Skip to content

USCA Sidecar Forum

For some extra information about navigating the forum you can go to Forum Tips

Please to create posts and topics.

I can't drive 55...

Page 1 of 2Next

So, the President wants to ween us off of foreign oil. Ok, battery technology better hurry up and improve significantly over the next few years. An electric rig? Yeah, I'm ok with that if it keeps my face in the wind. All torque from 0 to as fast as it will go. But I digress.

I want to start a debate. Who remembers the Arab oil embargo of the late 70s? I do. I remember we broke their wallets with a very simple, all-American response that everybody hated but that worked beautifully: the national 55 mph speed limit. When is some politician going to take his package in hand, stand up and propose we implement that solution again, only this time on a permanent basis for all fossil fuel vehicles? I for one, living in Californial where distance is a critical factor getting from point A to anywhere else, dislike the concept because of the amount of time it adds to travelling anywhere. On the other hand, it significantly reduces fuel consumption, results in significantly fewer roadway collisions and deaths, and really only adds 5 to 10 minutes to an hour's drive. Oh, and let's not forget that it improves our reaction time, giving us a few extra precious seconds to enjoy our surroundings, that ride experience that we so covet. And I can hear my stereo better.

I've been thinking about this and it is about time. I'd vote for it. When do we do it? At least let's get it into the public discussion and compare our current situation to the 70s and see if it is the right thing to do.

The double nickel years were a fiasco and like the present gasohol debacle didn't help mileage or pollution. In the Northwest we are a long ways from stuff and like in the Southern desert it may be a long time in the saddle going from point A to B.
I enjoy out higher speed limits of 70 to 75mph. In Oregon where the limit is 65 most locals are running 10 to 15mph over anyway.
If you want to go slow (like I do often) take the roads less travelled, the byways and secondaries where 50 mph is king and one can stop to smell the roses and take pix.
Optional is fine, mandatory is BS!

Lonnie

I don't know the exact figures but it is scientifically proven that lowering speed lowers fuel consumption. Lower fuel consumption per mile also lowers emissions. No debate there.

That said, the national will to drive 55 mph is just not going to happen without a complete reversal in mindset. As a capitalist society it seems that money is the great catalyst for change.. When fuel gets to a price that we can no longer easily afford I suspect the majority of people will be eager to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles, public transit and other fuel saving practices.

I feel the cheap energy we now consume does not reflect the true "cost" of that energy. Does $2.78 a gallon take into consideration the warming of the planet, and the economic impact that will cause? I know some people do not believe in global warming so lets just keep it to the present situation. Does the price of gas reflect the environmental damage we are now experiencing in the Gulf? BP is going to pay for the clean up...sure.... if they don't go bankrupt first. And is BP going to send everyone in that area a check for the loss of income that is resulting and will continue for decades? Not only fishermen will be affected. Everyone from a waitress at a bar to the local car mechanic will experience an economic impact. How can we even speculate the environmental impact when you realize that all Blue Fin Tuna start their lives in the marshes of the gulf. Is BP gonna send me a check when I buy a can of tuna? And that is just one species.....so really, what is the true cost of energy as we now do it.

I believe a high tax on fossil fuels is a sane solution. When the price is high enough, consumption will go down. The revenue (in my ideal world) would be earmarked for grants toward the development of alternative energy or energy saving research and development and even enforcement of regulations governing the oil industry . Of course, no politician will ever run, or win on a ticket of increased taxes on energy, so we are back to the reality of the market driven society. When it gets scarce and expensive....we will start to conserve...if we don't have a war with China fighting for the reserves that are left. Talk about the cost of energy....what would a war with China cost??

Hack'n - 6/16/2010 10:56 PM

The double nickel years were a fiasco and like the present gasohol debacle didn't help mileage or pollution. In the Northwest we are a long ways from stuff and like in the Southern desert it may be a long time in the saddle going from point A to B.
I enjoy out higher speed limits of 70 to 75mph. In Oregon where the limit is 65 most locals are running 10 to 15mph over anyway.
If you want to go slow (like I do often) take the roads less travelled, the byways and secondaries where 50 mph is king and one can stop to smell the roses and take pix.
Optional is fine, mandatory is BS!

Lonnie

AMEN!

"On the other hand, ...results in significantly fewer roadway collisions and deaths, "

Actually, the Cato Institute reported that the number of traffic accidents rose significantly during the 1974 to 1995 period. The drop in highway deaths since 1974 had more to do with seat belts and air bags than a 10 mph drop that no one actually obeyed.

Here in Wisconsin, the number of cars on the road doubled from 1985 to 2000, and again by 2009, yet the number of accidents per million miles traveled is only up by 3% over that period.

55 mph speed limit? 55? That was a joke and not all that funny. Very few actually went 55 and those that actually did were a real hazard in some areas.
Heck why not just lower the speed limit to 30 and really make a difference

Claude , if you lower the speed limit to 30mph Sarge would be able to keep up with the traffic..............fly

It was an absolute joke here in California. No one, and I mean no one obeyed that law. Within a week after it was originally passed, people were back to 65 ad 70 mph on the freeways. Nothing changed. Maybe there were a few more speeding tickets but that's about it.

Furthermore if you had even thought to obey the 55 mph law and tried it on the freeway, you stood a good chance of getting run over by the other people on the road. Pretty soon, you'd be going with the flow of traffic.

You can legislate something like that but enforcing it is simply impossible. Traffic flows at its own speed, whereever and whenever it goes.

I watched the speech with a group of friends, one of whom was a retired police lieutenant. We got in to a discussion about fuel conservation afterward.

He quoted the statistics I used above. He also said that the government mandated enforcement of the lowered limit meant he had officers staked out on the interstate when he needed them investigating real crimes and answering calls. In our county, the interstate accounts for about 3 or 4 percent of the roadways but he said he had to have nearly 20% coverage to fulfill the mandates.

Hated the 55 mph speed limit when I was a young man. As an older "gentleman" I find myself driving a little slower anyway so it probably would be more palatable.

I've driven our new 2010 4Runner on cruise control set at 60 mph and usually get approximately 28 mpg. At 70 mph I get 22 mpg. I'll bet at 55 mpg I'd get closer to 30 mpg! That's with a 270 horsepower engine.

Our Ford F 350 6.0 ltr diesel gets 27 mpg with cruise set at 55 mpg. Mind you, the F 350 Super Cab weighs 8000 lbs empty. At the price of diesel I drive 55!

As to enforcement back "in the day" of the first 55 mph speed limit photo radar was not available. The officer of the law had to personally catch you and write the ticket. Today with photo radar I'll bet people would be more inclined to drive the speed limit. California's flat broke and Oregon isn't far behind. Think what all those tickets would do for our economy! ! !

Enjoy life.

Karl

In the 70's automobiles did not have the overdrive transmissions that we have today. We run about the same rpm at 70 mph now that we did at 55 mph then. Set your cruise at 65 and you will save fuel. On a diesel you need to watch your exhaust tempature, less than 600 degrees or more than 900 degrees you are wasting fuel regardless what speed you are going.

what turned things around in the 1970s, was when people dumped cars that got 11-18 mpg, and bought cars that got 25-40 mpg, i think the shortage was a scam, here in massachusetts, the story was allegedly, that tankers were sitting off the coast over the horizon waiting for the price of gas to get to the place the oil companies wanted it to be, then came into the city of revere to discharge it. thats probably not true, i am sure the oil companies have our best interests at heart, just ask BP. regarding the 55 speed limit, for a very short while,the mass state police conducted what i believe were called rolling road blocks. in this scenario a state cruiser sat in each lane of any given highway and proceeded at 55 mph, causing convoys up to half a mile and more, 55 no thanks.,

Ok, so some of us don't like it and thought it was a joke. Some of us accept the empirical evidence that says lowering our speed does indeed save gas. What I am asking is are we, as a people facing the certain increase in the cost of, and eventual depletion of the supply of fossil fuel, willing to make sacrifices now in order to buy ourselves the time for alternative technologies to advance sufficiently so as to maintain our way and standard of life? Regardless of whose estimate you believe, we will eventually run out of oil. Some estimates put it around 2030, some later, but regardless of when, the end of fossil fuel is inevitable.

As for the double-nickel, we have enforcement technology available today that was not available in the 70s. We have improved vehicles that get even better gas mileage than did their predecessors in the 70s. Are we willing to make a committment and a sacrifice? Unfortunately, as the negative responses here significantly outweigh the positive ones, my guess is that we as a society are unable, no, unwilling to make even the slightest sacrifice in the face of certain disaster, within some, if not many of our lifetimes.

Common sense would dictate that if you are in the desert and you have a set quantity of water to last a certain period of time, you take pains to conserve your water, not use it to water cacti (I'm being facitious). What is the difference between that analogy and our supply of fossil fuel? Like it or not, I put it to you, my fellow sidecarists, that if we do not make such small sacrifices, taking the lead in the world like we used to, that there may be a time in our not too distant future when we cannot afford, or do not have access to that precious fluid that gives us our source of transportation, enjoyment and relaxation. That is why, in a different thread, I changed my gearing and went back to the stock carb. Not so much because of the cost right now, but because I wanted do to my part, regardless of how small it might be. I'm also driving a little slower...65 most of the time instead of 70, 75 or 80. A small sacrifice, but how many of you grasp this small notion, that a bit of sacrifice now might give us the five or ten years that it will take to design a battery the size of my fist that will run a car 400 miles on a charge and only take two hours to recharge? That same battery would give you a 600 mile range or better on a rig, and do it in a way that is altogether superior to a fossil fuel engine.

I'm not Warren Buffet asking you to pledge 50% of your wealth to charity. I'm asking, do we have what it takes as a people to face a bitter reality and do the tough, not very well liked things that need to be done? I'm betting we don't.

Prove me wrong.

I am betting as a people we don't either. I also would love to be wrong.

In the meantime I try to do what I can. I still use wood as supplemental heat in my passive solar house. I drive a car (Toyata Yaris sedan standard) that gets 42 +mpg even if I do drive over 55mph. Sadly, my sidecar gets only 35-36mpg so really I "should" use the car all the time...but aint gonna. I don't accept plastic bags, at the store, try to buy used, if possible, I try to be aware of the energy I use and try to buy the most energy efficient appliances I can afford. These are all choices I have made since the early 70s during the last "Oil Crisis" (yes I am really just an old hippy). My point is that there are things that we can do besides going 55mph that are effective. Right now they are voluntary choices and I have not noticed a drop in my quality of life because of them. In fact, just the opposite. Saving energy saves money which frees money for other things.

It's a wonderful idea to save energy when you can. Since gasoline has gone up to $3.15 a gallon where I live and I have retired, I have cut my driving down to 20% of what it used to be.

While I applaud personal efforts to conserve, they need to be considered as aprt of the whole picture. Since the advent of the automobile and the national road system, the american lifestyle has been built around easy access to cheap energy. Drastic attempts tp change that lifestyle in one generation may make some folks feel good about themselves, but for many of us, say those in rural areas like myself, it's not an option.

Addiitonally, the people who buy these hybrid cars are getting sold a bill of goods. They are more expensive that a standard automobile because of the extra hardware and the fact that there are not as many of them being built. Add to that, the issue of having to replace the batteries after a period of time and the savings in fuel are simply not worthwhile.

For example, a fellow I know has a late model Prius. It was supposedly guaranteed for 150,000 miles for environmental matters (that would include the battery system). 75,000 miles on the car and the betteries recently tested at 60% strength. When he complained and asked for a new set of batteries, the dealer told him to go pound sand.

If he replaces them himself, he's looking at anywhere from $2,500 to $5,000 for replacements. Take the additional cost of purchase, add to that the cost of replacement batteries and/or the poor resale due to the increasing consumer awareness of the battery replacement issue and you have an economic loser, sometimes called a "White Elephant".

So, based on figures like that, hybrids cars are clearly ahead of their time, of you catch my dfift.

It's nice to conserve but don't look for any relief from anywhere anytime soon with regard to a sound energy policy. It's not in the cards. No one in governemt seems to know much about it.

Prius?
I believe it would be Toyota who told him to pound sand. (At least he's still alive.) lol

Lonnie

One of our neighbors bought a Prius for his daughter to drive at college. She only used it once or twice a month to come home from Madison. The rest of the time she walked and the car was parked. They had problems with the batteries not holding a charge. Two different dealers, one in Madison and one up here, told her she needed to run the car at least fifty to seventy-five miles a week to keep the batteries charged. She was also told to never drive it for less than 30 minutes before shutting it off.

They decided it defeated the purpose they bought it and traded it in with less than 3,000 miles on it. They are great cars for some people. I know a guy who swears he averages over 70 mpg with his. They just aren't practical for everyone.

gnm109 - 6/18/2010 9:48 AM
Addiitonally, the people who buy these hybrid cars are getting sold a bill of goods. They are more expensive that a standard automobile because of the extra hardware and the fact that there are not as many of them being built. Add to that, the issue of having to replace the batteries after a period of time and the savings in fuel are simply not worthwhile.

That is the truth for sure !!

The Yaris has the same gas engine as the Prius, I believe, but without the batteries and is about $10,000 less retail. I consistently get 42mpg and can get as much as 47 if I am really careful.

Another thing with a Prius is the electric engine is good at low speeds but if you drive mostly 45-65 like we do out in the country the gas saving electric hardly ever kicks in.

Add to environmental impact of the Prius the manufacturing of batteries and all the extra components that are requires to save a little extra fuel and I suspect it ends up in the negative column when compared to a Yaris.

scrinch - 6/19/2010 3:41 AM

gnm109 - 6/18/2010 9:48 AM
Addiitonally, the people who buy these hybrid cars are getting sold a bill of goods. They are more expensive that a standard automobile because of the extra hardware and the fact that there are not as many of them being built. Add to that, the issue of having to replace the batteries after a period of time and the savings in fuel are simply not worthwhile.

That is the truth for sure !!

The Yaris has the same gas engine as the Prius, I believe, but without the batteries and is about $10,000 less retail. I consistently get 42mpg and can get as much as 47 if I am really careful.

Another thing with a Prius is the electric engine is good at low speeds but if you drive mostly 45-65 like we do out in the country the gas saving electric hardly ever kicks in.

Add to environmental impact of the Prius the manufacturing of batteries and all the extra components that are requires to save a little extra fuel and I suspect it ends up in the negative column when compared to a Yaris.

Modern smaller gasoline-powered cars can get good mileage. My 2000 Ford Escort consistently gets 28-30 mpg around town and has done 32-34 on the road. It's staying around until I can find something better. It even encouraged me to lose 70 pounds in the past year so that I could fit behind the steering wheel and yes, I own it! No payments. LOL

If you want to go 55 MPH and not worry over anyone wrongfully breaking the maximum speed limit, then just force people to only purchase and drive Urals. We foilists take the back roads instead of superslabs for a reason. 🙂

Your initial premise is wrong, in that you assume that all oil is tied to motor vehicles. It is not and that would not bring OPEC to their knees in the least, but would likely bring us to ours. I don't thnk the 55 MPH limit did all that much in a positive manner back when it was in vogue and mandated. Me, I remember the 70's and I also remember the Carter years in them with his ineptness to accomplish much. Why would anyone ever want to relive that period of time with the current administration leading the charge for anything permenant being considered as a fix of any sort? Not many obeyed any speed limit laws back then, any more than they do at present. Getting more fines or improving methods to issue speeding tickets are issued hardly seems like a good balance point or good trade off in reducing much of anything related to fossil fuel consumption. Thinking the government can fix it with such plans and make it better is sort of questionable logic. They can't even fix the current oil spill crisis, so why think they can fix any reduction plan for oil consumption?

Me, I'd oppose such measures with my single vote to oust the congressmen who supported such. I drive a Ural and probably do so at about 55 MPH most of the time, but most of that time is actually because I want to and not because I have to by some illogical mandate. 🙂

Page 1 of 2Next