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

So what if The Heritage Foundation does have an agenda to push. It's totally irrelevant.

Exactly what part of "NOBODY WANT'S TO DRIVE THAT SLOW" don't you understand?

More accurately, NOBODY WILL DRIVE THAT SLOWLY.

Ok since you don't like my source, and want goverment data...

Lets address "Fewer traffic fatalities were consistently reported in the 70’s"

How about NHTSA own data on fatality rates?
For the past dozen years, ALL categories of FARS data show a decrease across the board for fatalities WHEN you compare it to some other factor: per miles, drivers, vehicles,population. Let's compare apples to apples. I can say that in 1800 there was no national speed limit, and yet there were 0 automobile fatalities. While factual, it's (edit) NOT (/edit) really an "honest" statement is it? The first documented fatality occured more than 50 years later.


And want to compare it to the 70s... Let's...
From the Chicago Tribune (I dare you to say that's somehow Republican with a straight face)... FARS doesn't go back that far... hmm... wonder why? Could it be... nah...

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the fatality rate per 100 million miles driven in the U.S. (equal to 33,333 vehicle trips from New York to Los Angeles) in 1950 was 7.2. This rate fell to 5.06 in 1960; 4.7 in 1970, 3.3 in 1980; 2.1 in 1990; and 1.5 in 1999.  

FARS data for 2006... Fatalities per 100 million miles drive in 2006 = 1.41

This reduction coincided with the introduction of safety features in cars, reducing the worst fatalities.

Several European countries with much higher or no speed limits have exactly ONE HALF the fatality rate of the US!!

Reduction in fatalities is shown from 1945 on . No real safety devices were introduced for decades after that .

The Interstate highway system was started by the Eisenhower administration in the fifties. The combination of newer cars on the road after 1945, better highways starting in the fifties, and safer cars starting with seat belts in the mid sixties all contributed to a lower fatality rate. Driving 55 mph made a very small if any contribution.

Today's fatality number, about 40,000+ per year, is about the same as the in mid the mid fifties, but highway miles travelled are bout 16 times! Routine accidents, howver, such as fender benders,and light injury cases, have kept climbing, proving that driving skills have not improved that much over the last 50 years. The inherent safety of today's cars together with seat belts, and air bags have made accidents more suvivable.

A 55 mph limit would be OK in an actual national emergency, but it is a stupid long term solution to a porblem better solved by smaller, lighter cars with smaller, more efficient engines, and expanded public transportation.

I recently drove my 21 year old Honda on a 700 mile road trip at average speeds of 75-80 mph and achieved approx. 33.34 MPG. I win.

I win.

Hmm. And what kind of mileage would you have gotten if you had driven 65-70? 55-60?

Fuel consumption has to go up with increased speed (actually, with the square of the speed) due to aerodynamic drag. Road and drivetrain friction go up linearly with speed, but you're driving for a shorter time (for a given distance), so it's a wash. Non-speed related loads (electrical, AC) are constant, so you save by going faster and getting there sooner. Drag is the biggest factor, so slowing down does save gas.

(I wish this forum allowed tables)

low speed (V)

time taken to drive D miles: D/V = t
mechanical friction rate: aV
total energy to overcome friction: aVD/V = aD
aerodynamic drag rate: bV**2
total energy to overcome drag: bV**2D/V = bVD
A/C & other constant load rate: c
total energy for A/C etc.: cD/V

grand total energy (fuel): aD + bVD + cD/V = D(a + bV + c/V)
fuel per mile: a + bV + c/V

high speed (2V)

time taken to drive D miles: D/2V = 1/2 t
mechanical friction rate: a2V
total energy to overcome friction: 2aVD/2V = aD
aerodynamic drag rate: b4V**2
total energy to overcome drag: b4V**2D/2V = 2bVD
A/C & other constant load rate: c
total energy for A/C etc.: cD/2V

grand total energy (fuel): aD + 2bVD + cD/2V = D(a + 2bV + c/2V)
fuel per mile: a + 2bV + c/2V

For most vehicles, "b" (essentially the coefficient of drag) is the biggest factor and "c" is probably the smallest. "b" (C-sub-d) can vary slightly with speed (e.g., a "bubble" of stagnant air trapped in a pickup's bed smoothing the air flow), but is usually fairly constant. It's possible that driving slower on a very hot day (high A/C load "c" on a small engine) might lead to a slight increase in fuel consumption in a very slick car (small "b"), but I don't know if it's been demonstrated to be significant in real life cases.

P.S. Your time (t) is worth something too. That has to be factored in.

so exactly who or what is the national highway traffic safety committee?
never heard of them, but i have heard of these guys....
http://www...809897.pdf

near as i can tell from the chart fatalities did not go up when the 55 mph limit was repealed in 1995.

"testosterone" powered lincolns? most of those lincolns get better mileage than many of the so-called green cars out there.

leave guns out of the discussion. as far as i know way over 99% of gun owners hurt no one and the teensy fraction of a percent who choose to use them criminally don't care what you, me, or even the cops think about it.

i'm still curious how driving 55 instead of 65, 75 etc will cause less road damage. are the tires hardening from excessive speed heat inflation which is then causing the tread to rip hunks out of the softened asphalt???

"NOBODY WANT'S TO DRIVE THAT SLOW"
That's a statement that's all too obvious. No one wants to pay taxes, and generally, few really want to be told what to do....myself included.
Right now you are. If you think you're not paying more tax in the form of energy prices for security, not developement of energy sources, your naive. 55 mph is a no brainer if you believe in physics. I go by the general conclusions of the NHTSA and not figures for lower mortality rates that that are more attributed to improved safety standards than anything else.
I'm tired of paying the prices we do for EVERYTHING because energy prices are so high and we still treat the middle east like a bunch of gas pumps....Many of us are much more conservative than the Heritage foundation, who represents corporate greed......the rest of us want REAL independence.

I never claimed that you get better mpg at 70 than at 55. I aced physics, both high school and college engineering physics by the way. I also never claimed that driving 55 wasn't a good idea, I do it myself a lot on my commute even when I can legally go faster, my Yaris gets 44~45 mpg for a reason.

The problem is, nobody wants to go that slow on the open highway. Tyranny is nothing but a small group of people imposing their "good ideas" upon the people that they are "liberating". If the majority of people ever wanted to go that slow, and wanted a 55 speed limit, I would have no problem with the 55 mph speed limit. In fact, I used to say, "either enforce your damn 55 mph speed limit or get rid of it". I want speed limits that can be obeyed without being tailgated and honked at.
You seem to want to impose this speed limit on everybody else because you believe this will give you the cheap gas that you feel you are entitled to.
Alcohol prohibition was a "good idea" also and it proved to be a disaster just like the 55 mph speed limit was. Instead of sobering up America, it spawned organized crime and created a wide spread contempt for the law. The 55 mph speed limit was so unpopular that law enforcement pretty much gave up trying to enforce it. It also bred a contempt for traffic laws that still carries over today.

It seems to me that states should be allowed to set speed limits based on road design, geography, and traffic density. If there are exits every 20 or more miles on a flat, multilane highway, then higher speed limits are appropriate. Central Maryland has a few roads where the speed limit is 65. The exits are no farther than 5 miles apart and usually are about one mile apart. Traffic is heavier than anywhere but LA. The roads are typically flat, straight, and 3 to 4 lanes. One can even go 65, even for short distances during rush hour. We are adults, mostly, and can decide for ourselves whether we will break the law or not. Personally, I prefer to obey traffic laws. It's hard to go 55; I use cruise control to do it consistently. It's even difficult to do 65 sometimes. My payoff is a leisurely drive and gas mileage that's better than EPA highway estimates while commuting. Y'all do what you want, but don't whine if you happen to get a ticket.

Maybe I'm stupid . . . but can't engineers overcome the speed limit thing by putting in a higher "top" gear or overdrive? I mean . . . put in a 6th gear or a higher top gear, to drop the rpms at 70 mph? Another issue . . . I started to drive in 1973 and in the mid 70s the first "gas shortage" dropped on us. Actual gas shortages where stations ran out of gas . . . rules that you could only buy gas on odd/even days . . . tied to the last # on your license plate . . . and gas rocketed up from 33 cents a gallon to . . . I think (getting old here) about 75 cents a gallon! And "experts" telling us that we would be out of gas by the end of the century. In my opinion . . . it's all a game . . . and we're playing (or being played) by the folks who own the oil and the gas companies. Don't even talk about gas executives salaries or last years' profits. How should WE view it? Legislation? No way do I want the same folks who own the oil to legislate any further (I mean, look at the tax on diesel). We all vote by the type of vehicle and manner in which we drive. I can't tell you how often I'm passed going 60 mph (in a 55 zone) by a single driver in an Expedition going 80 mph. Can they afford it? We (Americans) view the economy on a "can I afford it today" basis. Just look at the mortgage foreclosure crisis. For me, I can afford what I drive and I drive as much as I want to. But I don't drive an SUV nor do I drive too fast, too often. I keep my car "in tune", watch tire pressure, because . . . . like most of you here . . . I'm a car nut. But legislation? No way . . . who gets to dewcide? Obama? Hillary? McCain? Your local politician? The Senate? Larry Craig? I like the vote I have . . . per gallon as I want ot purchase it. Rocketman btw . . . Happy Easter !!!!!

If it's illegal to go that fast, why should manufacturer's put the 6 or 8 gears in every car? BTW, 6 forward gears are already used in some cars. The Cadillac CTS and STS use 6 forward gears in their automatic gear box and I'm sure other cars do, too. But they are geared to provide good acceleration between 0 an 70 or so.

Running out of oil: We are running low on oil *reserves*. No one knows how much oil there is. And as the price of high quality crude oil goes up, other known sources become viable, like oil shale or oil sands. Those who trumpeted running out of oil either misunderstood what was actually said or had an agenda to push.

Gearing a vehicle too high will actually lower its top speed. The best ratios for maximum fuel efficiency at 55~60 mph cruising are actually too high for maximum top speed. That's why a lot of cars need to be left in 4th gear if you are trying to set a speed record.

Uh , hate to tell you but it's already been done ! Six speed transmissions are available on lots of makes and seven and eight speed trans are also available !

Guys & gals...just ignore this nonsense, this just some idiot trolling for attention. It would be worthy of dialogue if the OP knew what he was talking about. Unfortunately like most petty politicians and control freaks he's just spouting a bunch of dubious statistics....and we all know about them.

Ignore the post and the troll will go away. I have to get on with dropping my Jaguar rear axle anyway....anyone wants to discuss that i.e. CARS you're welcome. If you want to come round and swing a few wrenches and get a little Sunday morning Autoaroma, better still. We have some good real coffee and the totally MConn incorrect bacon cooking for breakfast.

"Never wrestle with a troll, you just get sweaty and dirty and the troll has all the fun"

"Never wrestle with a troll, you just get sweaty and dirty and the troll has all the fun"

Who says sweaty and dirty isn't fun? ;-)

The main reason I believe a new 55 mph speed limit won't save that much gas is the fact that the vast majority of driving done in the U.S. is already being done on roads where the speed limit never was 70. In the last 5000 miles of my driving, I estimate that only 400~500 of those miles were done on highways where I could legally go 70.
Most of the gas burned is being burned in city driving. If we really were serious about saving fuel, how about making it an offense to accelerate towards a red light. How about mandating synchronized traffic signals in urban areas.

I'd be more impressed if you were touting for states and municipalities being banned from fining drivers and instead defining unsafe driving and removing drivers licenses for unsafe actions !