Food for Thought
Over the past few years I have taken to driving the speed limit or less, especially on my long distance trips, mainly to LA and Sacramento. Let me tell you, it’s a lonely place to be, over on the right doing 60-65. You get passed by everybody as if you are standing still. I have found it’s often better to do “blue highway” driving whenever I can, avoiding the freeways and taking the two-lane blacktop scenic routes where the speed limit is 55, traffic is minimal (except for nuts on hopped-up motorcycles) and you get to see a bit of the countryside that most people miss. I can even drive almost the entire distance from San Jose to LA on back roads. It takes longer, but it’s so much more low-key, better for the blood pressure, and I don’t get tailgated by giant SUVs with cell-phone and text-messaging distracted drivers. But the big bonus is my Camry’s gas mileage improves by 20 percent or more over normal pedal-to-the-metal freeway driving.
I first started slowing down to reduce my automobile costs after a trip to Death Valley (one of my favorite places on the planet) a few years ago. I spent a few days in the park driving the speed limit, which is 45. My 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission Camry, that normally gets 30 miles per gallon (mpg) at 70 miles per hour (mph), got nearly 42 mpg while we were driving around the park at 45 mph. Further experimentation at 55 mph yielded 38 mpg, and at around 60 mph it’s 36 mpg. Industry statistics on the relationship of speed to fuel consumption showed that my experience fits right into those findings.
Driving slower to use less fuel is not a new idea. I am old enough to remember when the federal speed limit was lowered from 65 to 55 in the 1970s as a way to ease the “gas crisis” of that decade. I wish we had left it there because if we had, we could have saved hundreds of billions of gallons of the black gold by now. Of course, we know that most people don’t drive the speed limit. However, during that 55 mph period of our history, over time, the average speed of traffic was reduced noticeably with a consequent reduction in fuel consumption by the nation’s drivers as a whole. And that was when gas was significantly less than $1 per gallon and reserves seemed endless.
With gas prices now tickling the toes of $5 per gallon and the astronomically higher US demand—partly due to the proliferation of low-mileage guzzlers and driving too fast—some of our government representatives are toying with the idea of reducing the speed limit again. Newly elected Congresswoman Jackie Speier is suggesting a 60 mph limit and there is discussion in the US Senate about 55 mph. Given that there is little that the cash-strapped, inflation-pounded citizen can do about fuel prices these days, driving slower and smarter is something that we can all do for ourselves with immediate effect to reduce everyday driving costs.
Lowering the national speed limit to 55 mph again makes a lot of sense. The problem is getting drivers used to getting away with 75-90 mph to slow down by 20-35 mph, and getting enough enforcement by the CHP to make sure the average speed of travel on our roads is reduced significantly. Very stiff penalties starting at 5 mph over the speed limit and more widespread enforcement will provide a disincentive to driving more than the limit. The incentives for driving slower are the significant cost savings and safer highways for everyone.
Not only will driving slower and smarter reduce costs and save fuel, but isn’t it the socially responsible and, dare I say it, patriotic thing to do? The only way that we are ever going to rein in our nation’s out-of-control consumption of energy based on imported oil is for each and every one of us to take responsible action. Why not start by supporting a reduction in the speed limit and adequate enforcement to slow everyone down?
Diana
I don’t want to give away my secret routes, but I will say that anyone who has traveled extensively around California or who is armed with a good set of AAA maps can easily do it. There are several alternatives. And, no, I don’t use the Grapevine, although there are back roads over and around it too.
Jack –
Why do people always seem to think that because they found a “great” way to do something that works for them, it should be mandated to everyone? Is there no such thing as personal choice anymore?
Your own story above demonstrates that personal choice can prevail here. You recognized that driving slower saves on gas mileage and increases your wallet, and as a result, you changed your driving practices. Kudos! I’ve done the same as well (not to the same degree, but I at least make an effort to follow most speed limits now…)
Everyone else in America has the same opportunity to make that personal choice on their own. Perhaps you even inspired some reader to do the same as a result of your blog today. Of course, if one chooses not to drive slower, they pay for it with lower gas mileage and smaller bills in their wallets. This seems appropriate to me. Your choices and actions dictate your own costs. Government doesn’t need to be involved. If government is going to start stepping in on this, why stop there? It is scientifically proven that getting anything less than 8 hours of sleep reduces one’s ability to achieve peak performance. Since the US continues to fall behind competitively with other nation’s and the obesity rates continue to rise because everyone is such fat lazy turds these days, perhaps Congress should pass a law requiring a national excercise program and mandated 10:00pm bedtimes?
People need to be able to weigh the pros and cons and make their own decisions based on what works for them. With so many other problems out there to face, government should not be wasting it’s time acting the role of mother.
Mark, you’re so right. I wish more people had your outlook on this. The next time someone complains about the price of gas by all means suggest that they slow down. But we did the 55 mph speed limit before and it was a disaster. I see no reason to go back.
But I’m all for voluntarily slowing down. I do it myself. We just don’t need the government getting any more overbearing than they already are.
Socially responsible laws don’t have any effect on the socially irresponsible; and the socially responsible people don’t need laws to be socially responsible.
We need cops to fight crime, not to stand at the side of the road issuing citations to speeding SUV owners. More feel good, lefty B.S. from Jack, who we can all rely upon to attempt to instill his sense of right and wrong in all of us. He, and Jackie, and Nancy all know what’s better for us than we ourselves do. How can we all be soooo stuuuupid?
But Jack did get it right when he wrote:“driving slower and smarter is something that we can all do for ourselves with immediate effect to reduce everyday driving costs.” The key phrase there is “we can all do FOR OURSELVES”. How did you let that notion slip into your psyche, Jack; that adults can really do things themselves, without the assistance of Big Brother and Big Sister in Washington D.C.?
My thanks to Jackie Speier for having the vision to propose lowering the speed limit, although it may not be popular. Remember when Ernie Renzel was mayor of San Jose in the 1940’s? Several years before, Ernie Renzel, in the late 1930’s selected a site, and arranged for the purchase of land for San Jose Airport. He then pushed a ballot measure for San Jose to purchase the land for the airport. Who would have thought an airport would be needed in the middle of orchards? That’s vision.
In the four decades since fuel supply and demand first became concerns at the consumer level, nothing has impacted consumption as has the recent rise in the price at the pump. In other words, market forces have done what neither the decades long public transit campaign, the demonization of gas guzzling cars, carpool programs, nor the lowering of the speed limit were able to accomplish: they’ve convinced the MAJORITY of people to change their driving habits.
Market forces. Self-interest. The “invisible hand.” Change, without force or fear. Change, without the government passing laws. Change, without the preaching of those “who know better.”
What will be accomplished by lowering the speed limit? Will the number of people who slow down be greater than the number of people who don’t. Will the CHP overnight gain the ability to seriously impact freeway speeds? How much for the new signs, and what part of the transportation budget will take the hit? Will the miles per gallon savings of slower speeds actually reduce fuel use, or will the savings be spent on discretionary driving? How will lower speeds impact trucking costs (rig efficiency, driving hours, etc) and the price of consumer goods?
How would paying a four-tankful fine for doing 65 on Highway 680 make you feel about the law and your government—especially after an hour spent having other cars zoom past you?
The driving public is already reeling from the price at the pump. They’re driving smarter, thinking anew about energy policies, weighing their safety concerns against the miles per dollar cost, and cutting back where they can. They don’t need any more incentives. They don’t need Jackie Speier.
I really have mixed feelings about this idea.
I was in my twenties when “Richard The Great” (sarcasm) approved lowering the speed limit to 55, and I hated it. I was so glad when I moved to CA and found out the CHP did not use radar. What a stress relief.
Now a days I use cruise control between 60-65, and do my best to get great gas mileage. Incidentally, I started doing this the month before we invaded Iraq. I only had $10 on me when I bought gas, and I needed to make that $10 last a week since I only buy gas with cash once a week. Anyway, I did so well I have been driving calm every since. Of course, now it takes a little less that $20 to go one week on gas.
However, 55 sucks. So, I have to vote no on any mandatory lowering of the speed limit.
#3 Mark (and #4 Hugh)
So are you saying that there should be no speed limits, or that a maximum freeway speed limit of 65 is more “reasonable” than 55?
What about the speed limit of 25 around schools and on residential streets?
Speed limits should reflect the design of the roadway and the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, nobody’s in favor of high speed driving near schools or on residential streets. However, if you design freeways for high speed driving and then turn around and legleslate a low speed limit, you’re just inviting disregard for the law. I thought we learned this in the 1970s, but it looks as if we’ll be repeating our mistakes.
I would appreciate it if everyone who does not use their cell phone more than 1000 minutes per month PLEASE REFRAIN from buying a 3G iPhone.
That way I can get mine, and not pay too much for it. Remember, we’re all in this together.
#8-Blue Fox,
I’m with you on having mixed feelings. I try to consolidate my errands to one or two trips, depending on how much I have to do. I follow posted speed limits in the City, but I go 60 on the freeway, in the slow lane. I walk when possible, rather than drive. Myself, and Christian have purchased cars that are more fuel-efficient.
I think that people will do the right thing out of necessity rather than being lawful. I see way too many people speeding past the school next door, on city streets, and on the freeway. I don’t think changing the law is going to make a difference. But like Jack, I agree that we must have rules, and limits because some people are so willful, they need consequences for their stupidity.
Having said that FF brings up several good points. What is it going to cost to replace signs, provide enforcement by the Police, etc.? I think our government needs to provide incentives to companies to discover greener, cost effective energy, not just for transportation, but for energy usage too.
I don’t think that will happen because there are too many companies that will lose money if new sources of fuel or energy are found. Bush is pushing for off shore drilling, and I’m 100% against that, as well as being 100% against relying on foreign oil.
If you ever get the chance to read about a remarkable man who tried to buck politics, huge companies to provide us with alternative forms of fuel and energy, read up on Nikola Tesla. He was a very interesting fellow, as were his difficulties with Thomas Edison.
Jack:
I think Hugh answers your questions well. I would only add that speed limits do in fact have an important and neccessary purpose. Speed regulations and speed limits are intended to supplement motorists’ judgment in determining speeds that are reasonable, proper and safe for the various roadway’s location, surrounding environment (schools, residential, highway, etc..), and specific road conditions. Speed limits are not, nor should they be, designed for the advancement of the “good” social policy of the week.
#11:
Perhaps we should have Jackie Speier introduce legislation prohibiting those folks who use less than 1000 minutes per month from buying 3G phones….
For those interested on increasing gas mileage check out this website on “hypermiling”.
http://www.hypermilingforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3
I tried some of the ideas and got about 32 mpg in a full size 1999 minivan on a recent trip. I don’t think lowering the speed limit is the answer since the current speed limit is not enforced. Try driving 65 mph now (which I do, or less) and cars pass me like I am standing still. It does seem like people have slowed down as the gas prices increase, so when gas is at $7-9 dollars a gallon as predicted in the next 18 months, speeding should be much less of a problem on the freeways.
Would this be such a big deal if we weren’t such tools of the auto and oil industries? Let’s look at the bigger picture, not this knee-jerk stuff that coattails on tragic stories like that of Breanna Slaughter-Eck or a current spike in oil prices. If we didn’t live in our cars, there’d be reductions in ALL things bad related to them.
Wow, Jack, how do you get down to LA on back roads? Do you have to go over the Grapevine? Must be a nice drive in the spring when the trees are blooming.
Pious PC liberals are only too happy to encourage the Government to impose fees and regulations on others in the name of combatting “global warming”. But ask them to alter their own behavior and they’ll raise holy hell.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Dang, I found this late, but still want to comment. One of the problems with NOT involving the government in speed and traffic issues is the discrepancy of speeds. When you have some drivers doing 75mph and other drivers doing 55mph, you will have problems. I’ve not driven in CA enough to remember if there are Max & Min. speeds posted. We do have them here in AZ in some places.
And HUGH, “For example, nobody’s in favor of high speed driving near schools or on residential streets”.
Then why do people still speed in these areas? And pass in school zones? The thing is, most people are in favor of whatever benefits them the most at that particular time. Without Government involvment in traffic, you would have anarchy on the roads. You want to keep government out of your life and how you drive? Then stay off the government highways and streets. By your own patch of pavement and you can drive whatever speeds you want. The governement will not interfere, I promise.
Also MARK & JACK, Personal Choice? What about my choice to feel safe on the roads with my kids in the car, when 33% of fatal car wrecks are caused by speeders? What about the added pollution contributed to the atmosphere by the extra fuel that speeders are burning? Where’s my personal choice to breathe cleaner air?
MARK, “Your choices and actions dictate your own costs. Government doesn’t need to be involved” I’m breathing polluted air, although I drive slower than everybody else. My choice does not dictate my cost. And what about the lives of a family whose car gets hit by a speeder who wants to save 4 minutes on a 30 mile trip by driving 20 mph over 55mph? Somebody else’s choice and action just cost them their life.
I don’t want the government to tell me what to do in my house. But on the road, it’s necessary.
Here’s what my mom taught me:
“Freedon means you can swing your arms all you want. You just can’t hit anybody who doesn’t want to be hit. Otherwise, you just took away their freedom.”
So, I want to feel free to breathe clean air, and drive in a safe envirnment with my kids. Which one of you Americans wants to take that freedom away from me?
Michael #18
Thanks for your comments. To answer your question about max/min speed limits in California, there is only a posted maximum, but many drivers seem to think the posted speed limit IS the minimum and the people who drive that speed are “road boulders” who should get out of their way, no matter what lane they are in. However, I have just returned from a long trip to Oregon over the weekend and I have noticed two very interesting trends. First, there are fewer cars on the road than is normal for this time of year. Second, the average speed on the freeways has dropped and the right lane is sometimes very crowded with cars doing less than the 65 limit. The message seems to be getting through.
Michael –
My post in #13 to Jack seems to be an adequate response to yours as well. To save you the effort of scrolling up, here you go:
“…..speed limits do in fact have an important and neccessary purpose. Speed regulations and speed limits are intended to supplement motorists’ judgment in determining speeds that are reasonable, proper and safe for the various roadway’s location, surrounding environment (schools, residential, highway, etc..), and specific road conditions. Speed limits are not, nor should they be, designed for the advancement of the “good” social policy of the week.”
As to your rights to breathe clean air, I hear you. So does the guy who doesn’t drive at all or chooses electric or other alternative, non-fossil fuel based means of transportation who blames you, as a driver (albeit an admitedly slow driver) for the emissions you produce that he gets to breathe. There is no prize nor is there glory for producing slightly less polluting emmisions than the guy next to you. If it makes you feel better about yourself, go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back. Then get back in your car to go to work, get groceries, drop those kids safely off at school, or whatever it is you do daily in your car, and remind yourself that yes, you too are part of the problem.