Living Car Free - * * * International 50 Mph Speed Limit * * *

Once again, it is not the government asking for the introduction of an International 50 mph speed limit - it is me.

Fair enough I suppose. You are free to limit your speed to 50 mph. But when you call for a limit on everyone's speed, you can't do it without the strong arm of government, so it is hard to separate government from your suggestion.


It is not the government meddling, it is me. Tell me I am wrong and argue the point. Digressing onto why government meddling is bad is off-topic.

I agree that it would be fantastic if everyone drove at the most fuel efficient speeds. I won't argue that point with you. I will argue that because you and I think it would be great is not sufficient reason to require everyone else to comply.


Do you see the tobacco companies undertaking any educational campaigns in say Manila?

I admittedly know nothing of tobacco use or marketing in Manila. I would say the Manilese have every right to prevent deliberately misleading advertising.[/quote]


Please expand on why you think my idea, my thinking or my reasoning is cloudy, vague or wrong.

I didn't mean that your specific argument is nebulous. I was speaking generally that "greater good" is a term that is dangerously impossible to nail down. Again, I think it would be fantastic if everyone drove the most fuel efficient cars at the most fuel efficient speeds. This does not, however, give me the right to control the behavior of others.

... Again, I think it would be fantastic if everyone drove the most fuel efficient cars at the most fuel efficient speeds. This does not, however, give me the right to control the behavior of others.I do not have that right. You do not have that right. But we do. I believe in democracy and would accept any compromise arrived at after intelligent deliberation. Doing nothing (other than at a personal level) or saying nothing is unwise and unacceptable.

There are plenty of examples of replies on this thread of posts that exhibit little by way of intelligent deliberation - I've completely ignored these. The mere fact that we are arguing should be seen in a positive light.

... I like to view the bicycle as an excellent means of providing one's own transportation. It's not as powerful as a motor vehicle, but it's unmatched for giving you independence and self reliance in the transportation department.

:thumb:

The challenge is making the changes palatable for the majority. One step at a time.

The real challenge is making the changes quickly. Before it's too late, if it isn't already too late.

e360 (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2012)

350 (http://www.350.org/4/)

The real challenge is making the changes quickly. Before it's too late, if it isn't already too late. e360 (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2012)I agree, it is probably way too late to avert major catastrophe, now we are into a damage limitation scenario.

If the speed limit is lowered, the hope would be that the main-stream-media will analyze and report it endlessly - ultimately getting a message to the population; The age of oil is over, change now, change fast and change permanently.

The mere fact that we are arguing should be seen in a positive light.

Agreed.

I do not have that right. You do not have that right. But we do. I believe in democracy...

Democracy has spoken. 65mph, 70 in others, sometimes even 75 and for a brief, delightful moment in history/geography "Any Prudent Speed." The problem with our form of democracy in this light is that those arguing for lowered speed limits are very much a minority... even though, considering where we're at right now, 50mph might be a very good idea.

Have you contacted your Federal or even State Rep about introducing 50mph legislation?

^^^ It would be a start, but I'd like even lower speed limits than that. I know now cars get best mileage arounf 55, but they are built and designed that way. Engineer them to get best mileage at 25, then reduce the limit to that. Fuel savings, plus less highway deaths.

You know how long a Nashbar order would take? I already wait 8 business days as it is:D

I consider the majority of you on this thread to be very intelligent and well informed, and it's a lot of fun posting with you guys.

Not to pick on you mconlonx, I come from the past being taught that America is a "Constitutional Republic", and that a democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

I'm sure we probably are a Democracy now, so I would caution anyone seeking intervention from their "wolf government" that they may be seen as the sheep, which usualy means it'll just cost you more money.

You know how long a Nashbar order would take? I already wait 8 business days as it is

It will be faster because people will demand to have a Nashbar warehouse worth of stuff in every major city?

.... in my dreams.

The real challenge is making the changes quickly. Before it's too late, if it isn't already too late.

e360 (http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2012)

350 (http://www.350.org/4/)

I love Bill McKibben. He gets right to the point so gracefully.

It is already too late. Positive feedback in natural systems is totally relentless, and appears quite quickly. I don't remember who said this, but at this point it's not a matter of whether or not we're going to hit the wall, but of how hard we're going to hit it, and whether we'll be able to get up again once we do. Things are looking up very slightly, though. A lot of people are getting very worried, including people in positions of power, so I'm cautiously hopeful that we'll be able to at least limit the problem to somewhat manageable proportions. You know, before we're faced with global economic collapse caused by an endless series of large-scale natural disasters, and the prospect of dealing with hundreds of millions of desperate refugees with absolutely nothing left to lose. Those who say we shouldn't do too much about climate change because it's too expensive, for example Bjorn Lumborg, are not the least bit rational, IMO.

what about enforcing the laws already in effect in a given country? what is the fastest listed in the US, 70...75? why make it so every 5 ton monstrosity capable of traveling in excess of 100mph?

Good point. I think the place to start is to think about governors on existing production vehicles. In Canada vehicles are supposed to be limited to 250 km/h. Who in their right mind drives at that kind of speed considering the maximum speed limit in this country is 110 km/h/?? Ontario recently introduced a law that suspends licences and impounds vehicles for going more than 50 km/h over the speed limit which only addresses the problem AFTER it has occurred. Can anyone tell me why electronic governors could not be placed on new vehicles to prevent them from going that fast in the first place? You could inspect vehicles when they get their biannual emissions test in case anyone is tempted to monkey with their engine management system.

Because it has never been about safety, or fuel savings.......

It's about the revenue. If a driver speeds and keeps it within certain limits, the government has a cash cow....as long as they don't milk it too hard. ;) Heck, for the lower ticket fines, if yu plead out and pay the fine, it won't even appear on your driving record.

Call it an "I was in a hurry and got stupid" tax.


Good point. I think the place to start is to think about governors on existing production vehicles. In Canada vehicles are supposed to be limited to 250 km/h. Who in their right mind drives at that kind of speed considering the maximum speed limit in this country is 110 km/h/?? Ontario recently introduced a law that suspends licences and impounds vehicles for going more than 50 km/h over the speed limit which only addresses the problem AFTER it has occurred. Can anyone tell me why electronic governors could not be placed on new vehicles to prevent them from going that fast in the first place? You could inspect vehicles when they get their biannual emissions test in case anyone is tempted to monkey with their engine management system.

"Can anyone tell me why electronic governors could not be placed on new vehicles to prevent them from going that fast in the first place?"


The main reason is that it won't change anything. I conclude that until recently, last few months, the enforcement etc... situation implies the real speed limit in ontario on 400 series HWYs was 125 K. So if you go to a total nazi enforcement system with govenors you would enforce that speed, not 100K which "nobody" actually drove. So no gain through your system at all.

What you are missing is that an enforcement by pain system has to have harsher targets and penalties than a system that is big brother absolute. If you can catch 100 percent of the bad guys, possibly in real time, you don't need a system that has incredibly harsh penalties or restrictive goals. So lets say the governor switches your car off at some speed limit, it's going to be the current upper end, not the marked end. The 100K signs are just part of a complex system to enforce 125k speedlimits. Of course maybe due to oil issues we need to drop the speedlimits, but that is a separate issue. So far, the way people are driving does not imply they want to go that route.

As to why we haven't as yet invoked governors, I'm sure it's just one of those things. People didn't want photo radar in Ontario, and defeated the government that imposed it. All cars on the road today are largely fantasy envelopes, probably 50 percent, at least the same is true of bikes (MTBS for comuting in nobbies, or lemont racing frames, someone has some issues...). So people splash out for a thunderbird because of how it makes them feel, and blowing up that industry is a big issue. If the overall proposal is let's get someone like Mao, in pyjamas, because that is all you really need, to re-align our consumption with actual needs, well that isn't the way we got to where we currently are, however one feels about it.

There probably are rare occasion when a little speeding is OK, like medical emergencies. Should cars be incapable of fulfilling these roles?

Also, while I get the idea that we should redefine our expectation down about people and increasingly control them, I also wonder why such huge eforts are not put to the service of increasing mutual trust. Like I don't put a governor on my neighbours car because I trust him to behave responsibly, and I trust his judgement about road conditions. Yeah, I agree it doesn't sound promising, but to the extent that all our eforts are towards lowering standards, I'm not surprised.

There are five in our family, and by choice we only have one car. We can get by on that. We are the only familly on the street with one car. Others have up to six. That's another trend I wonder about.

"what is the fastest listed in the US, 70...75?"

I thought Arizona didn't have one on certain roads? Jeff Cooper once described it as the only state where you could drive 160 MPH, not wearing a seat belt, while breast feeding a baby, wile carrying a concealed handgun. Sounds like heaven.

One thing i like about Mi was they had a lower speed limit for truck. That's something Ontario could do this minute as far as I am concerned: Tired of the pasing wars while trucks coast at speed and pull at their leasure through the rolling hills.

Though a dramatic increase in a living-car-free society would be great, we have to face the reality that if change is too rapid then there is significant risk of total collapse.

Given the general acceptance that people know they can exceed the speed limit by about 10% and that 56 MPH is where the majority of vehicles get the best miles-per-gallon, then the national speed limit should be reduced as soon as possible to 50 MPH.

The cost of doing this is close to zero. Opportunity cost losses in the form of increased journey times are more than offset by fuel savings. There are no fuel surcharges, no need for a hard sales campaign. It just needs to be done.

And this may sound counter intuitive, but a thorough and continuous search needs to be made for all routes where the speed limit could be increased, from 40 to 50, or from 35 to 45. We have all seen them, big straight wide roads, with few stops signs or stop lights. 30 mph is not good for the environment.

Also there needs to be a huge amount of education for drivers - when the majority of STOP signs are replaced with YIELD or GIVE WAY.

Fines need to reflect the importance of saving oil - break the 50 mph speed limit by more than 10% and you or your employer loses the vehicle. Period.

Breaking a lower speed limit would also result in higher fines, especially if this is on a road with an elevated speed limit.

Society needs room to breath and we will only get through peak-oil one-breath-at-a-time (tm).

PS. Lets also ban plastic bags at the checkout.

Incorrect. Manufacturers tune their cars to give best mpg at certain speeds such as 56mph or 75mph etc because that's the speed at which government bodies measure mpg.

And that is one reason why laws of this sort are a bad idea. Back in the last crisis, governments flirted with laws that reduced car lengths, "because who needs a really big boat like that". End result was that the station wagon was replaced by the more wind resistant mini van. Be careful what you ask for.

That change might also have eased the entry of foreign luxury vehicles by killing off the dominance of the Cadilac. End result is US manufacturers push all they have left, Hummers and Navigators (eventaully) at the luxury end and pick-up trucks. That saved a lot of gas I am sure.

"Those who say we shouldn't do too much about climate change because it's too expensive, for example Bjorn Lumborg, are not the least bit rational, IMO."

Well one thought is that if all the bad things you are hoping for, so we can get it right, happen, money will not be available. Spending money on carbon taxes, transfers, etc... is what you expect from the kind of nation that drives Hummers, not bikes.

and in turn was replaced with the vehicles like the Lumina or the like minivans. My Lumina Van has almost as low a drag coefficient as an F15 fighter and marginally better than a Ferrari. It gets its best fuel mileage at between 72 and 82 MPH (33.7 MPG vs 26.9 at 55 MPH)because that's in the middle of the engines opower curve AND the point of minimal air flow disruption as a result of the vehicles design.


And that is one reason why laws of this sort are a bad idea. Back in the last crisis, governments flirted with laws that reduced car lengths, "because who needs a really big boat like that". End result was that the station wagon was replaced by the more wind resistant mini van. Be careful what you ask for.

That change might also have eased the entry of foreign luxury vehicles by killing off the dominance of the Cadilac. End result is US manufacturers push all they have left, Hummers and Navigators (eventaully) at the luxury end and pick-up trucks. That saved a lot of gas I am sure.

Not to pick on you mconlonx, I come from the past being taught that America is a "Constitutional Republic", and that a democracy is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.


HoustonB called it a democracy and I didn't want to get bogged down in semantics. I thought it was more a "Representational Democracy" but "Constitutional Republic" is probably more correct.

Not to pick on HoustonB, but arguing about something like this on an internet forum is not going to get anything done about it. If anyone feels as strongly about it as they appear in this particular thread, I would advise them to get in touch with their State, maybe Federal legislator and begin a dialog with them about introducing such legislation.

"what is the fastest listed in the US, 70...75?"

I thought Arizona didn't have one on certain roads? Jeff Cooper once described it as the only state where you could drive 160 MPH, not wearing a seat belt, while breast feeding a baby, wile carrying a concealed handgun. Sounds like heaven.

There are no roads in AZ that I know of which don't have speed limits. Limits are typically 55-65 on in-town freeways and 75 out of town. Most Phoenix surface streets are posted 35-45. You also have to wear your seatbelt and strap your kid into a seat. A concealed handgun requires a permit, but you're free to carry in the open without any permit. If you're 18, you can have the gun of your choice cocked, locked, and on your hip with no permit whatsoever.

The west isn't so wild anymore.

Because it has never been about safety, or fuel savings.......

It's about the revenue. If a driver speeds and keeps it within certain limits, the government has a cash cow....as long as they don't milk it too hard. ;)



Tom has it exactly right. Imagine what kind of cash cow 50 mph would be!

Here is the text of a letter I just sent to Jeff Alson at the US Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA (http://www.epa.gov)).


Dear Mr. Alson,

Today on the EPA web site I read about recent changes to the methods used to determine vehicle fuel consumption.

From http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/

"Beginning with 2008 models, all fuel economy estimates [will be?] based on new test methods, which EPA finalized in December 2006. The new methods better account for actual driving conditions that can lower fuel economy, such as high speed, aggressive driving, use of air conditioning, and cold temperature operation."

I am interested in the reasoning behind the selection of the criteria specified above. After reading the 104 page EPA report, "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2007", I was disappointed to find no mention of these criteria, other than in one paragraph of the Executive Summary.

It would seem that the EPA has decided that consumers will base comparative decisions on fuel economy around a scenario of "worst case".

Assuming that "cold temperature operation" is truly an important factor, what does the EPA think has changed or is about to change that warrants this special status.

Does the EPA believe that use of "air conditioning" is increasing? Or have air conditioners become less efficient? Why would air conditioning be a more important factor today if "cold temperature operation" is deemed significant.

Most importantly, "aggressive driving" and "higher speeds" - has the EPA thinking changed at all recently given the truly enormous increase in the price of oil that is currently finding its way through the supply chain and hitting the consumer hard in all aspects of their lives?

"Formal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) compliance data as reported by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not correlate precisely with either the adjusted or laboratory fuel economy values in this report. While EPA’s laboratory composite 55/45 fuel economy data forms the cornerstone of the CAFE compliance database, NHTSA must also include credits for alternative fuel vehicles and test procedure adjustments (for cars only) in the official CAFE calculations. Accordingly, NHTSACAFE values are at least 25% higher than EPA adjusted fuel economy values for model years 2005 through 2007."

My guess is the EPA is attempting to address inadequate improvements in CAFE requirements, by changing the calculations. Perhaps government does not care, if the general public does not understand a greater than 25% deviation between CAFE requirements and the figures (provided by the EPA) that go in the car window.

sometimes i have to check to see if this really is a bike forum.

i have started driving slower. i live in rural texas and the speed limits here are 70mph on secondary roads. i started going 55mph a few weeks ago. the berms are wide enough that when a car comes up to pass me i can move over very safely, and usually flat enough that i can see someone coming a ways off, and also see what's in front of me. it works well for me. i know it doesn't affect the world's use of gas, but i get better mileage and i'm surprised how much less stressful driving is. i'd suggest that others try it. when i'm on the freeway, i try to go 65, but that's usualy 15-20 mph slower than the rest of the cars/trucks/ and suv's so it's not very practical. if anything, it really makes me aware how fast people drive and that i really prefer not to be on the freeways. you'd get killed going 55mph and with trucks running you down, it's impossible and dangerous. but if everyone did it, it would work, it would save gas and reduce stress and road rage. but we won't.

i just try to do what i can do, and slowing down is simple enough.

Incorrect. Manufacturers tune their cars to give best mpg at certain speeds such as 56mph or 75mph etc because that's the speed at which government bodies measure mpg. Actually, NO. They design the fuel management to maximize mileage on the standardized EPA/CAFE tests. Not any certain speed. Those tests do not use a single speed. Hence many cars have an acutal mileage fad different than the "EPA Rated Gas Mileage" (some actually higher). You can really cook the books with a hybrid by the way...

Dave.

i just try to do what i can do, and slowing down is simple enough.

I'm with you roseskunk, I ride meekly, assume I'm invisible and just try to stay out of the way.

Maybe you and I and some others can afford to slow down.



But I'd argue that because of the ever increasing demands that inflation, taxation, unconstitutional regulations, contractual obligations (scheduled deliveries), mortgages, credit card payments, and a 100 other factors, like Moms raising kids that have to school, and just the sheer distances between points in many parts of the country ( it's 40 miles to anywhere, for my friends in Walsh, Colorado), that most of the American people, physicaly and economicaly, could not afford to slow down, as many are on the edge of going broke as it is, nor would their "government" want them to slow their running on the big ratwheel called "The American Way of Life", as the incredible revenue stream from those endless interferences into peoples' lives might start to dry up, and that just couldn't be tolerated.

in addition to slowing down, which generally saves gas, i also make sure my tires are inflated correctly. you should check your tires every time you stop at a gas station. poorly inflated tires can rob you of many mpg...

i have started driving slower. i live in rural texas and the speed limits here are 70mph on secondary roads. i started going 55mph a few weeks ago. the berms are wide enough that when a car comes up to pass me i can move over very safely, and usually flat enough that i can see someone coming a ways off, and also see what's in front of me. it works well for me. i know it doesn't affect the world's use of gas, but i get better mileage and i'm surprised how much less stressful driving is. i'd suggest that others try it. when i'm on the freeway, i try to go 65, but that's usualy 15-20 mph slower than the rest of the cars/trucks/ and suv's so it's not very practical. if anything, it really makes me aware how fast people drive and that i really prefer not to be on the freeways. you'd get killed going 55mph and with trucks running you down, it's impossible and dangerous. but if everyone did it, it would work, it would save gas and reduce stress and road rage. but we won't.

i just try to do what i can do, and slowing down is simple enough.

Of course, if you can, it would make sense to slow down to bicycle speeds and ride a bicycle (make the life changes necessary to make bicycle riding practical).

But that doesn't work for everybody.

Of course, if you can, it would make sense to slow down to bicycle speeds and ride a bicycle (make the life changes necessary to make bicycle riding practical).

But that doesn't work for everybody.

of course. i ride to work and ride just about anywhere that i need to in my little town, but if i have to go the next town over to get something at home depot or lowe's for example, i drive. i'm fixing up an old house, and last week i drove to the next town (40 miles round trip) for paint and supplies. today, my friend and i drove 60 miles round trip to visit his parents and pick up a cast iron bathtub. texas is a big state and towns are spread out down here. it was also in the 90's today... certainly some of you are thinking,"hell, i could have ridden 60 miles and put the cast iron tub on my trailer..." and no doubt some of you could and would, but not me. my friend has a bad leg and walks with a cane, and i'm not a young guy that can ride 60 miles, thirty of it pulling a trailer with my friend and a cast iron tub, and come home and work in the garden for six hours. there's not enough time in the day, nor energy in this old guy's body. i think i do pretty well riding a bike around town and using a corolla for longer distances. you do what you can. the more i ride, the less i use my car.

i ride to work and ride just about anywhere that i need to in my little town...

I applaude you Roseskunk, (and everyone) for riding at all. Life's tough enough, you do what you need to do, and don't feel guilty.

This may or may not be a true story, and surly the statute of limitations apply,

but around 2:00 a.m., on a warm August evening in 1989, as I was driving home from Denver in my 300 Turbo Z, just south of Castle Rock, a carload of kids in a 1972 big block Chevelle pulls up on my left side, and I know it had a big block 454 in it, because that's what they were yelling, which was, "Hey, my 454 Chevelle will will blow the doors off your stupid riceburner" and they roared ahead and took the lead, so I followed along as we crept up on 100mph, and pretty soon the Chevelle appeared to have reached a condition of wide open throttle, as smoke was rolling out of the back in great profusion (maybe it's maiden run?) so I went from 5th to 4th as I passed and back to 5th at about 120 on my way to 140, and was just settling back into the right lane when I heard a screaming high pitched whine that I thought was my engine about to blow, but it was just the bright yellow Ferrari something that made me appear to be standing still as he blew by on his way to what had to be 180 or so, although I did see him again near the Air Force Acadamy.

I'm not certain the story would have gone any different had the speed "limits" been 50mph at the time.