VA Senator Warner is thinking about lowering national speed limit to 55mph. are you for or against it? (assuming there's current, reliable data that proves the fuel saving on a national basis)

personally, I support it... it "may" help lower the national fuel demand by 1 or 2 percent.

also, it will greatly increase the number of tickets that Virginia State Police will write... another words, more money for the state. :)

Just as it was in the 70's, that is a ridiculous idea.

i agree, that's a fucking stupid idea.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

I do not support such an idea. We should just offer tax incentives to people who buy fuel efficient cars (including hybrids and selected alternative fuels) and manufacturers who produce fuel efficient cars. I feel this would have more of a significant impact than lowering the speed limit, which most people would disobey anyway. Worse yet, a lower speed limit would result in a greater speed variance on the highways, which is arguably more dangerous than simple speed alone.

Depends. There is a great speed variance now on the highways. If it's 55 do people drive 65-70? So at 65 is it 70-85?

If Warner got numbers on a change from 65 to 55 they seem to be wrong and savings would be underestimated. Then there is the safety factor with about 4000 highway deaths avoided per year. That's just the deaths not injuries and permanent disabilities.

I hate rent a trucks , U Hauls, and rent a RV stuff since all are usually driven by people not experienced with big stuff.

While I do think 55 mph probably does save fuel, when you factor in the loss of productivity associated with trucking being slower, deliveries being slower, etc, I imagine it would actually have an adverse impact on the economy.

I remember the 55 mph limit well. It stinks. Very few obey it in the
first place and if you've ever driven out west in places like Utah or
Wyoming you can imagine doing it at 55. It caused more problems than
it was worth. Just like Mark Warner.

Old Fart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember the 55 mph limit well. It stinks. Very
> few obey it in the
> first place and if you've ever driven out west in
> places like Utah or
> Wyoming you can imagine doing it at 55. It caused
> more problems than
> it was worth. Just like Mark Warner.

You idiot. It's Republican Senator JOHN Warner making the proposal. Mark Warner isn't a senator...yet.

As for causing more problems, Mark Warner had to spend his term as governor cleaning up the mess Jim Gilmore made of the state budget. Gilmore was a disaster as governor. Virginians won't forget that when they go to the polls in November.

no matter where you are, speed is not the cause for high fuel consumption. why do you think cars are rated for higher millage per gallon on highways? it's because the most fuel is spent from accelerating from a dead stop. stop-and-go traffic, poorly synchronized[sic] traffic lights, excessive amounts of stop signs all cause these.

---

bookfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VA Senator Warner is thinking about lowering
> national speed limit to 55mph. are you for or
> against it? (assuming there's current, reliable
> data that proves the fuel saving on a national
> basis)
>
> personally, I support it... it "may" help lower
> the national fuel demand by 1 or 2 percent.
>
> also, it will greatly increase the number of
> tickets that Virginia State Police will write...
> another words, more money for the state. :)


taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Depends. There is a great speed variance now on
> the highways. If it's 55 do people drive 65-70?
> So at 65 is it 70-85?

you clearly havent driven much on 495. when there is no direct impediment, speeds range from 55 to 85. however, depending on when you drive and what section you are on, you may be lucky to hit 35 MPH. if they want to save fuel, they need to fix bottle necks which cause heavy traffic.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

taxpayer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Depends. There is a great speed variance now on
> the highways. If it's 55 do people drive 65-70?
> So at 65 is it 70-85?
-------------------------------------------------------
Studies have shown that people drive a speed they're comfortable with , regardless of posted limit. On highways, the universal average is around 65, regardless of posted limit. A national 55 will simply result in increased ticket revenue for local districts, which is probably the true motive for this bill.

As for the supposed safety factor of a reduction in speed, keep in mind that a lot of data is suspect because speed is listed as "a factor" even if a more obvious factor was the true cause of the accident. For example, if someone decides to drive after 8 beers, and kills a few people while going 70MPH in a 65 zone, speed will be listed as a factor. Those with an agenda will happily use this data to further their "speed kills" propaganda.

gonzo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> taxpayer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Depends. There is a great speed variance now
> on
> > the highways. If it's 55 do people drive 65-70?
>
> > So at 65 is it 70-85?
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> Studies have shown


Weasel words....


I cringe whenever I hear that phrase

Warner just wants people to slow down so he can keep up. Driving at his age is tough, you know.

On the other hand, bringing back the 55 limit could lead to the biggest comeback in Sammy Hagar's career.

OT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Weasel words....
>
>
> I cringe whenever I hear that phrase
-------------------------------------------------------
Lazy journalism, but then this is a lazy forum. Feel free to read it as "you can Google the data if you're so inclined."

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Warner just wants people to slow down so he can
> keep up. Driving at his age is tough, you know.
>
> On the other hand, bringing back the 55 limit
> could lead to the biggest comeback in Sammy
> Hagar's career.


Unfortunately it will be a cover version by the Jonus Brothers.

Does John Warner even drive a car???

John Warner: suck this





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/06/2008 01:47AM by tomahawk.

Most cars run most efficiently betweem 55-60 mph. Reducing speed limits would also save lives. But of course Amerika's desire for speed is paramount...to hell with conservation...to hell with saving lives...lets just drill more oil. In the end we will get what we deserve....a second class economy!

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most cars run most efficiently betweem 55-60 mph.
> Reducing speed limits would also save lives. But
> of course Amerika's desire for speed is
> paramount...to hell with conservation...to hell
> with saving lives...lets just drill more oil. In
> the end we will get what we deserve....a second
> class economy!


Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> of course Amerika's desire for speed is paramount...

ok, fuck you. when you refer to the american people as a whole in a demeaning manner, you insult the united states and for which it stands.


get out of our country, your kind arent welcome.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Wow. Don't hide your feeling, Gravis, tell us what you really think.

I don't see how driving 55mph can save more fuel than driving 75mph. The higher the gear, the less energy consumed, assuming your vehicle is reasonably aerodynamic.
What really causes fuel loss, traffic jams and death are the idiots that can't merge onto and off of the highways.
I also think speed bumps and humps are a joke and eat up fuel. Ask anyone who has one in front of their house what they think.

BTW, there is no shortage of fuel. There's just a bunch of people trying to get as rich as possible before an alternative form of energy is widely accepted. They know their days are numbered and want to retire with as much dough as possible.

To those assholes that think raising the cost of gas is the best thing to do because it will force people to ride the Metro....Fuck You, too. The Metro can't even handle it's current situation. It always has problems and it's ridiculously slow. If you work with tools, it's not at all an option.

There's a story in today's Post about people stealing gas by syphoning other peoples cars. I was wondering how long it would take before this started happening. Next thing you know, they'll be building a Thunderdome.

Actually most cars do have better mileage @ 55 than @ 75.

However, how'bout building new roads/widening the existing ones instead. This would reduce congestions and increase the average speed. Most of polution happens in stop-n-go traffic and at low speeds. BTW, hybrids are the best at this conditions. But no, they allow hybrids on HOV instead, where hybrids are the least effective compared to conventional cars. Go figure...

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > of course Amerika's desire for speed is
> > paramount...
>
> ok, fuck you. when you refer to the american
> people as a whole in a demeaning manner, you
> insult the united states and for which it stands.
>
> FUCK YOU.
>
> get out of our country, your kind arent welcome.

- Thank you, you saved me the hassle of typing.
My thoughts exactly!!

Raising gas taxes would make more sense. Let the people who want to go fast pay for it more (they already do actually), don't restrict the freedom of everyone for the collective actions of some.

Another glaring example of enlightened government policy.

3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices

Mofo Wrote:
>>> 3 Ways to Lower Gas Prices


Punishing the speculators is an idea I agree with whole-heartedly. Would love to see that. But, it ain't gonna happen. Politicians are too chicken-shit. They'd probably punish them and then end up bailing them out, or something stupid and counter-productive along those lines.


In response to the original proposition- I am absolutely against lowering the speed limit back to 55.

Poor Gravis...you miserable creature....lost your "great" sense of humor? Like I said...the majority of Amerikans want are simple solutions that dont require any scrifice on their part. It's alright for others to go fight for oil throughout the world...as long as it me or my child...dont ask me to cut back on oil consumption..drill, drill, drill! And you Gravis are the best example of the Amerikan I am talking about. It's all about you isnt it? If it isnt my relative who died...who gives damn! If I am not feeling the pain..the pain doesnt exist!

In response to the original proposition _ I am absolutely in favor of lowering the speed limit to 55 mph. It is a small price to pay to reduce oil consumption in cars by 2% and the saving of lives is immesuarable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2008 06:50PM by Vince(1).

"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince(1) Wrote:
> I am
> absolutely in favor of lowering the speed limit to
> 55 mph. It is a small price to pay to reduce oil
> consumption in cars by 2% and the saving of lives
> is immesuarable.


Well, here's an idea, Vince, why don't you limit yourself to 55 mph and mind your own business. Those who pay for gasoline own it and can burn it as fast as they want. Whether or not that's a good decision on their part is none of your concern, since it's not your gasoline.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poor Gravis...you miserable creature....lost your
> "great" sense of humor? Like I said...the
> majority of Amerikans want are simple solutions
> that dont require any scrifice on their part.
> It's alright for others to go fight for oil
> throughout the world...as long as it me or my
> child...dont ask me to cut back on oil
> consumption..drill, drill, drill! And you Gravis
> are the best example of the Amerikan I am talking
> about. It's all about you isnt it? If it isnt my
> relative who died...who gives damn! If I am not
> feeling the pain..the pain doesnt exist!
>
> In response to the original proposition _ I am
> absolutely in favor of lowering the speed limit to
> 55 mph. It is a small price to pay to reduce oil
> consumption in cars by 2% and the saving of lives
> is immesuarable.

We have three times the oil that Saudi Arabia does in Rocky Mountain Shale oil alone! Wouldn't it be nice WHY should we not drill here any make our selves billionaires and have other counties dependent on us for oil and not vice versa.
------------------
Although they prefer not to publicize it too loudly just yet, Shell Oil Company and the U.S. government have taken steps toward tapping into the world’s largest known oil shale deposits using an innovative in-ground heating method.

The Green River Formation of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming “holds the equivalent of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil—as much as the U.S. would use in 110 years, at current consumption levels, and three times the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia,” according to a Nov. 13 press release from the Bureau of Land Management.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2008 12:48AM by Mofo.

But at this point the more gas we burn the more money we send to OPEC and then they turn around and buy more and more of U.S. govt. bonds getting a tighter and tighter grip on the U.S. economy.
Even if all these domestic sites have any substantial amounts of oil reserves it'll probably take years to get out of ground. Maybe get Canada and Mexico to send us more oil instead of the huge dependency on OPEC,you know NAFTA and all that jazz. But I suspect there's some kind of relationship between the Saudi's and the U.S. government which won't result in much of change in current situation unless well more war breaks out in Middle East. Why can't the U.S. launch a program like in Brazil that has them pretty much free from the use of gasoline. (Saw an article in Wall Street Journal recently that a huge oil reserve had been found off the coast of Brazil.) But all these claims of huge oil reserves here or there seem a bit like those medical advancement stories you see on tv all the time. They're just time fillers on the news but large majority of them never really come to fruition. Must be some reason we get no substanial leadership in the energy field. I should have bought some Exxon/Mobil stock cause it's party time in the oil industry.

Vince acts like a Rush Limbaugh caricature of a liberal ... seriously, 'Amerika?' Complaining about our overconsumption without mentioning specific steps you're taking, yourself? Yep, he checks off just about every one of the things a dittohead thinks a liberal should be.

As for oil shale, it is essentially strip mining the Rockies. Also, you end up something like 0.6-0.7 barrels of oil to extract a barrel of oil from these places.

I also have no idea how quick you can extract oil from the oil shale -- and THAT is what matters most. An oil field can be 5 billion barrels, but odds are, you can only get a million or so barrels a day from that field.

I would be all in favor of us developing our own oil supplies (and keeping some of them as an 'in the ground' Strategic Petroleum Reserve), under a few conditions.

* CAFE standards are raised to 50mpg highway.
* Interchanges are built on roads of the Route 28/50 calibre to speed traffic along them. The minor roads should have their lights taken down. By 2050, I would like to be able to head from Fairfax to Arlington on Route 50, head from Dulles to Manassas on Route 28, and head from Dulles to Springfield on the FFX County Parkway without hitting a SINGLE light.
* Roads of the Columbia Pike caliber have their lights timed, adequate right and left turn lanes are put in (e.g. Braddock and Guinea slowed down since they didn't have a right turn lane, not sure if that's been fixed), and the least-used 10% of lights can be removed.

Doing otherwise would be akin to winning the lottery, and then spending the winnings on hookers and blow while wasting the rest.

formerhick76 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doing otherwise would be akin to winning the
> lottery, and then spending the winnings on hookers
> and blow while wasting the rest.

LOL! i like how you didnt include hookers and blow under wasting money. xD


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Well lets see..this entire thread is about one proposal...limiting the speed to 55mph....and formerchick76 thinks I should lay out all the ideas to reduce our consumption of oil! You cant even deal with the simplest of solutions...slow down!

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> > I am
> > absolutely in favor of lowering the speed limit
> to
> > 55 mph. It is a small price to pay to reduce
> oil
> > consumption in cars by 2% and the saving of
> lives
> > is immesuarable.
>
> Well, here's an idea, Vince, why don't you limit
> yourself to 55 mph and mind your own business.
> Those who pay for gasoline own it and can burn it
> as fast as they want. Whether or not that's a good
> decision on their part is none of your concern,
> since it's not your gasoline.

I hold my speed to no more then 5mph higher then the posted speed limit. And this problem is too big too allow people to buy themselves out of it..it affects all of us...our children and our grandchildren. So...NO! I wont mind my own business...I will express my views here...in the voting booth and with my dollars..I donate to candidates and organizations who beleive oil is not worth sending our youth to war for. Its absolutely sick that all of you sit here on your fat asses and can't even consider slowing down on the highways. Talk about whing.....wahhh...wahhhh....wahhhh...I cant go 100 mph in my car...my substitute for a big dic_ cant go from 0 to 100 in 6 seconds....lol, what a bunch of selfish cry babies.

*sigh*


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

Hey Vince1, Don't you mean... Kandidates.

Why is the concept of freedom of choice such a bad thing to you? Why not let the market work? If you choose to drive 70mph vs 55mph then you will have to fill up more often. If you want to save gas, then by god you will. Why do I need the government to step in and tell me how to spend my money. I do not.

Just so you know, Most new cars now have much higher geared overdrive, or more sensitive fuel monitoring technology that allows them the same rpm or fuel consumption at 55 at they do at 70. So again your argument is falling apart.

Every one of your post makes some blanket statement about the American culture as if you know each one of us. As if we all fit in to one category. You say you vote, so you are a citizen too, and by your logic that makes you one of the fat asses that speed 100mph and want a 0-100 in 6 sec car.

I would think you are a democrat, but you are too far left. You seem to be in favor of more government control and less personal responsibility. Less market influence and more unnatural market ceilings/floors.

BUT IN THE END YOU PROBABLY ONLY GOT PAST THE FIRST LINE, SO IF YOU READ TO THIS..... Why don't go fuck your self. I am sick of your shitty comments and horrible arguments.

Take a Stand Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Vince1, Don't you mean... Kandidates.
>
> Why is the concept of freedom of choice such a
> bad thing to you? Why not let the market work? If
> you choose to drive 70mph vs 55mph then you will
> have to fill up more often. If you want to save
> gas, then by god you will. Why do I need the
> government to step in and tell me how to spend my
> money. I do not.
>
> Just so you know, Most new cars now have much
> higher geared overdrive, or more sensitive fuel
> monitoring technology that allows them the same
> rpm or fuel consumption at 55 at they do at 70. So
> again your argument is falling apart.
>
> Every one of your post makes some blanket
> statement about the American culture as if you
> know each one of us. As if we all fit in to one
> category. You say you vote, so you are a citizen
> too, and by your logic that makes you one of the
> fat asses that speed 100mph and want a 0-100 in 6
> sec car.
>
> I would think you are a democrat, but you are too
> far left. You seem to be in favor of more
> government control and less personal
> responsibility. Less market influence and more
> unnatural market ceilings/floors.
>
> BUT IN THE END YOU PROBABLY ONLY GOT PAST THE
> FIRST LINE, SO IF YOU READ TO THIS..... Why don't
> go fuck your self. I am sick of your shitty
> comments and horrible arguments.


Duuuhhh..lets see..is the posted speed limit today based on "freedom of choice"? No..it isnt..it is based on primarily safety factors..so shove your market place argument up your butt! I assume since you are such a great market place advocate that you support the HOT lane proposals? The rich will move in restricted cart lanes while everyone else sits in traffic. Personally I beleive that when you have young men and women fighting a dying to supply us with oil...their blood is not a market place commodity.

So, where is all this oil that we're supposedly getting as a result of our troops getting killed? The amount of oil coming to us from the Middle East has not increased as a result of the war, and the price obviously hasn't come down.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2012 01:16PM by Alias.

All I am seeing from this Sen. Warner is 55 mph saves gas .... GAS ... GAS ! What about the multi-millions of trucks that use DIESEL? He is looking at only one side of the coin!!!! Since 1974 diesel engine technology has advanced so that trucks are spec'ed, designed and built so that the optimum use of fuel is at 65mpg any slower or faster and fuel economy goes down. When these big rigs only get 5.5 - 6.5 mpg average, any change is extremely significant! Figure out how much fuel they use in a weeks distance of 2000 to 3000 miles - truckers are suffering more than anyone else in this country from fuel costs! 55 pmh will hit them in another way - they are restricted by hours of service regulations that limit the number of hours that can be driven in a day. Lower the speed limit to 55 and a trucker can't get to where he has to be in one day. Now he has layover costs, and will be limitted in the number of loads he can do in a week, thus limiting his income even more. Freight shipments will suffer timewise also. These short sighted idiots in Congress go charging ahead without considering all of the repercussions. The Energy Secretary will come up with an uneducated opinion or garbage conclusion from old data. He will probably agree that 55 mph saves GAS but won't even think about how that will be completely offset by increased use of DIESEL. Then they will all pat each other on the back over what a great job they did and convince the rest of Congress to go along with it!

the law hasn't passed or even been in committee, so I think they ARE considering all of the repercussions.

I just want to point out that my car struggles to stay in fourth gear (overdrive) at 55mph. It does just fine at 75 though. What would you prefer, cruising along at 55mph at 3000rpm or 75 at 2200?

Starving trucker and Break are absolutely correct,

Although 75mph is not helping the argument, I do agree with the logic.

Vince, I bought a gallon of gasoline today, poured it out on the sidewalk, and burned it for fun. Just for you. My money, my gas.