Senator John Warner's plan for helping with high gas prices

[Civil War Man]

Drive slower

(AP) An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and possibly ease fuel prices.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.

Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide with oil hovering around $145 a barrel.

Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.

"Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater," Warner wrote Bodman.

Warner asked the department to determine at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered.

Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner's letter but added, "If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production."

The department's Web site says that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated to cost motorists "essentially an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs," Warner said in his letter, citing the DOE data.

My mom's been proposing this for months, to the point of e-mailing our representatives about it. At least now she's not the only person that seems to realize this.

So now, cue the "I can't drive 55" douchery.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, a 100km/h limit wouldn't be horrible, though it would be violated by about 70% of drivers on the freeway on average.

[Mad]

What effect would lower speed limits have on traffic? Heavier traffic wastes fuel, too.

[Gandalf]

Well, a 100km/h limit wouldn't be horrible, though it would be violated by about 70% of drivers on the freeway on average.

Would this be a problem solved by greater punishments for those caught speeding?

You could fund it with the increased fine revenue.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I do 60 MPH on the motorways now, to and from work. Aside from the route to work having a max speed of 60 anyway, meaning I do around 55 instead (the most efficient ICE speed), I still get overtaken by morons.

And I can attest to the claim in last week's Top Gear that the cocks of the road now drive Audis, not Beamers. Always amuses me when someone rapidly overtakes to get to the junction 50 metres away and then slamming on the brakes. You win the prize, friend!

[Surlethe]

What effect would lower speed limits have on traffic? Heavier traffic wastes fuel, too.

Significantly lower speed limits would seem to decrease long-distance traffic as people decide the destination is not worth the travel time. Moreover, even though lower speeds increase fuel efficiency, gas prices will still rise, cutting down traffic as well.

Well, a 100km/h limit wouldn't be horrible, though it would be violated by about 70% of drivers on the freeway on average.

It might be simpler to set the limit at 85 or 90 km/hr, so that average speed is around the desired 100 km/hr.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Maybe design a cruise control that will optimise fuel consumption?

[Rye]

I do 60 MPH on the motorways now, to and from work. Aside from the route to work having a max speed of 60 anyway, meaning I do around 55 instead (the most efficient ICE speed), I still get overtaken by morons.

I'm assuming this is a sign-posted speed and you've not confused the country lane speed with the standard motorway speed (70)? I can understand why people would overtake you all the time if you're going 55 in a 70 zone, that'd be like going 15 in a 30.

[Mayabird]

Well, a 100km/h limit wouldn't be horrible, though it would be violated by about 70% of drivers on the freeway on average.

Would this be a problem solved by greater punishments for those caught speeding?

You could fund it with the increased fine revenue.

It's funny that Marina forgot to add something.

Drivers in western Washington state obey the speed limits religiously. This state has no income tax, so one of the ways police stations fund themselves is with very strict ticketing. Drive 3 mph over the limit, and they'll pull you over. They use undercover cars, too. They will also do things like have police cruisers a mile from each other down the highway, so if one has to pull a car over and the people in traffic think they can speed then, the next cop will pull them over.

In some areas, like downtown Seattle, the police will wink at speeding buses, so if the speed limits are lowered, riding the bus instead of driving looks even better.

[Enforcer Talen]

Out on the primary highway I drive on, the speed limit posted is 55-65. The flow of traffic, however, is 80-85, and Ive done 90 once in a while with no problems.

Having a real 55 speedlimit would cause a bit of culture shock, you might say

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'm assuming this is a sign-posted speed and you've not confused the country lane speed with the standard motorway speed (70)? I can understand why people would overtake you all the time if you're going 55 in a 70 zone, that'd be like going 15 in a 30.

It's a B-road, and I recall they're up to 60 MPH, but I see many doing 70 or even more at times. It's less prevalent now, likely because there's a petrol station on that road with petrol at 122p.

[Coyote]

They probably could/should put the speed limit to 65 out here in the West. Right now it's 75.

55 miles-per-hour in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, etc is just unrealistic. Speed limit should be in correlation to density.

[Patrick Degan]

Well, I suppose it's Warner's turn to have a "D" label appended on captions of his picture by the good folks at FoxNoise.

[tim31]

My dad was in the states earlier this year and hired a car in L.A to drive to Arizona. On the interstate he found himself creeping up to 90-100mph just keeping up with the traffic. In this country there aren't as many roads you could comfortably do those speeds, and they're usually well patrolled anyway.

[RedImperator]

This would be a fiasco on the Jersey Turnpike. As it is, driving the speed limit is a good way to get rear-ended by a tractor-trailer. Lowering it 10 MPH will get a handful of drivers to drive 55, and a much larger number of drivers doing their customary 75 or 80 swerving around them. Strict enforcement won't help; many of the drivers are out-of-state and won't know about the enforcement until they see flashing lights in their rear-view, and at any rate, the State Police have their hands full already keeping the Turnpike's vast litany of extraordinary imbeciles and maniacs in check.

There was an interesting study I read once that said about 85% of drivers on any given road will drive at the speed for which that road was engineered, regardless of the speed limit. So if your idea is to slow down traffic (not a bad idea in many situations), you can't just stick a sign in the ground. You have to re-engineer the roads so drivers take it slower on their own initiative. On urban streets, you can do things like allow parking or make them two-way. I don't know how you'd do that on an interstate, though.

[Mr Bean]

Question:Exactly how many cars/trucks/SUV's have 55 as the optimum speed for fuel consumption?

I know for example my cousin's 2005 Prius(According to the onboard computer) has the "most efficient" speed pegged at 61. Meanwhile the old clunker of a truck my uncle owns seems to get best gas millage around 47 miles per hour.

I understand that my own VW gets excellent millage right up until 70, I don't know where but I suspect 63 as the best fuel/speed ratio. Compared to the 1970 cars when Carter first put this into place is 55 MPH actually to slow for modern cars?

[Knife]

Of all the things to 'save gas' on this one is silly. I'd rather have fed money to help cities coordinate their traffic lights so you don't get caught behind every single on and waste gas idleing. Considering city driving is where you get the worst gas milage anyways.

[Jade Falcon]

I do 60 MPH on the motorways now, to and from work. Aside from the route to work having a max speed of 60 anyway, meaning I do around 55 instead (the most efficient ICE speed), I still get overtaken by morons.

And I can attest to the claim in last week's Top Gear that the cocks of the road now drive Audis, not Beamers. Always amuses me when someone rapidly overtakes to get to the junction 50 metres away and then slamming on the brakes. You win the prize, friend!

Tell me about it, I think there's plonkers who see a speed limit sign and think thats the minimum. There's a big three lane roundabout nearby. On two of the approach roads the speed reduces from 60 to 50 because of the heavy traffic, and when you leave the roundabout theres still a 50 limit for a certain time. 90% of the time you're just off and some plank, usually in an Audi, BMW, or chavved up ricemobile is up your ass trying to force you off the road.

[gtg947h]

Drivers in western Washington state obey the speed limits religiously. This state has no income tax, so one of the ways police stations fund themselves is with very strict ticketing. Drive 3 mph over the limit, and they'll pull you over.

This is why we need to break the "write a ticket -> profit!" cycle and remove the incentive to use criminal charges (which is what traffic tickets are, essentially) issued under the guise of "safety" to raise revenue. There are towns in Georgia where 30-50% (or more) of the annual budget comes from traffic tickets. They get real strict on out-of-town drivers because they know those people won't generally contest the ticket. They also resort to tricks like multiple speed limit changes over a short distance to increase ticket numbers.

Of course, you also have cities that were caught shortening yellow times because revenue from their red-light cameras was falling... but that's a little further off-subject.

[Mad]

Significantly lower speed limits would seem to decrease long-distance traffic as people decide the destination is not worth the travel time. Moreover, even though lower speeds increase fuel efficiency, gas prices will still rise, cutting down traffic as well.

My question is in regards to the daily commute to work, which is where the vast majority of my gas dollars go.

For example, the highways I use to commute to work seem to be pretty much at maximum capacity during the morning rush, and over capacity during the rush home. If the speed limits are lowered, then there is a possibility that the highway will then be over capacity, as the same amount of cars are trying to get through at rush hour at a lower speed. Suddenly, the fuel savings due to velocity could be more than offset by the fuel wasted in stop-and-go traffic every day.

[Sea Skimmer]

55mph worked as a limit in 1974 because car engines sucked shit with carburetors that spewed raw gas right out the tailpipe while no one cared about aerodynamics; today a very great many cars need to drive faster, quite a few as high as 80mph, to get optimal fuel economy. But you know it figures that the dumbshits we call congress have no comprehension that things can change in a mere 30 years

[White Haven]

Tell me about it, I think there's plonkers who see a speed limit sign and think thats the minimum. There's a big three lane roundabout nearby. On two of the approach roads the speed reduces from 60 to 50 because of the heavy traffic, and when you leave the roundabout theres still a 50 limit for a certain time. 90% of the time you're just off and some plank, usually in an Audi, BMW, or chavved up ricemobile is up your ass trying to force you off the road.

In Virginia, at least, it is the minimum in practice. The police here don't even so much as look at you unless you're at least ten over, which is why the recent astronomical fine hikes were so amusing. Jacking traffic fines through the roof doesn't accomplish a whole lot when your enforcement has a different view of things. Crossing into West Virginia the highway speed limit goes up five miles an hour, to 70 (Except where the speed limit gets schizophrenic to make artificial speed traps, but that's because WV police are jerks), and the enforcement speed drops five miles an hour. End result, you drop the speed limit to a unified national level and you'll have done nothing of the sort, due to state-by-state enforcement differences.

[Darth Wong]

What effect would lower speed limits have on traffic? Heavier traffic wastes fuel, too.

Would it make much difference in congestion? Most traffic congestion is caused (ironically) by impatient and aggressive drivers. Their aggressive lane-cutting tends to create disruptions in traffic which propagate through the highways, almost like a wave. When there's an exit lane, they drive in the lane beside that lane, all the way to the end, and then stop to try and force their way in, which in turn forces other cars to slam on the brakes and creates more of those disruptions. And in the city, they create gridlock because they're so goddamned impatient and selfish that they will try to drive through an intersection on a yellow light even though traffic ahead of them is already backed up so far that they'll end up sitting in the middle of the intersection and blocking traffic going the other way.

I've always said that if you could do something to severely penalize these assholes, traffic problems would miraculously improve. It's maybe 1 out of 10 drivers who act like this, yet they cause almost all of the traffic disruptions (not to mention a huge proportion of the accidents).

[Guardsman Bass]

About that - IIRC, one of the local "cities" (technically a city, but really a suburb of Salt Lake City) started using something like a camera attached to a radar. Cars that were speeding had their license plates' pictures taken, and tickets were sent to them. It was eventually canceled, mostly because of people bitching about getting tickets (although that was their fault for speeding) - you could probably set something similar up at intersections to ticket anyone going through a yellow light in a certain few seconds before it turns red.

[Mad]

Would it make much difference in congestion? Most traffic congestion is caused (ironically) by impatient and aggressive drivers. Their aggressive lane-cutting tends to create disruptions in traffic which propagate through the highways, almost like a wave.

Right, in heavy traffic, anything that causes someone to brake will ripple through the highway. Nobody has perfect reaction time, and so they'll probably brake more than necessary to be safe.

Aggressive drivers are definitely likely to be a cause of a wave a brake lights when they cut people off, but there are other conditions that can cause this as well. A pair of heavily-used on- and offramps that share an acceleration lane is enough to cause congestion during rush hour, no matter the disposition of the drivers. Yes, aggressive drivers will deteriorate conditions faster, but conditions will deteriorate even without them simply because someone on the highway will have to slow down and cause the wave of brake lights.

Back to the question: will lower speed limits increase congestion? If a road is pretty much at capacity (most cars are less than 2 seconds away form the car in front of them) at speed x, then the road will clearly be over capacity at speed x-10, and so I'm pretty sure there's going to be more congestion. The same amount of cars want to go through, but less can pass through per time unit now.