Oh you Liberals never stop do you! I refuse to feel guilty about breathing air that the earth provides....and do I dare mention God? I refuse to feel guilty about takeing air from an environment God made. The speed limits are fine the way they are. Lowering speed limits is just another way the politicians suck up the people's hard earned income with King George like greed. Ethanol, peddle cars, etc aren't the answer either because there will always be a politician exploiting what fuels our cars. Proof? Remeber back in the early 80s when everyone was buying up all the diesel fuel running cars they could find? What happened to the price of diesel fuel? Right, it skyrocketed. Not through demand but through taxation. The answer is not getting into an expensive panic and voting for politicians who promise to solve the world's problems on the backs of the people through taxation. More money needs to be spent on self-reliance while preseving our environment with modern science, not depending on foreign sources because of the guilt the sierra club, green peace, etc inflict on us. Like my dad always said (During the Carter years)"If the environmentalists can find a way to honestly conserv the environment without somehow punishing the people, then I'll believe that the environment is in trouble." The speed limit is not the problem. The problem is the state of mind of the driver - the person driving 50 in 75 with a cell phone stuck to their ear.

Just to be clear, not everyone who is opposed to reduced speed limits believes that air is provided by some invisible guy with superpowers.

We were supposed to change to the metric system some 30 years ago. How are we ever going to do that when we won't give up the english system. How about a national speed limit of 105 to 115 kph on the inter-city legs of the divided highway system and 90 kph in the intra-city systems.

I don't see how changing the units makes much difference, the whole SI system thing didn't really work out in the 70s.

SI system?

SI system = Le Système International d'Unités = International System of Units

also known as the "metric system."

Unfortunately the 200,000,000 idiots we have in the US would think that 105-115 kph was a typo for 105-115 Mph.

It didn't work out because the government didn't really commit to it. If they did, the speed limit signs would have been changed then, and the government, the largest purchaser of goods, would have bought only metric on all new contracts.

"It didn't work out because the government didn't really commit to it. If they did, the speed limit signs would have been changed then, and the government, the largest purchaser of goods, would have bought only metric on all new contracts."

You are probably correct, but it's really not very important which set of units we use. At this point, everyone in the world can provide products to either set of units anyway. When the government did require products and services in SI units (during the 80/90s), it was a bit of a joke. I worked on contracts where all the actual design work was done in english units then the final product was converted to SI unit before it was delivered. We would supply engineering drawings with dimensions like: 304.8 cm (10 ft). Of course, the construction contractors would just ignore the SI units and build everything to the english units anyway. Eventually, the government decided to give up.

Been there, done that!

You don't like highway travel, do you? How old are you? I'll bet you're not very old.

This has been tried before and it was a DISMAL failure. Driving on a modern highway at 55 mph is about as much fun as watching paint dry. You'll fall asleep from the boredom. YES, it saves fuel, but so does not driving at all.

I regularly make a 500 mile round trip on the PA turnpike, and I set my cruise control at 75 mph, which is 10 mph above the legal speed limit, but that's the normal traffic flow. I've driven through numerous speed traps and been ignored. The people driving 85-90 mph are the targets of the speed police.

Driving 55 mph on a modern American highway would make you a safety hazard. You might get a few more mpg, but you would be putting yourself and everyone else at risk by making them brake and swerve into the passing lane to avoid you.

I witnessed just such a thing today. Traffic on the PA turnpike was moving between 75 and 85 mph, but there was someone driving at 65 mph or less, probably trying to save some gas. Whoever he or she was damn near killed several people just in the brief time I witnessed.

There was a flurry of brake lights, and several swerving vehicles trying to avoid this "slow poke." Luckily, no one was hurt.

Highways are for getting places. If you don't care how long it takes to get where you're going, stay off the highway and stick to the secondary roads. Enjoy the scenery, which I admit is much better.

I remember making a 1,000 mile car trip during the 55 mph era. I hope I NEVER have to do it again. It was HORRIBLE.

There are many ways to save fuel. My car gets more than 30 mpg, even at 75 mph. I'll bet all the SUVs and "Cross-overs" that pass me on the Turnpike are getting substantially less.

Forget the national 55 mph speed limit. It will NEVER come back.

Ego has litle to do with the speed we drive, at least for most of us.

You'd have to examine this "ego" thing yourself.

Good luck with that.

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

Why is this a good idea? Is it because we want to FORCE people through the threat of the law to behave in a particular way? It didn't work before and it won't work now (isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results the definition of insanity?)

I've said it before on different topics - if you put the REAL cost of driving into the fuel cost - people will decide on their own to conserve - and I bet some really clever folks come up with never before thought of solutions that revolutionize transportation.

Let's not force people - let's provide incentive.

"We were supposed to change to the metric system some 30 years ago. How are we ever going to do that when we won't give up the english system. How about a national speed limit of 105 to 115 kph on the inter-city legs of the divided highway system and 90 kph in the intra-city systems"

Interesting...while on one of the many at that time research committees that look at the obstacles in the way of converting to metrics; we found the the fierce independence of the American people was a huge factor. No amount of explanation of the $$$$$$ lost in trade and commerce had an affect. The millions that have been lost overseas is a willing trade off that we were glad to make....you have to respect that. Industries were not willing to make the short term investments as well until forced to do so by their competition. I think the same applies here...It has to come from the ground up. The popular concensus which is to be respected as the ultimate authority; is NAY to 55 mph. Unfortunately, it is coperate interest that makes the final decision. If YOUR portfolio is enhanced by those decisions, you can find "facts" to back up any choice you make.

Why do some of you people insist on trying to force your preferences on everybody else? And come up with all kinds of nutty make-believe justifications to do so?

We tried 55. It was a flop. If you like doing 55, then drive the secondary highways and do 55. Leave the rest of us alone. Or perhaps you'd like me to force some lifestyle change on YOU that doesn;t work for YOUR life?

Or perhaps you should save these posts for a political forum where they belong, rather than clogging a car repair forum up with them.

The only thing that matters to me about this whole argument is that on a public road, where there are laws (which no one wants to follow), the laws should be obeyed because there are INNOCENT PEOPLE, in every car around you that deserve to arrive alive to their destination. I don't care if everyone speeds. Then everyone is wrong. We have not had a reduction in traffic fatalities in a long time, about 40K every year. And about half of those are innocent people that were just trying to get to their destination. If you don't want to slow down to save gas, then slow down to keep from killing innocent people. Everyone says, I'm a good driver, then follow the laws. I hope you get to where your going safely.

Agree that 40,000 fatalities is 40,000 too many! However, you seem to miss the point other posters are trying to make:

1. There has been a 16 fold increase in the miles travelled since the mid 50s, proving that cars and highways are much safer.

2. Lower speed limits have not proven to lower fatality rates by themselves. Driving 55 on an Interstate literally puts people to sleep.

3. Countries with good road sytems such as Germany, Holland and France have 1/2 the fatality rates on expressways, in spite of much higher or no speed limits!!!!! These countries have very tough driver tests, annual inspection of vehicles, and a lot a ongoing driver public driver ed.

4. None of these countries with high fuel and horsepower taxes has lowered speed limits to save on fuel because of the enormous ecopnonimc losses. (see #5)

5. There is an enormous cost attached to driving excessively slow; wider roads are needed, time travelled could be used working, etc.

1. There has been a 16 fold increase in the miles traveled since the mid 50s, proving that cars and highways are much safer.  

So does that then PROVE the driving over 55 is MORE dangerous. If cars and highways are safer and we've increased out driving mileage...yet accidents AREN'T going down...that must mean that driving OVER 55 is offsetting the improved safety in cars and highways.

2. Lower speed limits have not proven to lower fatality rates by themselves. Driving 55 on an Interstate literally puts people to sleep. 

Actually that's been proven false. It's NOT the speed it's the long straight roads that put people to sleep. Roads that have curves keep people awake because they have to navigate them. Long straight roads put people to sleep no matter how fast or slow you drive.

3. Countries with good road sytems such as Germany, Holland and France have 1/2 the fatality rates on expressways, in spite of much higher or no speed limits!!!!! These countries have very tough driver tests, annual inspection of vehicles, and a lot a ongoing driver public driver ed. 

So is it the driving training/tests that's decreasing accidents or the speed???

4. None of these countries with high fuel and horsepower taxes has lowered speed limits to save on fuel because of the enormous ecopnonimc losses. (see #5) 

So what...what does that mean???

5. There is an enormous cost attached to driving excessively slow; wider roads are needed, time travelled could be used working, etc. 

How much time do you actually save by driving 70 or 55 to work. If you live 20 miles from work...that's a savings of less then 10 minutes...at MOST...

Mike, I was merely putting the 55mph fallacy in its proper perspective. Driver training is a major factor in keeping fatailities down in developed countries with good road systems. And it is he main difference in the US having twice the fatalities on good roads as other developed countries with much higher speed limits. Most modern highway systems are designed for 80mph travel with reasonably good cars. Driving excessively slow is very counter-productive.

On these posts we have heard previously that if we all drive heavy vehicles at 55 mph we will all be very safe and save fuel to boot. Wishful thinking indeed.

With respect to item 5, I use the garden hose analogy; you get more water through the hose if you run it faster. In another reply, I mention that a speed of 80 mph will allow roughly 80/55X100% or 45.5% more traffic to pass a certain point than a 55mph limit. This may not be applicable in New Hampshire, or in your circumstances, but all major highways near cities are already busy; slowing all traffic to 55mph will cause massive congestion. If Germany enacted a 55mph limit most of its already busy 4 lane highways would have to be widened to 6 lanes. These are hugh economic costs.

As Craig58 points out elsewhere, time is money, and those who drive a lot on their jobs would lose much valuable time. Thes are major economic losses; ask any bus or trucking company.

Hope this explains what some of us are trying to say.

As Craig58 points out elsewhere, time is money, and those who drive a lot on their jobs would lose much valuable time. Thes are major economic losses; ask any bus or trucking company.  

True..but driving at higher speeds in heavier traffic will increase accidents exponentially. I have a long commute far longer then most....I don't drive 55..I drive about 70....But as traffic increases (closer I get to Boston)...my speed decreases...Keeping safe distances between me and the vehicle in front keeps my speeds down to about 50 once I'm south of rt 128....If I maintained 70...I'd be drastically increasing my chances of getting in a accident. Widening roads may or may NOT make things better....Especially when you have exits every mile or half mile. Traffic entering and leaving at much slower speeds. For this kind of driving it's far better to have lower speeds...NOT faster speeds.

I also agree that higher speed limits may not be appropriate for congested areas, it does not make sense to apply the same speed limit to Rt-128 in boston as I-70 in the middle of KS. A 55 mph limit may be appropriate in an urban area with exits every half mile, but it is very silly in the middle of the plains with light traffic and an exit every 20 miles. Also, the time saved on a typical NH to boston commute may only be 10 minutes, while it might save an hour across KS. That is the problem with national "one size fits all" type solutions. The folks who make laws might want to get west of the DC beltway a little more often.

Just to address the "economic losses" issues re: bus & trucking companies... folks should be aware that the AP just put out this story on truckers VOLUNTARILY slowing down to save fuel.

http://new...r_truckers