You would think that would be the case but it is not.
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".
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!]
___________________________________________________
My maxima gets better mileage going 70 than it does going 55.
I will oppose a national speed limit at the mailbox, at the ballot box, in the jury box, and with a cartridge box.
It’s a dealbreaker.
GAME OVER.
There's a big, big difference between "we the people" and "we the politicians". The people will NEVER voluntarily settle for the 55 mph limit, if it would ever be put to a vote. The politicians, however, will gladly shove it down our throats once again.
Anyone driving 55 on the highway here would be rear ended in about one minute. Average speed is about 75.
Well, Krauthammer also advocated higher gas taxes a la Europe, with refundable payroll tax credits at one point in the not so distant past.
I do get some awfully dirty looks...
When I have to drive my truck to work instead of my motorcycle, I set the cruise control @60 mph. My mileage went from about 375 miles per tank to over 500. The savings is significant, especially when it comes time to fill up that 25 gallon tank. But this is MY choice.
If there was a 55 mph law, I would probably crank it back up to 75, just on principle.
You’ve driven a trip on the highway at 55 mph for comparison? Or are you just using bogus math and comparing apples to oranges, with a 70 mph trip on the highway versus a 55 mph trip on a slower road?
Not to mention the canard of lower speed means lower death rate. The real numbers, not the fake numbers used in the Carter administration, would show an insignificant percentage difference between death rates at higher speeds. If you want to stop the death rates why not lower the limit to 25 mph everywhere?
You would think that would be the case but it is not.
Wanted to post it, for your convenience, but for some reason can't find it on the 'Net. Not looking in the right spot, obviously.
;^)
I do not favor the Federal Government imposing unconstitutional restriction on the states. However, I believe you have entirely missed the point regarding the reason to reduce driving speeds.
The objective is for the nation to consume less by experiencing a fuel saving for all trips by all drivers at all times.
Direct your complaint to the Federal Government for assuming powers not "herein granted" by the Constitution.
An added note, the lowest speed limit during World War Two was 35 MPH.
Not necessarily true. Purdue: 70 mph limits safe as 65 mph
"You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against — then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. Your fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system…that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be easier to deal with."
But I note that it's easy to spend other peoples' money (tens of thousands of dollars per family) on a war that "is required to secure the middle eastern oil flow, yet they are not willing to slow down to keep demand down.
Interesting phenomenon, sociologically. After all, the Iraq War costs could have paid for our foreign oil imports for 15 years...yet people complain about the costs of gasoline going up to $4/gallon. We bought an Iraq war instead of 5,000 gallons of gasoline for each American family, even at current pump prices...is this buyers' remorse coming on?
I highly respect his intellect but Krauthammer doesn’t drive and doesn’t know spit about this.
1. You can go to the netherworld.
2. You call yourself a conservative? I bet you’re pro-mccain too.
3. Fat chance anyone here will vote for you.
Some cars run at a higher RPM at 55MPH than at 65 or 70.
Higher RPM equals more fuel consumed.
I guess the idiots behind the idea don’t understand that concept.
You’ve never encountered a slowing of traffic on the national highways? Wow. You’ve been lucky, and sheltered!
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.