utilization of the existing rail system and upgrades where it is practical. Drive across KS or NE and try to tell me that they couldn't upgrade and/or increase the number of tracks, and take a look at the number of unnecessary trucks on I-70 and I-80 (which run right along the tracks for 100s of miles). Never underestimate what can happen when driven by economics.

"I'm not saying that all long haul trucking will go away (although, that would be nice), but I would hope we see maximum utilization of the existing rail system and upgrades where it is practical. Drive across KS or NE and try to tell me that they couldn't upgrade and/or increase the number of tracks, and take a look at the number of unnecessary trucks on I-70 and I-80 (which run right along the tracks for 100s of miles). Never underestimate what can happen when driven by economics."

Well said.

"With proper incentives. "

Like high cost of gasoline?

Craig writes, "that is is not sustainable for the long term."

Another nail hit squarely on the head! This is all about sustainability of of our lifestyle. Looking ahead, what do we have to do now to prevent our eventual demise - and more difficult - how do we as the few - get we as the many to make small changes today to avoid a disaster in the future.

Again I agree with Craig - you can't use mandates to force change - we should use what our society and country is built upon - free market forces.

So if free market forces should do the trick for us... then why are they aparantly not working?

I think it's because we haven't allowed our free market forces to act freely and we have shifted the real costs of things to places where the resulting market forces are pushing in the wrong places. Example - the government builds and maintains our highway transportation infrastructure - but it doesn't pay for that by charging the right people the right price. The result is we have artificially cheap transportation and we are angry about how much income tax is taken.

I drove the grandkids to Tulsa this summer down route 66 to see the Bonneville being unburied. I used $300 worth of gas to get there. (Conversion van that we camped in.) On the way back we drove the interstates but I tried to keep it between 65 and 70. Used $500 gas on the way back. I believe that is significant. If you are interested in "green" things, at least. I try to drive 55-60 in the right lane on the highway but I sure do deal with a lot of hostility. Those of you that say it's okay for us to do that need to lighten up on us "55-ers". I'm not tied to my cruise control. When I need to pass a truck or a slower car I'll take it up to 70 or 75. I try to stay out of the way but still get the glares and fingers and fists. It's all rather disconcerting. What say you?

I have no problem with people voluntarily driving more slowly, as long as they are aware of other traffic on the road. If fuel gets expensive (and I have time), I might be one of those folks too, Im just not going to be required to drive slowly by some "one size fits all" rule.

As long as you’re putting along is the right lane, and are not creating a traffic hazard (your speed vs. the prevailing average speed). Then I have no problem with it, just keep in mind there are many more people who value time saved by driving faster over saving a few gallons of gas, so you're going to get nasty looks regardless.

I have to wonder about the drivers though, that bring their distress upon themselves by not planning ahead and getting stuck behind me in the right lane. They are the ones that I worry about. They get so mad at me for their own stupidity at not being a better driver and actually watching what's going on on the road ahead of them. Get over into the passing lane people! lol Don't try to sneak in farther up the line of cars! You'll just get stuck! They're the ones that kill me (not literally......yet...lol). I try to take the state highways because of this. I don't want to bother people....I just want to do my little part (saving gas) in my little part of the world that I have influence over. But-through the mountains------got to be the interstates if you don't want to take hours longer to get somewhere.

Don't worry about it if you are in the correct lane, they can go around you. In the mountains there are always plenty of trucks driving slowly anyway, there's nothing they can do about it.

I don't worry about them----it actually makes me chuckle. Breaks up the trip---just don't look at them when they finally get around you....phew! lol

"Drive across KS or NE and try to tell me that they couldn't upgrade and/or increase the number of tracks, and take a look at the number of unnecessary trucks on I-70 and I-80 (which run right along the tracks for 100s of miles). Never underestimate what can happen when driven by economics.

You make my point exactly, KS and NE are no longer the ideal train routes they used to be, farm goods are one thing, cargo dispersment to poulation centers and beyond requires trains whose beds are out dated and short haul, and load exchange, an expense that we circumvented by the "cantainer" era. Load'm in Hong kong. unload'm any where in the US. Killing the long Shoreman Union. Labor will ALWAYS be more expensive than transportation....train era still not happening.

Well, if you are correct consumer goods are about to get much more expensive. That's OK with me, I think we all buy to much crap anyway; but not everyone is going to be able to afford the increases and it is likely to be inflationary.

I certainly agree that U.S. labor will always be more expensive than transportation (that's why U.S. manufacturing is dead), the question becomes; what type of transportation will be the cheapest in 20 years?

The cost of ocean transportation from China to the US is miniscule compared to the price of the product. However,for larger items like cars, the dropping dollar will result in more Japanese, European and Korean cars to be built in North America. The UAW will still lose, since those cars will be built in mostly non-union plants.

Rail transport is traditionally cheaper than truck, but in Lean Manufacturing, as practiced by most Japanese firms now, the supply chain is best managed with trucks, and parts plants located close to the assembly plants. Goods are shipped in small batches with Lean Manufacturing.

Bulk commodoties will always be shipped mostly by rail, unless waterways are convenient.

Shipping finished goods across the country will be the battleground between rail and truck, since railways can also do the hub % spoke bit, like Federal Express. Slow speed and lack of flexibility has penalized the railways, but some, like Union pacific, have struck back and developed good intermodal rail/truck systems.

I agree, a weak dollar makes (non-union) U.S. labor more attractive, and the UAW is no longer relevant (about time, they've done enough damage already).

I also agree that "just in time" manufacturing is more conducive to trucks than rails, but that usually involves shorter distances between the supplier and the fabricator.

It will be very interesting to see if rail starts winning some long haul market share as fuel prices increase. I don't think it's going to happen overnight, but we'll see.

I agree, a weak dollar makes (non-union) U.S. labor more attractive, and the UAW is no longer relevant (about time, they've done enough damage already).

Don't blame the current GM and Ford crisis on the UAW....GM and Ford upper management have to take a major portion of this problem....When the UAW negotiated with them for their current benefits....GM and Ford were bringing in HUGH profits....They had the money then to shore up the benefits...and they REFUSED to do it....They choose instead to award these OBSCENE BONUS packages to upper management....WELL OVER $100M/yr. Now years later the UAW is being blamed for this problem.

I will agree their benefits package is well over the top....But GM/Ford and Chryco could easily have avoided this problem....but they choose to be greedy.

Agree that the malaise of the US carmakers is mostly management's fault. When Ford had record losses, its president still made 5 times the salary of Toyota's president!

Sweden and Germany have very high wages and benefits, but the uunions are more flexible in implementing productivity improvements, and healthcare is a federal government responsiblity in both countries.

Showing comments 181 - 200 of 244

First Previous Next Last

RSS

CAR TALK, DEWEY, CHEETHAM & HOWE, SHAMELESS COMMERCE, and WARPED DISCS are registered trademarks of Tom and Ray Magliozzi and/or Tappet Brothers Associates d/b/a Dewey, Cheetham & Howe.