from the new west blog: energy policy
An Inconvenient Argument: 55 mph
Will Americans slow down? It depends on who they believe.By Jill Kuraitis, 7-25-08
 |
|
 | |
|
If you want to cause a hostage situation at a truck stop, try telling the drivers on a break that a mandatory 55 miles per hour speed limit is on the table in Congress.
It’s not – yet – but Sen. John Warner of Virginia thinks it should be. Warner has asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to investigate if current car technology would mean better gas efficiency with a lowered speed limit.
The last time a national speed limit was imposed by Congress was in 1974 during an oil crisis which had Americans lining up for what seemed to be a gas shortage. The limit was repealed in 1995. Warner pointed out there are studies showing that two percent of American highway fuel consumption a day was saved, and the speed limit saved thousands of lives.
Warner quoted the Department of Energy’s website data, which says, in part, that if a car is going faster than 60 mph, every five mph over that costs the driver an extra 30 cents a gallon for gas.
But according to WIRED, other groups such as the libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative America Heritage Foundation disagree, claiming that 12 years of the 55 mph limit cut fuel consumption just one percent.
The DOE website has other tips for saving gas, one of which is “use air conditioning only when necessary.” Here in the West, we think that’s like telling Easterners they should use mold-killer in their basements “only when necessary.” Driving an endless (dusty) Western highway with the windows down? And at a torturous 55 mph, when there isn’t a car two miles in front or behind you, and the open landscape seems to lend itself to “safe speeding”?
Some westerners would laugh their Stetsons off at that one.
However, and there are some big howevers to this idea, the National Safety Council tells us that higher gas prices which have resulted in fewer cars on the road, and higher seat-belt use have combined to lower traffic deaths significantly. Add a lowered speed limit and tens of thousands of lives might be saved, along with oil and money. And let’s not forget reduced air pollution.
Incidentally, higher gas prices have brought drunk driving rates down, too.
But since trusting information from the federal government these days is a national joke, and trusting information from politically-biased organizations like Cato and American Heritage is just as much, if not more dicey, I predict we’re in for a whole new genre of finger-pointing blame games.
Meanwhile, I am going to drive at a lower speed limit, try to use the A/C less, have the car tuned up, and keep singing at intersections.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Where did this come from???
...............
Nishantha
<a >Addiction Recovery Wyoming</a>
Please don't drive lower than the posted speed limit on two-lanes. Those of us who drive the actual speed limit then have to pass you and all the cars that have backed up behind you.
If you really want to save gas, try driving 10 mph below the speed limit in town - after all, that's where you get the worst mileage.
I bow to your enlightenment.
Seat belts lower your chances of dying in a crash by over 45%.
Reduced speed limits on highways have never been proven to reduce fatality crashes. In fact, higher speed limits seem to have reduced fatalities.
With new engines and low drag body designs, fuel economy at higher speeds is within 10% of the car's maximum.
You should actually read my comments, Jay. I wrote "seatbelt laws did not significantly decrease road deaths." That's because most people already used seatbelts before the laws were passed.
That article says that changing the limit does not affect how fast speeders drive. That is because of lax enforcement. In Arizona, we have speed cameras going up like crazy and the highways that have them have seen reduced speed and reduced accidents. How inconvenient this all must be for you.
>>># Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent. The level of confidence of this estimate is 44 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for this estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 11 percent to an increase of 26 percent.
# Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent. The level of confidence of this estimate in 59 percent. The 95 percent confidence limits for this estimate ranges from a reduction in accidents of 21 percent to an increase of 10 percent.<<<
Those were way down in that link I posted, so I can understand if you didn't make it down that far.
How many studies should I post in order to prove that faster speed limits doesn't increase accident rates? I can find a ton more, after all the insurance agencies were doing them constantly following the recent rise to 75 from 65mph.
As well the study mentioned something that you also might have missed: accident rates go up when the maximum and minimum speed of drivers increases. So maybe you're just going too slow?
You are talking about a law passed without any enforcement. If I suggest a law be passed, it should be implied that I am also suggesting it actually be enforced. For example, if I mention the statistical fact that only 16% of people visiting Yellowstone use snowmobiles but they cause 67% of the air pollution, and therefore snowmobiles should be banned in the park, does that mean that if they pass an ordinance and put up a sign and people to continue to do it anyway, that the increase in pollution can no longer be attributed to snowmobiles? A law that is not enforced is useless of course. Since many in our society care more for getting from point a to point b quickly than they do about air quality, the natural environment, or human and animal life, you have to get them in the wallet. It's happening in Arizona and it will work elsewhere. I doubt that people outside of AZ care less about their money.
As far as a speed decrease causing accidents. That is a no brainer. When I drive the speed limit I always have people on my butt, shooting the finger, honking, etc. They are driving like maniacs and want me out of the way. If EVERYONE drove the limit or slower, the accident rate would decrease and the speed cameras here have proven that beyond a doubt. Speeders are always the problem.
Do you believe that all those that care about the environment speed? You know what I think is funny? When I see a Hummer with an "Abortion stops a beating heart" sticker. They want to save babies, they just don't care about the children that already suffer from asthma and other breathing problems due to poor air quality.
And matt,
>>>Not going with the flow. Good drivers have one habit in common - they don't obstruct the flow of traffic by adamantly driving at or below the posted speed limit when it's clear other cars (and traffic in general) is moving faster. Such drivers mistakenly believe they're in the right, legally speaking ("I'm doing the speed limit!") but in fact they are impeding the flow of traffic, which is also illegal in most states. Safe drivers try to drive within 5 mph of the prevailing speed of the cars around them, and yield to faster-moving traffic if they're uncomfortable about keeping up with the pace or driving a few mph faster than the posted limit. <<<
You are impeding the flow of traffic. A situation that is illegal in most states. Congratulations! Now give yourself the finger and get on with your life.
As well, do you even have to lie about Prius batteries in order to really get your hategasm going?
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-batteries-none-the-worse-for-wear-cga.htm
I'd package that as a hyperlink, but some bright spud at New West decided to break the HTML capabilities.
They are NiMH, Marion, in case you are totally unwilling and/or unable to read that article.
Care to admit your mistake or will you just go on ranting?
If I am driving the speed limit, how am
I breaking the law? I'd love for someone to call the cops and say "this jerk is driving the speed limit and I want to go above the speed limit so he is impeding traffic". That should go over well.
Like Matt, I am puzzled why politicians where you live would pass laws so they can arrest and fine those who obey them, not those who break them. Are there other laws whee you live that follks are fined for obeying?
As well, the impeding traffic laws trump the speed limit laws.
matt, I can't help if you don't understand the law. That seems like an educational problem. Maybe you should try some.
>>>No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law or except when the vehicle is temporarily unable to maintain a greater speed due to a combination of the weight of the vehicle and the grade of the highway. "<<<
From Seattle: http://www.komonews.com/news/20656789.html
>>>SEATTLE -- Even if you're going the speed limit it might not be enough to prevent you from getting a ticket if you're holding up traffic in the fast lane.<<<
>>Washington State Motor Vehicle Statutes, West's Annotated Version, section 46.61.427.
"On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is on which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place."
Note: Interestingly this law refers to speed less than normal flow, not less than speed limit. <<<
How many other states can I find in a quick google search that have these kinds of laws? California and Colorado are two that have upheld the "impeding the flow of traffic" for people going the speed limit, and I'm sure I could find more.
That sound? Thats you losing this debate.
"You mean the speed limit is not a traffic law?" <-- matt
what I actually said: "the impeding traffic laws trump the speed limit laws"
If html worked here I would bold and underline the "impeding traffic" portion of my quote, just to make it a little easier for you.
I stand by what I said. By saying impeding traffic laws trump the speed limit you are implying that the latter is not classified as a traffic law.
50 cars going 80 mph in a 75 mph and Marion going 70 mph in the left lane and creating a hazard. The statistics say that Marion is the danger, not the 50 cars going the same speed. In many states Marion could be pulled over for impeding the flow of traffic. That is what the law states, and what has happened in many places with traffic congestion problems.
So you've been wrong about accident rates at increased (maximum) speed limits and you're wrong about this. Why do you keep it up?
You were right about a law existing that rerwards law breakers and punishes law abiding citizens. I am amazed and replused that such a law to accomdiate A Hole road ragers exists. I am right, however, that reduced speed saves lives, air quality, and conserves resources. The reason the slower car is the danger in your scenario is because of all the other cars drving too fast. Enforcement of the speed limit would lead to drivers driving slower and therefore reduce the danger. So even by the scenario you present, the facts are that driving slower reduces fatality. This has been statistically proven in the Phoenix metro area with the speed cameras. The freeways that have the cameras have reduced fatalities. The problem is that drivers are driving too fast. The counter arguement that slower drivers cause accidents only makes sense if you believe speeders have the right to break the law.
Marion has just created an incredibly dangerous situation. So now you want to scream at the people driving the speed limit?
On top of all of this is that reducing speed limits has a very limited, if not dangerous, effect on traffic for a long period of time, increasing accidents. Most people continue to drive the previous speed limit, reacting negatively to the sudden change, while the anal retentive people attempt to follow the law and create another incredibly dangerous situation.
But please, keep pushing the whole "55 saves lives!". Which is true, but you have to wait a few years afterwards for it to have the desired effect.
If you reduce the limit without enforcing it, then yes, it can be dangerous because of all the selfish people who think their getting somewhere fast is more valuable than my life. If everyone did the right thing and drove the limit or slower, and if those violating the law were punished, then the highways would be safer. Your argument is like the argument that smaller cars are death traps and we should all drive SUVs. The reason smaller cars are death traps is because of SUVs. You are using a circular argument.
For every government statistic you could cite that lower speed limits reduce fatalities, all based on flawed data collection, I could probably come up with ten reports which show the limit has no effect whatsoever on fatalities.
(When I did try to list several, however, I triggered New West's "spam filter." So here's one:)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/11/02/MN65128.DTL
But I'm not expecting this myth to die any time soon.
https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa346/pa34600007.html
Again, if the argument is that slower drivers are a danger because everyone else is driving faster, than this is a circular argument that is easily turned on it's head. It is because everyone is driving faster that the accidents are happening, and even though there is plenty of evidence to support this, it is also common sense. Using your logic, I guess we should just let everyone drive 120 if they please, even through residential neighborhoods. Why not if driving faster is avtually safer? School bus drivers should be required to drive 20 above the speed limit everywhere they go.
http://www.motorists.org/ma/kill.html
http://www.junkscience.com/nov98/peters2.html
Your argument is just as circular, Matt. Following your logic, why don't we lower the speed limit to 3?
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/07/speed_er_saves_1.html
All of these articles apply to highways. I don't know of anybody who is arguing that speed limits should be raised in towns or residential areas.
I am arguing for a reasonable speed limit. I also support obeying the law. That aside, driving slower has other benefits as well, such as cleaner air, less money for terrorists, and less impacts to natural resources. And if you believe in the co called illuminati, you might was well believe in bigfoot.
--------------
smith
[url="http://www.legalx.net"]California Dui[/url
--------------
smith
California Dui