Saving HALF of America's gasoline ...this year

[Mike_04GolfTDI]

When America saves fuel, it just makes more available for everyone else. It still gets used.

For an extreme example, imagine if America decided that using petroleum based fuel is bad and everyone starts using an electric car with power derived from nuclear power, solar, and hydro-electric plants. Well now America has to spend all it's time with troops stationed around the world to stop everyone else from using the oil...only America is trying to do this without using any oil! I haven't seen any electric aircraft lately! Good luck with that!

What's going to happen, and what I believe is the best thing that can happen is America uses up all the fuel, then moves on to something else. Remember, SOMEONE is going to use ALL the fuel, eventually. Whoever stops using it first is just the world's biggest loser because those who are still using it will have vastly greater military power (because they'll have the ability to travel great distances...in planes...with bombs...and without oil nobody has figured out how to do that).

So America has to either use the fuel, or sit around trying to stop everyone else from using it instead (if the goal is to not use it).

Do your part, use the oil up quick before anyone else can!

Furthermore, when a country the size of America loses the ability to move people and goods over great distances, why would it stay as one huge country? What if California decides that it doesn't want to be part of the USA anymore? Without any petroleum powerd machines, what is Washington going to do about it? NOTHING! Sit in the white house twiddling their thumbs trying to figure out how they're going to send some troops over to California without oil, that's what. Maybe they'll make a phone call? CLICK---buh bye...

This is even more true for Canada. The country is so huge and sparsely populated that it would effectively not be one country when the ability to travel is reduced. Why do you think Europe is made up of so many small countries? Nobody had the ability to govern the whole thing! Notice how WW1 started around the time petroleum use started to ramp up? WW2 was just another attempt to gain power over the whole continent, and shortly after that, the European Union got it's roots...it's because of oil and the ability to move troops, goods, people etc...

 

[hearts34]

Back on topic from the derailment:

Ikendu, thanks for a great posting.

I wish google would make use of their SMS text message service and bluetooth enabled phones to help people hook up for ad hoc and flexible ride sharing.

Imagine if you just input your morning destination into your iphone google maps application and clicked on "ShareMyRide?" and one or two phones popped up..then you get a text asking for a pickup and time...

Wouldn't that be cool? It would definitely work here in greater Portland.

I will pull out of my earlier post .

To save half of America's fuel this year:

Make 65MPH the maximum speed limit for the entire country and strictly enforce it.

Place 50% of ticket money into a trust that is given as tax credit for new vehicle purchase of autos that get at least 25mpg in city driving and 32mpg in hiway driving.

These two things would easily save 50 % this year.

 

[nicklockard]

hearts, could you delete your posts here and start your own thread with your ideas? (just copy/paste all your posts into this thread and transfer into your own thread.) That way you can start your own discussion and debate your ideas in a clean thread.

Ikendu has started a good thread topic. Please stop polluting it.

 

[hearts34]

hearts, could you delete your posts here and start your own thread with your ideas? (just copy/paste all your posts into this thread and transfer into your own thread.) That way you can start your own discussion and debate your ideas in a clean thread.

Ikendu has started a good thread topic. Please stop polluting it.

The thread topic is how to save 1/2 of Americas' fuel this year. Sharing ideas? Polluting?

 

[Mike_04GolfTDI]

So, I think there will come a time when car-pooling/slugging will be the way of the majority (at least in metropolitan areas); I'm just not sure when that will be. What's the magic number? What percentage of your income has to go to fuel your commute before you decide to forgo the convenience?

I was thinking about this the other day. In Europe, they have had high fuel prices for a lot longer than North America, and they still have traffic jams. I was in France last year and the traffic was insane. Their fuel prices at that time were still higher than ours are now, and it didn't seem to stop anyone. Roads were filled to capacity.

I will be glad to see all the single-occupant pickup trucks and SUV's gone though... I laugh every time I see one. You know they're feeling it. Lots and lots of small efficient cars does not help congestion though... Your commute isn't going to get better, if that's what you're wondering.

 

[Tin Man]

This is a scary thread. Cutting our oil consumption by half would accomplish what? Lower the price of oil so that the rest of the world can use more?

Taxes on the consumer? Now that's a great way to cause more unemployment and devastate the economy.

Drill for oil so that China doesn't get it? Well, how about at least making some effort to increase our meager supply. Not a panacea of course.

Speed limit? You're kidding. That wouldn't help much of anything overall.

I haven't heard any "good" ideas, though, that go to the heart of the problems we have:

1. Oversee rogue future trading (see my recent post at this thread)
2. Allow small cars and fuel efficient diesels like the Europeans can get.
3. Sure, give some tax credits/incentives for energy conserving ventures/individual users.

I can get more, but I need to get back to work, and the drift of some of the posters on this thread has much to be desired.

TM

 

[Mike_04GolfTDI]

I haven't heard any "good" ideas, though, that go to the heart of the problems we have:

1. Oversee rogue future trading (see my recent post at this thread)
2. Allow small cars and fuel efficient diesels like the Europeans can get.
3. Sure, give some tax credits/incentives for energy conserving ventures/individual users.

I can get more, but I need to get back to work, and the drift of some of the posters on this thread has much to be desired.

TM

I have some good ideas:

1. Use up all the fuel...get it over with ASAP

2. Replace all privately owned cars with a system of "road-trains." Basically a train, but on rubber tires so it can be used on existing roads instead of building all new tracks everywhere in America. Power them with electricity derived from nuclear power plants, wind, solar, hydro-electricity, etc... Overhead electric wires will need to be installed to power the trains, but that's easier than installing train tracks everywhere.

No more privately owned cars. Too bad, so sad...it was a nice idea but the fuel is gone. We had a fun time for a few decades. Hopefully my grandkids will never need to know the agony of a traffic jam. Just hop on the "Road Train" and it takes you where you need to go. All very neat and orderly...and efficient.

 

[ikendu]

This is a scary thread. Cutting our oil consumption by half would accomplish what?
TM

So... you don't think that cutting our oil consumption by half would help with our balance of trade or save commuters millions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere in the economy or cut pollution or reduce the national security threat by being SO dependent on foreign oil or reduce congestion on highways or reduce accidents (fewer cars on the road) or... (I think the list just goes on and on).

 

[ikendu]

I wish google would make use of their SMS text message service and bluetooth enabled phones to help people hook up for ad hoc and flexible ride sharing.

I was on a panel of judges in San Francisco last summer for an energy efficiency competition and we awarded a prize to someone that had pretty much this idea! It is time to think differently about how we do things. This is a good idea.

Many phones are now GPS enabled. You could even just press a button to have the phone know where you are and then indicate where you want to go.

 

[nicklockard]

I was on a panel of judges in San Francisco last summer for an energy efficiency competition and we awarded a prize to someone that had pretty much this idea! It is time to think differently about how we do things. This is a good idea.

Many phones are now GPS enabled. You could even just press a button to have the phone know where you are and then indicate where you want to go.

Yes! You don't really need to have GPS even. The iphone can tell your position pretty well by triangulation (intersection of hyperbolas) from cell phone towers. Google maps could just add some functionality like a drop-down list where you select the street corner where you want to be picked up or where you are able to pick up passengers.

I agree--It is time to think differently and pull together as a society.

 

[quartersaw]

All of us who believe in the Rights and Freedoms of the Individual VS the Power of the Government need to be careful on what they want their government to do. I am and Old guy who has been around the world a few times.
Our current Democrate Majority in the House and Senate will turn our desires for cost efficient transportation into a Socialist government program. i.e. Nationwide Mass Transportation. Our desires will be carefully manipulated by Government Officials into higher taxes on everything we do ,to include higher gas taxes. I say this from my life experiences and reading articles from former presidential canidate John Carry, and current articles Hillary and Obama. All include the words Higher Taxes, Mass Tranportation, and the excesses of the american people driving all the time and driving SUV's and P/U trucks.
Prediction Our current government will raise gas taxes to reduce consumption. My experience means Loss JOBs higher unemployment bigger scare for for the government to create more socialism. Answer we need to send messages to our government that the american people are conserving but we want our goverment to start drilling for our own oil resources. I have lived in Saudia Arabia and Iraq. And they question why use their resources when we should be using our own. In most of these countries Oil is their only resources to sell globally. There is no organized manufacturing work force.

..We've already been manipulated by the current thief in the White Hou$e.
Wake up and smell the friggin' coffee!!!!!

 

[Joe_Meehan]

This is a scary thread. Cutting our oil consumption by half would accomplish what? Lower the price of oil so that the rest of the world can use more?

I really hate to continue this thread, but why would that be so bad?

Right now I believe we are using at least twice as much as most of the rest of the world per person.

What really is the goal? To have more marbles at the end of the day or to have enough?

 

[hearts34]

This is a scary thread. Cutting our oil consumption by half would accomplish what? Lower the price of oil so that the rest of the world can use more?

Taxes on the consumer? Now that's a great way to cause more unemployment and devastate the economy.

Drill for oil so that China doesn't get it? Well, how about at least making some effort to increase our meager supply. Not a panacea of course.

Speed limit? You're kidding. That wouldn't help much of anything overall.

I haven't heard any "good" ideas, though, that go to the heart of the problems we have:

1. Oversee rogue future trading (see my recent post at this thread)
2. Allow small cars and fuel efficient diesels like the Europeans can get.
3. Sure, give some tax credits/incentives for energy conserving ventures/individual users.

I can get more, but I need to get back to work, and the drift of some of the posters on this thread has much to be desired.

TM

Lower speeds do equal less fuel used . 15% to 25% depending on vehicle.

The other , higher mile vehicles purchased w/tax credit incentive, that would add more . 35 % might be stretching it , so not so sure these two would save 50% .

Unfortunately it seems like the only thing that would spur us to other technology would be to use up all of the oil we have.

That will be a long time coming .

As to the content of the originator's chain at the beginning of this thread.

I am all for commuting. For close urban areas with good mass transit , this works great. For large companies with 100 of employees , this works great , assuming they are coming from the same outlying areas.

80% of Americans are working for small businesses. Still if folks are coming from the same outlying areas commuting into a tightly knit , dense urban area this works.

Most of the the urban areas in the Southeast are spread across 5 or 6 counties. Also , with the exception of maybe Atlanta ,the mass transit is not very good.

At the risk of getting shot down by Nick for introducing an idea different than slug/commute ,

How about a single rider auto(not motorcycle) like a half a Beetle or Jetta , with a combo electric/single cylinder diesel hybrid for energy?

With an all Aliminum/Titanium frame for light weight and high strength?

And make them in such quantities that the average commuter can afford?

 

[Drivbiwire]

At the risk of getting shot down by Nick for introducing an idea different than slug/commute ,

How about a single rider auto(not motorcycle) like a half a Beetle or Jetta , with a combo electric/single cylinder diesel hybrid for energy?

With an all Aliminum/Titanium frame for light weight and high strength?

And make them in such quantities that the average commuter can afford?

You mean like the VW 1 liter car that is scheduled to go into production for the 2010 model year?

Actual car and rendered production photos:

The 1-litre car is powered by a one-cylinder diesel engine, centrally positioned in front of the rear axle and combined with an automated direct shift gearbox. The crankcase and cylinder head of the 0.3-litre engine are of an aluminium monobloc construction. The naturally aspirated, direct-injection diesel engine employs advanced high-pressure unit injection technology to generate 6.3 kW (8.5 bhp) at 4,000 rpm. This gives the vehicle, which weights just 290 kg, an astonishingly lively temperament.
Fuel consumption is a mere 0.99 litre per 100 kilometres. With a 6.5-litre tank, this gives a range of some 650 kilometres without refuelling.

DB

 

[hearts34]

And one thing lost on me

How is everyone so willing to give up mobility/freedom of movement by ride sharing , but there's no way on earth they'll slow down and conserve fuel. If every SUV out there would slow from 85 to 65 , I guarantee you fuel mileage would increase by 3-5 MPG . If that's going from 15mpg to 18-20mpg , then that's a 20-25% decrease in fuel used. On a mass scale, this leaves 20-25% in the natinwide fuel supply system.

How is this not a good thing?

P.S. And I cannot stand to see an SUV or full size pickup with 1 rider. Somehow there needs to be some kind of intense education in this country about how wasteful this is.

P.P.S. Doesn't bother me a bit to see a Honda civic or Toyota Yaris or small pickup with just the driver.

 

[hearts34]

You mean like the VW 1 liter car that is scheduled to go into production for the 2010 model year?

Actual car and rendered production photos:

DB

Awsome . Now if this could be had for say $15-20K ? I would buy one.

Are they going to be available in the states?

 

[Tin Man]

So... you don't think that cutting our oil consumption by half would help with our balance of trade or save commuters millions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere in the economy or cut pollution or reduce the national security threat by being SO dependent on foreign oil or reduce congestion on highways or reduce accidents (fewer cars on the road) or... (I think the list just goes on and on).

Theoretically, yes, but to get there we would have to way outspend what we save, and still probably keep paying more for fuel if this was the only goal.

In other words, it is pie in the sky. Doing so would require too much cost, too many losses, and too much diversion from other important items that needed to get done.

But the question itself is loaded since it assumes we as a society are wasting half the fuel we use also. Data here would be a good start, such as what our fuel use would be, say, if the automotive fleet was at 40 mpg instead of where it is now. I suspect not much would happen because much of the fuel used is diesel for commercial purposes and trucking.

TM

 

[Tin Man]

And one thing lost on me

How is everyone so willing to give up mobility/freedom of movement by ride sharing , but there's no way on earth they'll slow down and conserve fuel. If every SUV out there would slow from 85 to 65 , I guarantee you fuel mileage would increase by 3-5 MPG . If that's going from 15mpg to 18-20mpg , then that's a 20-25% decrease in fuel used. On a mass scale, this leaves 20-25% in the nationwide fuel supply system.

How is this not a good thing?

P.S. And I cannot stand to see an SUV or full size pickup with 1 rider. Somehow there needs to be some kind of intense education in this country about how wasteful this is.

P.P.S. Doesn't bother me a bit to see a Honda civic or Toyota Yaris or small pickup with just the driver.

Again, this argument is too optimistic. The SUV driver may need it for family reasons and cannot afford a second car, would lose money selling it and still use fuel with a smaller vehicle, etc. The savings will be there - 20 years down the road. Its already happening now anyway.

Who says that these so-called single SUV drivers are using them for high mile driving as do typical small economical car users? What's wrong with having an SUV as a third car and only putting 5,000 miles on it only when necessary? How do you know if that is not what is already happening now?

What's scary is that many suggestions here would only be possible in a police state like Myanmar, not in a free liberal society.

Again, slowing down is a good idea and it is already happening. But lowering the speed limit would bring in more of a police state and show little overall gain.

I'd rather be able to get an affordable vehicle that gets excellent mileage. That would require loosening of safety and emissions regulations as well as tort reform/loser pays in our court system.

Am I the only one who sees that SUV's would not be a problem if we didn't have bumper laws and loopholes allowing for more pollution and less regulated bodywork for SUV's giving them a marketing advantage over station wagons??

TM

 

[hearts34]

Again, this argument is too optimistic. The SUV driver may need it for family reasons and cannot afford a second car, would lose money selling it and still use fuel with a smaller vehicle, etc. The savings will be there - 20 years down the road. Its already happening now anyway.

Who says that these so-called single SUV drivers are using them for high mile driving as do typical small economical car users? What's wrong with having an SUV as a third car and only putting 5,000 miles on it only when necessary? How do you know if that is not what is already happening now?

What's scary is that many suggestions here would only be possible in a police state like Myanmar, not in a free liberal society.

Again, slowing down is a good idea and it is already happening. But lowering the speed limit would bring in more of a police state and show little overall gain.

I'd rather be able to get an affordable vehicle that gets excellent mileage. That would require loosening of safety and emissions regulations as well as tort reform/loser pays in our court system.

Am I the only one who sees that SUV's would not be a problem if we didn't have bumper laws and loopholes allowing for more pollution and less regulated bodywork for SUV's giving them a marketing advantage over station wagons??

TM

All points well taken.

1) SUV vs. minivans - Minivans are safer, higher mpgs and cost less

biggest problem here egos - SUVs are percieved as the cooler ride.

2) police state - we as a society already go 5-15 miles over the speed limit. Most officers allow at least 5 . Why not lower it to 65 and that way people drive 70-75 instead of 85 and 90 ?

We did slow down in late 70s and early 80s Problem is income caught back up to fuel costs and we used existing and new technology to go faster instead of more economically.

I think everyone can agree that all vehicles of today trucks and SUVs included , get better mileage than the old broncos and suburbans of the early 80s. Problem is , we drive 15-20 miles per hr. faster and that uses up the gained mileage from technology.

I started driving in 1984. The Interstate speed limit was 55 mph . Not exactly sure of the dates so I won't quote them , but slowly thru the years the limit was raised to where it is now at 70mph.

Even with our state of the art , fuel injection engines , because of our driving habits , we are using basically the same GPH of fuel in this country as we did in the 70s.

No , I don't want laws and a police state. Just intensive public awareness education campaign on how to drive for economy.

Your right about the tort reform . It is in bad need.

Emissions are already being taken care of at the refinery.

We don't need laws to act responsibly , just education and mutual respect.

 

[hearts34]

The speed limit law is already there , tweaking it downward wont' create a police state.

 

[Tin Man]

All points well taken.

1) SUV vs. minivans - Minivans are safer, higher mpgs and cost less

biggest problem here egos - SUVs are perceived as the cooler ride.

2) police state - we as a society already go 5-15 miles over the speed limit. Most officers allow at least 5 . Why not lower it to 65 and that way people drive 70-75 instead of 85 and 90 ?

We did slow down in late 70s and early 80s Problem is income caught back up to fuel costs and we used existing and new technology to go faster instead of more economically.

I think everyone can agree that all vehicles of today trucks and SUVs included , get better mileage than the old broncos and suburbans of the early 80s. Problem is , we drive 15-20 miles per hr. faster and that uses up the gained mileage from technology.

I started driving in 1984. The Interstate speed limit was 55 mph . Not exactly sure of the dates so I won't quote them , but slowly thru the years the limit was raised to where it is now at 70mph.

Even with our state of the art , fuel injection engines , because of our driving habits , we are using basically the same GPH of fuel in this country as we did in the 70s.

No , I don't want laws and a police state. Just intensive public awareness education campaign on how to drive for economy.

Your right about the tort reform . It is in bad need.

Emissions are already being taken care of at the refinery.

We don't need laws to act responsibly , just education and mutual respect.

Yeah, I don't see the advantage of a higher than 70 mph speed limit except in places like Montana or Utah perhaps.

And yes, SUV's are an ego thing, unless there isn't anything else that can do the towing, hauling, and people moving, since mini-vans barely do some of those things well enough compared to some SUV's.

My ideal vehicle would be two: one smaller 4-5 passenger with 15-20 cubic feet of luggage space and 40+ mpg and one large 8 or 9 passenger with 30-50 cubic feet of luggage space and 7000 lb towing capacity getting 30 mpg. Probably needs to get a diesel engine and some hybrid tech to accomplish the latter. I believe there are vans in Europe that can already do this.

TM

 

[Mike_04GolfTDI]

Awsome . Now if this could be had for say $15-20K ? I would buy one.

Are they going to be available in the states?

Don't forget that the government still wants all the fuel tax revenue...

A typical economy car uses around 6L/100km (around 40MPG) right now. Some use a little more, some (like the TDI) use a little less.

If too many people start driving cars that use 1L/100km then they'll have to increase fuel taxes to the point where you can ONLY afford to drive an efficient car like that.

Sounds great, until you think about truckers moving goods. Are they going to pay $25/gallon? Okay, so now we give the truckers a huge discount on fuel so they pay $5/gallon. Great. Now they decide that driving a truck sucks so they use their discount to sell black-market fuel to people at $15/gallon instead of driving a truck. All the truckers become black-market fuel dealers because they can get it cheaper than anyone else. Now the government has to either take away their discount, or spend even more money prosecuting all of them (it'll be like the war on drugs...that's working so well).

The government liked having one fuel for truckers, and one fuel for consumers. This was convenient, and good for the economy. That's why diesel passenger cars have been kept from becomming too popular. VW selling TDI's in spite of all the pressure not to, was obviously an evil German plot to ruin the US economy. Probably revenge for WWII. Give the people diesel cars, and they will mess up the US economy. I'm only half joking...it does seem to have almost worked! This was the time we were supposed to get more diesel cars, from all manufacturers. Is it just a coincidence that the price of diesel fuel skyrocketed JUST around the time that this was supposedly going to happen?

 

[Tin Man]

Apparently diesel is in high demand world-wide so US refineries are profiting from exporting it. ULSD was responsible, since this was not possible with the LSD fuel.

ANALYSIS-Exports keep U.S. diesel prices above gasoline

TM

 

[Drivbiwire]

The speed limit law is already there , tweaking it downward wont' create a police state.

Then by all means drive slower and STAY THE %$&^ out of the passing lane!

Speed limits are nothing more than a "speed tax" sometimes you just gotta pay it.

I am all for abolishing the speed limits and let the drivers sort it out. Instead issue tickets to cars that are blocking the left lane for impeeding traffic and then execute them-on the spot! This is a quick sure fire way to lower fuel consumption.

You are free to drive as slow as you like. If 55mph is too fast for your pocket bookt the get off the highway and take a side road where you can drive 35, still too fast for you put a nice orange triangle on the back of your car and drive 5 or even a mind numbing 10mph.

Limits were all meant to be broken, people that want a lowered speed limit will only find that more people than ever are breaking the speed limit so what does it prove? Sure you can double the police force to try to enforce it but again is that what we really need more cops patrolling the highways bogging down traffic anymore than it is?

Speeds are like the economy, when fuel gets high enough people will drive whatever speed that is dictated by the cost of that speed.

The fact is slowing down does NOT reduce costs when all factors are taken into account. Time is money, if the value of YOUR time is low then don't presume that its the same case for everybody else.

Time is money, speed is life!

DB

 

[hearts34]

Then by all means drive slower and STAY THE %$&^ out of the passing lane!

Speed limits are nothing more than a "speed tax" sometimes you just gotta pay it.

I am all for abolishing the speed limits and let the drivers sort it out. Instead issue tickets to cars that are blocking the left lane for impeeding traffic and then execute them-on the spot! This is a quick sure fire way to lower fuel consumption.

You are free to drive as slow as you like. If 55mph is too fast for your pocket bookt the get off the highway and take a side road where you can drive 35, still too fast for you put a nice orange triangle on the back of your car and drive 5 or even a mind numbing 10mph.

Limits were all meant to be broken, people that want a lowered speed limit will only find that more people than ever are breaking the speed limit so what does it prove? Sure you can double the police force to try to enforce it but again is that what we really need more cops patrolling the highways bogging down traffic anymore than it is?

Speeds are like the economy, when fuel gets high enough people will drive whatever speed that is dictated by the cost of that speed.

The fact is slowing down does NOT reduce costs when all factors are taken into account. Time is money, if the value of YOUR time is low then don't presume that its the same case for everybody else.

Time is money, speed is life!

DB

This is not in the spirit of saving half of America's fuel.

yeah, my time's so important I gotta hurry and get home so I can park my fat @@#$# on the couch.

Give me a break!

EVERYONE for the most part drives 10-15 miles above the posted limit. People that are driving in the left lane no matter how fast they are going should be ticketed PERIOD. This is not a drive lane . It is a pass lane and an emergency lane.

I don't want to force anyone to do anything. Just don't expect the price of fuel to decrease until supply slows.

That can happen two ways and both have already been adequately discussed.

Increase supply or conserve.

And for every one money trip out there on the road , there are ten that are , "I got up late so I gotta drive 90 to get to work." Or "I'm gonna miss my favorite TV show if I don't drive 90 to get home."

No one said anything about 35 or 10 or 5.

55mph to 65mph . That's reasonable .

On rural interstates , nothing wrong with 75 or even 80 .
(Not gonna cut 1/2 of America's fuel this way though)

To say that slowing down doesn't save fuel is to ignore obvious facts. Engine's consume less fuel due to less HP being generated , along with the decrease in wind resistence when driving slower.

The fact that you choose to ignore this well observed, practiced and documented fact doesn't make it not true.

15 or 20 extra minutes results in an extra 1/2 gallon to 1 gallon of fuel . So it's an extra $1.00 to $2.00 in your pocket every time you practice it .

What you have stated shows our problem all to well .

Conserving is for everyone else . Not me buddy , I'm too important. LOL

 

[Suns_PSD]

How about a different color license plate for vehicles that get REAL good mpg (over 40 mpg for instance) allowing them to legally travel 10 mph faster on interstates and 5 mph faster everywhere else? This would include motorcycles and other high mileage vehicles.

It's tax free and it would easily encourage the population in masses to go switch to high mpg vehicles.

It's hard to only drive 55 mph in a modern car when they can do 90 mph so safely and easily. In my F250 however I've gotten quite good at putting the cruise control at 63 mph which seems incredibly slow.

BTW, in West Texas on I-10 for several 100 miles the actual speed limit is 80 mph!

 

[Drivbiwire]

I have a solution, raise the taxes so fuel costs $6.00-$7.00 per gallon, abolish the speed limit and let the drivers determine the best speed to drive.

This past week when I was driving down the Autobahn, I had a blast driving at 110mph despite fuel costing $9.00 per gallon. I have no heartburn with those cars in the right lane driving at whatever speed they found appropriate.

DB

 

[hearts34]

It's hard to only drive 55 mph in a modern car when they can do 90 mph so safely and easily. In my F250 however I've gotten quite good at putting the cruise control at 63 mph which seems incredibly slow.

BTW, in West Texas on I-10 for several 100 miles the actual speed limit is 80 mph!

You got that right! It takes extreme discipline to drive lower than 65mph.

I enjoy doing 75-80 , but have been trying to do my part and drive 60mph or less recently. And I stay in the right lane.

To do this I have been choosing the state route over the Interstate as it is posted 65MPH most places.

I also do this out of respect for those who want to go 70 plus mph on the Interstate.

 

[Tin Man]

Then by all means drive slower and STAY THE %$&^ out of the passing lane!

Speed limits are nothing more than a "speed tax" sometimes you just gotta pay it.

I am all for abolishing the speed limits and let the drivers sort it out. Instead issue tickets to cars that are blocking the left lane for impeding traffic and then execute them-on the spot! This is a quick sure fire way to lower fuel consumption.

You are free to drive as slow as you like. If 55mph is too fast for your pocket book the get off the highway and take a side road where you can drive 35, still too fast for you put a nice orange triangle on the back of your car and drive 5 or even a mind numbing 10mph.

Limits were all meant to be broken, people that want a lowered speed limit will only find that more people than ever are breaking the speed limit so what does it prove? Sure you can double the police force to try to enforce it but again is that what we really need more cops patrolling the highways bogging down traffic anymore than it is?

Speeds are like the economy, when fuel gets high enough people will drive whatever speed that is dictated by the cost of that speed.

The fact is slowing down does NOT reduce costs when all factors are taken into account. Time is money, if the value of YOUR time is low then don't presume that its the same case for everybody else.

Time is money, speed is life!

DB

I like this.

Certainly slowing down saves fuel and is marginally safer, but this is not the point. Lowering the speed limit is not worth it. Its been tried before and it was a disgrace.

TM

 

[hearts34]

I have a solution, raise the taxes so fuel costs $6.00-$7.00 per gallon, abolish the speed limit and let the drivers determine the best speed to drive.

This past week when I was driving down the Autobahn, I had a blast driving at 110mph despite fuel costing $9.00 per gallon. I have no heartburn with those cars in the right lane driving at whatever speed they found appropriate.

DB

How about an auto that you could go 90 plus in and still get 50 mph?

I all for fast , not because I'm in a hurry , but because it's fun!

And now we're way off the original thread. But that's o.k. by me.

Hopefully Nick won't get too mad.