What Nobody is Saying About a National 55 MPH Limit

Self | July 12, 2008 | Self

[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".

[IYAS9YAS]

Actually, I remember reports from the "55" era that showed the lowered limit actually increased fatalities. Plus, with people being the way they are today, road rage would skyrocket.

You must never have driven between cities in the western states, otherwise you would see the folly in bringing back the double nickel.

[politicalwit]

You have heard of trains, planes, buses and the like, right?

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.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I about fell out of my chair when Charles Krauthammer said he supported a 55 mph speed limit.

I guess no one is perfect.

[Gondring]

I hate to mention it, but your analysis is incomplete. It leaves out the following-time factor, which is another "individual versus group" issue.

More space is required between vehicles at higher speeds. Therefore, free-flow speed (u_f) is a different parameter from optimal speed (u_o). 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!)

[Congressman Billybob]

Your assumption could not be more wrong. I live at the end of a half-mile gravel road in the Blue Ridge Mountains, 15 minutes from the nearest town, population 1,000. Assumptions are not your friend.

John / Billybob

[Always Right]

Where’s Sammy Hagar when we need him?

See the video post 20 for the results of traveling 55 mph on an interstate.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“I hope its not lowered all the way down to 55mph. On the interstate that would be like crawling.”

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.

[Bommer]

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!

If that were true, you'd be driving 90 miles per hours!

[VOA]

I about fell out of my chair when Charles Krauthammer said he
supported a 55 mph speed limit.

I wonder if, with his physical challenges, if Krauthammer
actually drives a vehicle.

If he's driven around by others and has never needed to traverse
some of the wide-open/low-populations of flyover country,
he may just not have a full appreciation of why driving 70mph
TRULY beats 55mph.
And maybe he hasn't fully considered the old addage:
"Time IS MONEY".

[abclily]

Only the little people will have to go 55 miles an hour. The more deserving folks will fly over our heads in private jets.

[bjcintennessee]

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'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.

[rottndog]

1) A lower speed limit means a lower death and injury rate. Presumably, your life has some value.

However, a lower speed limit will result in more time being spent on the road exposed to danger, thus increasing the risk of injury and death.

BTW, I have heard that death rates actually decreased after the federal speed limit was removed (deaths per miles driven).

[Paul Heinzman]

I CAN'T DRIVE
FIFTY FIVE!!!

[commonguymd]

Going 55 might bring out the road rage. Do that factor that stat?

[Gondring]

What Car? magazine:
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!]

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.

[SAJ]

John, please. 'The people' decide? When does that happen in the legislative process in this nation, eh? In the 1970s, the people decided, quite adamantly, that a 55 limit, esp on roads which were designed for safety at 80+ MPH, was a crock. All that happened, as you should recall, was that people in huge numbers became scofflaws. This is a good result??

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
DP_X 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.

[Crush]

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.

[tallyhoe]

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!

[meyer]

"A lower speed limit means a lower death and injury rate."

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.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

They should ground all air travel immediately to save fuel. /sarcasm on.