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".
You say we should have a national 55-mph speed limit because we are at war and because it will save lives. If so, why not make it 30 mph, as it was during WWII? Thirty mph would save even more fuel and lives.
I understand you making the assumption considering where our society is, but when you assume you make an ass of u and me.
Yes, I have driven my vehicle at 55 and 70 on the same highway, same weather, same time of day with the same level of traffic, because I was curious. It is my nature to test my theories.
So am I to understand that, as a member of Congress, you would vote in favor of setting a national speed limit? Doesn't that bring up the question of whether that is an enumerated right of the federal government?
My choice. Not yours. Not the government's. Freedom almost always sacrifices some security. It's a price most are willing to pay.
2) There ARE other forms of transportation. You have heard of trains, planes, buses and the like, right?
You are familiar with the size of our country and how impossible it is for everyone to use mass trans, right? Not to mention that it takes even more time than just driving 55 MPH.
3) We are at war, and money for oil in foreign hands is one of the weapons against us in that war.
A war that I've helped fight, and I still want to drive 70+ MPH on the highway. Is that OK?
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.
Unfortunately, we're not a democracy, we're a constitutional republic. Guess the government has to find some actual reason for their desire to impose limits on our time and how fast we can drive when the REAL solutions to the problem remain the elephants in the room.
I hope you're being facetious about these comments. Otherwise, we're in far greater trouble than I thought.
That guy wants to be a congressman.
That guy wants to be a congressman.
When the 4 hour ride to the coast turns into a 6 hour ride, the businesses there can kiss my money goodbye.
Well said. The helluvit is that it's for polar bears who don't need the help.
Wanna be. Just blew it.
Where was the “sarcasm” tag?
Your argument is a good start. Let’s look further.
Most of the people in the US, the absolute maximum is 65mph, making the fuel savings considerably less. Even then, that speed limit is only on some interstate highways. On those 65mph highways, a large percent of the travel is done during rush hours when the traffic doesn’t approach 65mph, reducing the savings even more.
Consequently, the people who will do most of the slowing down are on rural interstates at off hours. Who are those drivers? Who is it that drives more miles on interstates at off hours? Who uses the most fuel in those cases? Truckers. So, we penalize truckers the most.
Let’s consider truckers. They have to deliver a fixed amount of cargo in a fixed amount of time.
Question: What happens when we slow trucks down 20 percent?
Answer: We now need 20% more trucks and 20% more drivers to deliver the same amount of goods. While there would be some fuel savings, other costs will increase.
1. Since a single truck and driver can now deliver 20% less cargo than before, the fixed costs of the truck and driver must be applied to that cargo, increasing the price of all shipments by a little less than 20%.
2. Trucking companies will need 20% more trucks and drivers, creating new fixed costs like depreciation, insurance and salaries. These new costs will also have to be applied to prices.
The net increase would probably exceed the fuel savings.
So... While there will be some fuel savings associated with a decrease in the maximum speed limit on interstate highways, the resulting inflation will offset much of that savings. The decreased productivity of all people who must now spend more time driving must also be considered.
A far better solution is to find a way to provide the necessary fuel to keep the speed limits as high as possible. For those applications where fuel savings outweigh the associated costs, the drivers can use the right lane and save money.
And that's the name of that tune.
Congressman Billybob
First in the series, "American Government: The Owner's Manual"
Good! Glad your vehicle seems to be geared well for the higher speeds! Most aren’t.
John / Billybob
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.