Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, we do not need a national speed limit to force people to be more fuel efficient. If they want to drive gas guzzlers, it's their own business. They're paying for the gas. It's not like we're going to wake up one day and their's no more gas...that's not how supply and demand works. Gradually, the price of gas will steadily increase until it become economically feasible to explore alternative forms of fuel, at which point petroleum fueled cars will become out of vogue and we will all have a new form of energy to worry about running out of.
If you can fight back, take a bus or car pool, I know its hard when you're used to being in the comforts of your car. I for one hardly go anywhere anymore, 1 trip thats it.
How do ya like getting gas for your lawn mowers, the riding mowers?
Most people will just do as they have been even if they can't afford it. It will catch up with you, unless you have the money.
What now they are concerned about the speed limits because of gas prices?Hmm what about lives?
Guess nobody was paying attention years ago as they slowly.........went up.
They still aren't paying attention to other things now.
Sorry, don't worry about speed, keep your eyes open on other issues.
I'll support your idea if you support mine. Let's abolish the folly of crusing around at 600 MPH in jets and return to a more fuel efficient 90 MPH passenger rail system.
I like your idea Ron, but that will never happen no matter how inefficient airplane flight is. People will say it's a waste of time on a train. Somehow, that logic doesn't apply in cars - not sure why.
Somehow, that logic doesn't apply in cars - not sure why.
Because jets and trains are a whole different discussion considering a high percentage of Americans do not have access to them. Heck, where I live, taking the bus isn't even an option.
Instead of setting new and lower sped limits we could just reprogram all the electronically fuel injected cars to not use more fuel than needed for 25 mpg. This would result in the larger “fuel guzzlers” going slower and the “econoboxes” able to go 50 – 70 mph.
I think there should be a national speed limit inside metro areas of 60 miles per hour. In rural western states, they should be free to choose their own speed limits.
It is a fact that at speed, drag reduces fuel efficiency. A good example of this is a typical high drag vehicle, like a motorcycle. Most motorcycles get their optimum fuel efficiency at 35-45 miles per hour, and it starts to fall off rapidly above 50. Trucks and SUV's are much the same, while cars are generally more forgiving.
I was reading about a study by an automaker that found a .1-drop in the drag coefficient was worth about 1 mpg at 60 mph. I agree with the motorcycle experience. When I was crossing the country on my BMW it would get about 50 mpg at 55 and less than 40 at 75. The power (fuel use) required to overcome aero drag varies as the cube of the speed.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnulus
I think there should be a national speed limit inside metro areas of 60 miles per hour. In rural western states, they should be free to choose their own speed limits.
I believe metro areas should also be free to choose their own standards.
Ticketing those getting 30mpg @ 75mph while turning a blind eye to those getting 18mpg @ 55mph may masquerade as being politically correct but it has NOTHING to do with conservation, it's nothing but a sin tax/revenue generator.
Ticketing those getting 30mpg @ 75mph while turning a blind eye to those getting 18mpg @ 55mph may masquerade as being politically correct but it has NOTHING to do with conservation, it's nothing but a sin tax/revenue generator.
Right... and the alternative could well be that everybody pays $7 a gallon, or has to buy gas on odd-and-even days, just so you can speed.
There isn't enough compelling interest to allow driving in excess of 60 miles per hour in most urban metros. The time saved isn't worth the increase in gas consumption. If we can reduce our dependence on oil, it is well worth a speeding ticket to people who have no problems breaking the law- last time I checked the Constitution grants no rights to travel at a particular speed. 2 mpg is alot if you average it over an entire fleet. Automakers routinely make compromises in large SUV's and trucks just to tweak out a fraction of that.
Hey, we don't let people dump oil down drains anymore, either.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,350,985 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnulus
If we can reduce our dependence on oil, it is well worth a speeding ticket to people who have no problems breaking the law- last time I checked the Constitution grants no rights to travel at a particular speed.
Where does the Constitution grant the Federal Government the power to set that speed? If not specifically granted it's a state's issue. Witholding funding is nothing but Federal blackmail.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
