You would think that would be the case but it is not.
Posted on 07/12/2008 12:37:30 PM PDT by The Duke
Please pardon this "original material" vanity posting, however all the talk this Saturday morning (and previously) of re-imposing a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit has motivied me to take up the keyboard to make an important point that seems to be being missed in this debate. That point is that imposing such a limit inherently places a value on peoples' time.
Let's do the math. Since both sides have been claiming that this speed limit will result in fuel savings of 2% from traveling at 70 MPH, then let's do the math using those numbers. We'll also use a vehicle that gets 25 miles per gallon, and consider a trip of 100 miles.
If I'm traveling 100 miles at 70 miles per hour, then I'm going to arrive at my destination in 1.43 hours (100/70). If I travel the same distance at 55 MPH then I'm going to get there in 1.82 hours (100/55). The additoinal time to arrive at my destination is 1.82 - 1.43 hours = 24 minutes.
Now, if I'm paying $4/gallon for fuel and getting 25 miles per gallon, then the trip is going to cost me $16 dollars. A two percent savings of that is exactly thirty-two cents.
So, if I'm in favor of reducing the speed limit from 70 MPH to 55 MPH then I'm saying I would be willing to lose right at a third of an hour in exchange for right at a third of a dollar. In other words, my time is worth no more to me than a dollar an hour!
The reality is that this ridiculous 55 MPH speed limit idea isn't about saving fuel or money - it's about asserting control. There are those in our society - mainly those who have gravitated towards politics - who derive their sense of fulfillment by seeing others obey their dictates.
Several years ago when Al (never-met-a-tree-he-didn't-hug) Gore had the floodgates for a river opened just so he could have his picture taken in a canoe, he wasted an amount of water equal to the savings realized by the entire nation's use of low-flow toilets for TWO YEARS. Do you think this clown really cared about the environment? Of course not, the perfumed prince simply got off on the thought that he could force an entire nation to start flushing twice.
The next time you're on the Interstate conduct a little test and slow down to 55, and just get a preview of what the liberal clowns have in store for us all. While you're at it, you might as well bump up the thermostat in your home by a few degrees. Maybe, just maybe, you'll then be motivated to make your own feelings heard by our poltiical "leaders".
Where’s Sammy Hagar when we need him?
I’m 100% sure the 55 MPH speed limit will be imposed on us again. The only way to stop it is to hang the first couple of politicians who mention it.
1) A lower speed limit means a lower death and injury rate. Presumably, your life has some value.
2) There ARE other forms of transportation. You have heard of trains, planes, buses and the like, right?
3) We are at war, and money for oil in foreign hands is one of the weapons against us in that war. If we the people decide that you must sacrifice your precious time, or stop using your vehicle so much, well that's democracy for you.
Other than that, nice post
Congressman Billybob
First in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual"
Can some auto expert figure out the cost of running the engine without the cost of the gas and factor that into the equation? In other words, if it takes an hour longer to get to ones destination, just running the vehicle that extra hour has what cost?
Every minute we spend on the road is one less minute we get to spend enjoying our lives.
Even though I’m a private pilot who can fly above it, let me just go on record as saying that I’ll contribute money **AGAINST** any candidate of any party who advocates going back to a national speed limit of any number.
Let the states set it, or else lose my thousands per year in contributions, as well as have my thousands go to your opponent...and I’m a fund raiser for President Bush.
Democrat. Republican.
I don’t care.
I’ll go to the mat to prevent another national speed limit.
See post #7.
Been there, done that.
Actually, I've put the cruise control on 60 mph. Let me tell you what difference it has made.
Zip. Zilch. None. Nada.
My combined city/highway mpg is 18 mpg. No matter if I drive 60 or 70-75 mph, it's all the same difference.
Why? because today's fuel efficient vehicles are engineered to maximize better mpg's at average highway speeds.
I understand all of that, but their still going to do it because they know what is best for us. If they would just do what we pay them to do we would not be paying these prices.
Being the cynical, grumpy individual that I am, I only have one thing to say. There’s a lot of revenue in them thar speeding tickets!
it’s really an east coast war vs the west.
we westerners drive long distances.
and, please compare euro gas prices; they tax more.
Wasn't there a video or documentary on this. They got three cars and started going 55 along side each other on the interstate. Then they had someone video from an overpass. They showed a film were there was absolutely no traffic in sight, then over the horizon you see a huge pack of cars coming, all in a huge traffic jam behind these three cars going the speed limit.
If you’re also running an A/C for those extra minutes — the “savings” would be even less.
I hope that was sarcasm, because it sounds like you are advocating socialism.
Speed limits should be based on engineering, not social engineering.
lololol.
A lower limit on BAC levels would also mean a lower death an injury rate. But if you've spent any time at all on some of FR's infamous pro-drunk driving threads, you know - without a doubt - that many FReepers are in FAVOR of abolishing all DWI laws.
After all, nobody but MADD nanny-staters are in favor of imposing drunk driving restrictions on us, right?
If we simply reduce the demand curve to a point lower than the supply curve, the bidding dies down and the price declines.
Even though I can't do much as an individual to affect the supply curve, I can do things that affect the demand curve, and which improve my MPG. One is to drive slower. Another is to drive prepared for action. We don't know how bad this is going to get so it may be necessary for a peacetime highway militia to rise up and make sure everybody slows down.
No need for the government to get involved either. All they should do is report to the scene of "incidents" to pick up the pieces, and then retire to their police enclaves along the major highways.
Now remember, I said that's if it gets real bad ~ at the moment it's just a nuisance but it will get worse before it gets better as long as the Democrats are in power.
You can get the same efficiency by add a couple of pounds of air pressure to your tires.
I’m willing to bet if there is a deal made on the off shore drilling with the Democrats a lower speed limit will be part of it. I hope its not lowered all the way down to 55mph. On the interstate that would be like crawling.
You must never have driven between cities in the western states, otherwise you would see the folly in bringing back the double nickel.
I can only assume by your statement above you live in an area with federally subsidized mass transit that includes bus or train and have an airport close at hand. Sorry Charlie, those are not options for tens of millions here in the USA.
I about fell out of my chair when Charles Krauthammer said he supported a 55 mph speed limit.
I guess no one is perfect.
More space is required between vehicles at higher speeds. Therefore, free-flow speed (uf) is a different parameter from optimal speed (uo). Setting a speed limit without consideration of the latter parameter is ignoring road capacity, and the overall efficiency issue. If you've ever been delayed by traffic, you'll realize that not all trips go at the speed limit.
I think that many people have difficulty picturing this....most would likely say that a higher speed limit would allow more traffic to get through a stretch of road in a given amount of time, but it's not true. Perhaps one way to illustrate it is using an extreme--imagine if cars were going 550 mph. You'd see few cars on the road with such distances required between each. If you were one of the lucky ones, on the road, your trip would be short...but most people would be sitting in traffic.
So overall, those on the highway would be costing others a lot, by the points you have made. The key might be a variable limit (e.g., West Texas).
I'm not advocating a "needs of the many" approach, but simply stating facts based on calculus. Disclaimer: Though I did get a very little formal training in traffic engineering LONG ago, that's not the basis for this post, and I am not a traffic engineer!)
John / Billybob
See the video post 20 for the results of traveling 55 mph on an interstate.
I understand about the interstate, and I know this is off topic, but where I live people drive on small roads through densely populated areas at +55MPH. I was hit head-on by a car full of teenagers coming around a bend in a two lane road at nearly that speed. Luckily I had air bags. Totaled the car, but only a broken bone and minor injuries resulted.
If that were true, you'd be driving 90 miles per hours!
Only the little people will have to go 55 miles an hour. The more deserving folks will fly over our heads in private jets.
That's just it -- WE THE PEOPLE aren't being allowed to decide. Between wacko environmentalists and power hungry politicians, drilling for oil and building new refineries has been taken off the table.
It is absurd to force us to accept the negligible savings of a lower speed limit when the most obvious solutions are being trounced.
Your point that a lower death and injury rate may be true, but that is not the main reason being given for lowering the speed limit.
Going 55 might bring out the road rage. Do that factor that stat?
What other costs are you thinking of, regarding "running a car longer"? I think the costs for the trip actually increase, too, as the wear on the car is greater for a shorter trip at high speed than long trip at low speed, barring exceptional cases.
Also, you cannot impute a charge of one's whole life to this calculation. The only amount that can be imputed in a statistically valid manner, for any given trip at highway speeds is
(T / L) x abs(( DP55 - DP70) x V)
where:
T is the time elapsed, in minutes, while driving at highway speeds
L is the age of the person, in minutes
V is the value of the life of the person in question
DPX is the probability of death occuring when driving at X miles/hr.
You will find this number, should you run the calculation and depending on what value you assign to V, to be something on the order of .00001, certainly nowhere near 1 penny pertypical trip.
You’re right, Duke, we do have the power. If we don’t want the federal government to control more and more of our lives, draw the line. Contact your representatives. This should be left to the states, and if the Constitution still mattered, it wouldn’t be an issue.
If it really is about saving lives, why not make it 45? It’s not about saving lives, it is all about control. The objective of the left is to control as much of your lives as possible. And if that is their objective, they have become an enemy of freedom.
Obviously you don’t drive on the national Highways! When have you ever seen anybody drive the speed limit, keep a safe distance etc. Dropping the speed limit will cause a surge in deaths because you will have the slow pokes driving at 55 and the rest driving at 75 or 85 miles an hour. I don’t like needless laws that say they are trying to protect me. I don’t like seat belt laws, helmet laws. This is not the job of government! We have so many laws now you can’t hardly turn around without breaking some law somewhere!
That was an argument when the speed limit was raised from 55 to today's limits. The reports of highway carnage were grossly exaggerated - the death toll didn't rise, and IIRC, it fell. Perhaps people are less fatigued after driving 7-8 hours than they are driving 10 hours while covering the same distance.
They should ground all air travel immediately to save fuel. /sarcasm on.
The average car consumes 38 per cent more fuel at 70mph than it does over the same distance at 50mph. At 60mph it uses 34 per cent more than at 40mph. [And at 100 mph, you use 5 times as much as fuel as at 50 mph!]
___________________________________________________
My maxima gets better mileage going 70 than it does going 55.
I will oppose a national speed limit at the mailbox, at the ballot box, in the jury box, and with a cartridge box.
It’s a dealbreaker.
GAME OVER.
There's a big, big difference between "we the people" and "we the politicians". The people will NEVER voluntarily settle for the 55 mph limit, if it would ever be put to a vote. The politicians, however, will gladly shove it down our throats once again.
Anyone driving 55 on the highway here would be rear ended in about one minute. Average speed is about 75.
Well, Krauthammer also advocated higher gas taxes a la Europe, with refundable payroll tax credits at one point in the not so distant past.
I do get some awfully dirty looks...
When I have to drive my truck to work instead of my motorcycle, I set the cruise control @60 mph. My mileage went from about 375 miles per tank to over 500. The savings is significant, especially when it comes time to fill up that 25 gallon tank. But this is MY choice.
If there was a 55 mph law, I would probably crank it back up to 75, just on principle.
You’ve driven a trip on the highway at 55 mph for comparison? Or are you just using bogus math and comparing apples to oranges, with a 70 mph trip on the highway versus a 55 mph trip on a slower road?
Not to mention the canard of lower speed means lower death rate. The real numbers, not the fake numbers used in the Carter administration, would show an insignificant percentage difference between death rates at higher speeds. If you want to stop the death rates why not lower the limit to 25 mph everywhere?
You would think that would be the case but it is not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.