Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Nobody is Saying About a National 55 MPH Limit
Self | July 12, 2008 | Self

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".


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: 55mphspeedlimit; doublenickel; highways; rinos; roads; traffic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last
To: Gondring

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.


41 posted on 07/12/2008 1:19:46 PM PDT by ThisLittleLightofMine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


42 posted on 07/12/2008 1:20:08 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
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.

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.

43 posted on 07/12/2008 1:21:27 PM PDT by Fresh Wind (Tom Manion '08-My only reason for voting this year)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

Anyone driving 55 on the highway here would be rear ended in about one minute. Average speed is about 75.


44 posted on 07/12/2008 1:22:28 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
Bringing it back federally is a problem. However, it's also a ridiculous thing to have the federal government take measures to subsidize wasteful expenditures, too. I assume that if it's not right for the federal government to mandate lower speeds, then it's not right for them to give in and open up federal lands for mineral exploitation?
45 posted on 07/12/2008 1:24:33 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
I about fell out of my chair when Charles Krauthammer said he supported a 55 mph speed limit.

Well, Krauthammer also advocated higher gas taxes a la Europe, with refundable payroll tax credits at one point in the not so distant past.

46 posted on 07/12/2008 1:24:33 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Off balance sheet liabilities...they're not just for Enron anymore!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: commonguymd

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.


47 posted on 07/12/2008 1:25:17 PM PDT by rottndog (Globull Warming "Science" = garbage in, gospel out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine

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?


48 posted on 07/12/2008 1:26:43 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VOA
Time is money. The money you'd save diving slower would barely be above minimum wage for the extra time you'd spend driving.

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?

49 posted on 07/12/2008 1:27:45 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
A lower limit on BAC levels would also mean a lower death an injury rate.

You would think that would be the case but it is not.


50 posted on 07/12/2008 1:29:36 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Crush
Agreed. For a very clear exposition of what the Left intend, and their methodology, may I suggest reading Floyd Ferris' speech to Henry Reardon, on page 411 of the Pocket Books edition of Atlas Shrugged?

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.

;^)

51 posted on 07/12/2008 1:30:30 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
It is ALL about control of us peons.


52 posted on 07/12/2008 1:31:36 PM PDT by Lady Jag ( I dreamed I surfed all day in my monthly donor wonder bra - https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
savings of that is exactly thirty-two cents

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.

53 posted on 07/12/2008 1:32:50 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Not necessarily true. Purdue: 70 mph limits safe as 65 mph

54 posted on 07/12/2008 1:33:08 PM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Crush
Here it is (naturally, I found it **right** after posting to you...mutter...

"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."

55 posted on 07/12/2008 1:33:20 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: rottndog
Yes, the savings is quite significant. But most people do a comparison of highway driving at a higher speed to trips taken on a different road at a lower speed. If they did both on the same road, they'd see the difference.

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?

56 posted on 07/12/2008 1:34:02 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Clint N. Suhks

I highly respect his intellect but Krauthammer doesn’t drive and doesn’t know spit about this.


57 posted on 07/12/2008 1:34:04 PM PDT by Lady Jag ( I dreamed I surfed all day in my monthly donor wonder bra - https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

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.


58 posted on 07/12/2008 1:34:11 PM PDT by Crazieman (Vote Juan McAmnesty in 2008! Because freedom abroad is more important than freedom at home!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

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.


59 posted on 07/12/2008 1:39:16 PM PDT by Darksheare (Why do they call it Salad Dressing when clothes aren't in any way involved?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe

You’ve never encountered a slowing of traffic on the national highways? Wow. You’ve been lucky, and sheltered!


60 posted on 07/12/2008 1:40:19 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-165 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson