Driving to Big Bend @ 55mph

[SHANEA]

"I Can't Drive 55"

National speed limit pushed as gas saver:  GOP Sen. John Warner asks for report on speed limit's link to gas saving, fuel prices

[mule ears]

Been there, done that.  It takes a long time to get to Big Bend at 55.  Did it in 1974 and sounds like we may have to do it again.   

As Yogi Berra would say, "Deja Vu all over again"

[BigBendHiker]

Same here.  First trip to BIBE in 1979 was at 55 MPH.



BBH

[Roy]

It adds about 2 hrs to the drive from CC;  it's worth it.

[SA Bill]

Yep! Back in the bad old days, that 55mph speed limit made the drive to BB seem like it took forever! I hope we don't go back to 55mph...maybe 65mph IF it will really make a difference in how much oil we use in the US.
  Bill

[badknees]

More better!

[SHANEA]

We need to nip this in the bud before our Elected Officials decide to change it back to 55mph.

Think of how much money, man time, gasoline, petroleum products, etc. it would take to change all of the speed limit signs in America back to 55mph.  Signs have to be manufactured.  State and Federal government have to order the signs.  Road crews have to drive out and pull down the old signs and put up new ones. 

Plus, this is penalizing the people, which doesn't include me, that already drive fuel efficient cars. 

I don't like it already when I'm driving into Houston or Dallas and have to slow way down several counties out due to all of the pollution that is generated.

Write your elected officials NOW!

House

Senate

[Roy]

Most of the studies I've seen show a fairly consistent savings in fuel:  for every MPH over 55 you drive, you use 1% more gas;  somewhat more over 65.  Look at it this way:  every car that drives 55 instead of 80 uses app. 30% less gas, but takes about 30% longer to get there.   Depends on the vehicle, of course.  My Miata doesn't get anywhere near the fuel savings by driving 55, but my truck sure does.  You can save time or save gas but not both. 
TANSTAAFL.

[beemerchef]

We need to nip this in the bud before our Elected Officials decide to change it back to 55mph.

Think of how much money, man time, gasoline, petroleum products, etc. it would take to change all of the speed limit signs in America back to 55mph.  Signs have to be manufactured.  State and Federal government have to order the signs.  Road crews have to drive out and pull down the old signs and put up new ones. 

Plus, this is penalizing the people, which doesn't include me, that already drive fuel efficient cars. 

I don't like it already when I'm driving into Houston or Dallas and have to slow way down several counties out due to all of the pollution that is generated.

Write your elected officials NOW!

House

Senate

It is a tough call! I think the root of its solution is much deeper... as, "fast" now is the way of the World. Fast food, fast cars, even written language (messaging) has become shorter to make it faster... and so loosing the "smell of the roses".
But that is just me... personally I think "horses" would be just fine! I do understand however your point, totally. Maybe this would be more of an accounting research as to how much it would cost in men~women hours to switch over the signs, etc... versus how much fuel it would really save.
It the meantime, when no cars behind me... I continue going my usual... 45mph!
Be well... Ara & Spirit

[chisos_muse]

I believe in moving forward.....not backward. Nuff said.

[SHANEA]

Hello beemerchef, hope all is well with you.

Tell you what, let's leave it as a personal decision on how fast to drive    If you wish to go 55, then by all means, do it in the right lane.

One thing is for sure, if the speed limit were to return to 55mph, I certainly wouldn't have to worry about making it to PJ before they close @ 6pm. 

I figure in traversing the 689 miles from here to PJ @ an average of 50mph with a top speed limit of ~ 60mph vs. my normal average of 65mph would add 3.5 - 4.0 hours to the trip - taking it from  ~10 to ~ 14 hours.    Add several more hours if going to BBRSP.   

I'm already doing my part in conserving petrol, I work from home.      A tank of the precious will last me 6-8 weeks.  Already have one client that has scaled their operations down to a 10 hour 4 day week so that the employees can cut back on driving and they can save on electricity at the plant.  Apparently many government agencies are scaling back to a 4 day week.    I think it's a great idea.  Of course, those with families, kiddos, etc. - might not think it is a great idea.?

[presidio]

The past experiment with a national 55 mph speed limit was much like that with Prohibition. It doesn't work, isn't supported by the public, wastes resources on enforcement and ties up law enforcement with revenue generation (which is the real outcome of such limits) from speeders.

As before, this would be nothing more than a bandaid approach. Rather than letting market forces promote change, they try to legislate it. Anybody who thinks this will cause gas prices to go down is fooling themselves.

Those that want to drive slower already can and do. Those that don't will pay more and more often. I rarely go above 65 any more. Recently, on I-10 in west TX I had one car who was traveling at light speed pass me 3 times. I presume they were stopping for gas while I just plodded along. Of course, they had more enforced opportunities than did I to stretch their legs, so perhaps filling up more often due to speed is actually a safety thing.

On a similar note, we don't see anyone (yet) seriously suggesting we need to fill up based on license plate numbers or other silly and ineffective props like occurred in the early 1970s. This time there are no artificial constraints on fuel supplies...just real ones...and again, the market this time is reacting to economic forces instead of political ones in terms of local availability.

If Congress would get off its dead a$$ and create an energy Manhattan project or moon program, where the focus is on solving the problem rather than competition among patent and profit influences, we might actually make progress on solving the long-term issues. Neither of those vaunted and successful endeavors would ever occur today and would wither under the present economic and political climate.

Surely, if we could go from pure theory to a working nuclear (nuculer for Texans) device in 3 years under some very dire circumstances, we could see some promising and innovative progress on energy as a whole if there was just a national emphasis on solving the problem rather than continuing the actions that got us into this predicament.

[chisos_muse]

The past experiment with a national 55 mph speed limit was much like that with Prohibition. It doesn't work, isn't supported by the public, wastes resources on enforcement and ties up law enforcement with revenue generation (which is the real outcome of such limits) from speeders.

As before, this would be nothing more than a bandaid approach. Rather than letting market forces promote change, they try to legislate it. Anybody who thinks this will cause gas prices to go down is fooling themselves.

Those that want to drive slower already can and do. Those that don't will pay more and more often. I rarely go above 65 any more. Recently, on I-10 in west TX I had one car who was traveling at light speed pass me 3 times. I presume they were stopping for gas while I just plodded along. Of course, they had more enforced opportunities than did I to stretch their legs, so perhaps filling up more often due to speed is actually a safety thing.

On a similar note, we don't see anyone (yet) seriously suggesting we need to fill up based on license plate numbers or other silly and ineffective props like occurred in the early 1970s. This time there are no artificial constraints on fuel supplies...just real ones...and again, the market this time is reacting to economic forces instead of political ones in terms of local availability.

If Congress would get off its dead a$$ and create an energy Manhattan project or moon program, where the focus is on solving the problem rather than competition among patent and profit influences, we might actually make progress on solving the long-term issues. Neither of those vaunted and successful endeavors would ever occur today and would wither under the present economic and political climate.

Surely, if we could go from pure theory to a working nuclear (nuculer for Texans) device in 3 years under some very dire circumstances, we could see some promising and innovative progress on energy as a whole if there was just a national emphasis on solving the problem rather than continuing the actions that got us into this predicament.

Excellent......

[Undertaker]

The difference in fuel saving is not worth the added time behind the wheel.

[Vince T]

We will likely cut it down the middle when we go out there this week and drive 70.

I experimented with "hypermiling" on my last tank of gas - (If you were one of the poor souls that was behind me on Mopac...sorry) and I actually got 21 mpg in my truck, which has gotten 16 or so since I've had it (17 years!).

I just heard on a Wall Street Journal podcast I get that (and this is generally speaking, I am sure) for every 5 miles you go over 60 mph, you are effectively increasing the cost of your fuel $.30 per gallon at $4.00 per gallon fill up cost.  Interesting way to change the shape of the money to make it a bit more "real".

In spite of all this, I still hear Sammy Haggar belting out "I CAN'T DRIVE - 55!"
Or is that Undertaker singing that?