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

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.

^^^ 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.

25 mph? it would take me 10 hours to drive to college from my house. i'd be fine with the 50 mph thing.

^^^ 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.

The reply from kopid03 reinforces my view that there would be no need for a hard sales campaign. Your reply is about the much longer term. Replacing the car fleet, is not on the table for today, even if it is the best solution. I emphasis if, because maybe the best solution lies elsewhere. Perhaps it would be better to do away with the whole notion of personal long distance transportation at the expense of others.

A great many cars actually get very good mileage at 45mph and their fuel economy peak is around 40mph.

But the gains in fuel economy by slowing down from 50 to 40 are much smaller than the gains when changing from 70 to 60.

If eventually the automobile speed limit becomes 25, I will not complain. I will take the train, like everybody else, because it will be faster and easier.

PS. Lets also ban plastic bags at the checkout.

They already have in China, as of June 1.

China Sacks Plastic Bags (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=china-sacks-plastic-bags)

You must not remember the national 55 mph speed limit.

BTW, you propose taking away a person's vehicle if it exceeds 10% of the 50mph limit. So, if a person drives at, what you claim is the most efficient speed (56 mph), he loses his car.

Fortunately, lawmakers are elected in the United States, so such draconian measures would never be put into place.


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.

You must not remember the national 55 mph speed limit.

BTW, you propose taking away a person's vehicle if it exceeds 10% of the 50mph limit. So, if a person drives at, what you claim is the most efficient speed (56 mph), he loses his car.

Fortunately, lawmakers are elected in the United States, so such draconian measures would never be put into place.

You have an unusual definition for draconian. The death penalty for 56 mph. Now that would be draconian. :roflmao2: Is hair splitting on your Résumé?

25 mph? it would take me 10 hours to drive to college from my house. i'd be fine with the 50 mph thing.

What am I supposed to say? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Too bad for you. Transfer to a closer college and don't be such a leach on natural resources.

What am I supposed to say? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Too bad for you. Transfer to a closer college and don't be such a leach on natural resources.Do you know if kopid03 is making the 250 mile trip on a weekly, monthly, semester or annual basis? "Boo hoo, big sobs" is not constructive. The challenge is making the changes palatable for the majority. One step at a time.

What supcom is saying is that it has been tried and it failed. Just like prohibition. The changes you propose are not palatable.

A 25mph limit is laughable.

Yes, a lowered speed limit would likely increase average fuel efficiency.

However, in the absence of a comprehensive worldwide energy policy...

1) The barrels of oil thus saved will be used up in some other way, probably by millions of new car owners in developing countries,

2) We would still be depleting nonrenewable oil resources except at a slightly slower rate. The day of reckoning is not cancelled, only deferred a couple of years. If those extra years aren't going to be used to reach a permanent solution, why bother in the first place?

If we can rebuild the world to allow most people to live car free, that would be a big part of a permanent solution to the fossil fuel depletion problem.

Otherwise, those who want to preserve widespread private car use must soon figure out how to operate them sustainably. That means, primarily, without fossil fuels. It doesn't matter how desirable cars are or how much inconvenience it would cause to be without them. If car culture requires fossil hydrocarbon fuels, it will end within the lifetime of many people now living.

What supcom is saying is that it has been tried and it failed. Just like prohibition. The changes you propose are not palatable.

A 25mph limit is laughable.

I agree that a 25 mph speed limit is ridiculous. However, comparing the old 55 mph speed limit to prohibition is not the best analogy. It didn't fail, it just outlived its usefulness. Its goal was to conserve fuel, and it did just that, while it lasted. Later, as fuel became cheaper again, and people went back to bigger, faster vehicles, it became so unpopular that it was easy for politicians to raise the limits. Now, however, with gasoline topping $4/gal, and diesel at $5, a mandatory 50-55mph speed limit looks pretty reasonable again.

Platy is absolutely correct in saying that measures to conserve fuel will, at best, do nothing but buy us a little time. But if we're going to make a transition from where we are now to something more sensible without a lot of unpleasantness, a little more time is exactly what we need.

And, as for banning plastic bags, let's go a bit further and ban disposable plastic bottles, too. Apparently, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, there's a giant mass of floating garbage, twice the size of Texas, called, appropriately enough, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Most of this mass of floating garbage seems to consist of plastic bags and plastic bottles.

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.
This one I can't support. You think it would save gas, but you'd be making it easier to drive intermediate distances so people would do more of it, and use up gas faster. Jevon's paradox.

Yes, a lowered speed limit would likely increase average fuel efficiency.

However, in the absence of a comprehensive worldwide energy policy...

1) The barrels of oil thus saved will be used up in some other way, probably by millions of new car owners in developing countries,That depends upon whether the price of oil drops as a consequence of the decreased consumption. If world wide supply continues to fall as it has since 2005, then even meager savings in the USA may not be adequate to free up lots of oil for consumption in other countries. Have you looked at the falling oil output of the world's biggest producers? You are counting your chickens before they have hatched.


2) We would still be depleting nonrenewable oil resources except at a slightly slower rate. The day of reckoning is not cancelled, only deferred a couple of years. If those extra years aren't going to be used to reach a permanent solution, why bother in the first place?

If we can rebuild the world to allow most people to live car free, that would be a big part of a permanent solution to the fossil fuel depletion problem.I agree, it is a time waster if it does not allow us to move in the direction of a sustainable solution. I don't believe in "permanent solutions". In the event of total economic collapse, the problem will have found its own solution. Most people in the world are already car free, western society and over population are the principal problems.


Otherwise, those who want to preserve widespread private car use must soon figure out how to operate them sustainably. That means, primarily, without fossil fuels. It doesn't matter how desirable cars are or how much inconvenience it would cause to be without them. If car culture requires fossil hydrocarbon fuels, it will end within the lifetime of many people now living.I have no desire to "preserve widespread private car use". My desire is to avoid total economic meltdown. I am proposing something that should have been done years ago and costs almost nothing. I am not suggesting it is a complete solution or panacea to all of our energy problems.

This one I can't support. You think it would save gas, but you'd be making it easier to drive intermediate distances so people would do more of it, and use up gas faster. Jevon's paradox.Jevon's paradox does not apply in situations of falling supply. The price of oil is not climbing because massive new supplies have been brought online. It is too late to think about market driven voluntary conservation caused by people switching to more efficient vehicles, or people voluntarily trying to slow down. We have to make-do with the situation we have , not with some Utopian ideal.

What supcom is saying is that it has been tried and it failed. Just like prohibition. The changes you propose are not palatable.

A 25mph limit is laughable.

What bragi said. Also I don't recall suggesting a 25 mph limit. You may find this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2666053.stm)less palatable than a strongly enforced speed limit and your lack of freedom to urinate in the collective commons (pollute).

Men and machines decompose carbon-hydrogen linked molecules by oxidation to form CO2, and various byproducts, to make energy.

Carbon Unit trading platforms are being readied on the NYMEX.

I suspect the man-on-the-street may get a monthly ration of Carbon Units to use anyway he wants, for gas, for food, whatever carbohydrate or hydrocarbon form he wants. Cost to buy more may be very expensive if he exceeds his quota.

This is the "carbon tax" on "world citizens" that Collectivists have been drooling over for years.

I think this may be your automatic lower speed limit on everything. Don't blow your ration by pedaling too hard.

PS. Lets also ban plastic bags at the checkout.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!



And I'd rather see an 80 km/h speed limit. If you're going to change speed limits, the imperial people might as well get on board with the rest of world.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!

And I'd rather see an 80 km/h speed limit. If you're going to change speed limits, the imperial people might as well get on board with the rest of world.If I yield on the plastic bags, will you compromise to 22.35 m/s? :p

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?

Men and machines decompose carbon-hydrogen linked molecules by oxidation to form CO2, and various byproducts, to make energy.

Carbon Unit trading platforms are being readied on the NYMEX.

I suspect the man-on-the-street may get a monthly ration of Carbon Units to use anyway he wants, for gas, for food, whatever carbohydrate or hydrocarbon form he wants. Cost to buy more may be very expensive if he exceeds his quota.

This is the "carbon tax" on "world citizens" that Collectivists have been drooling over for years.

I think this may be your automatic lower speed limit on everything. Don't blow your ration by pedaling too hard.

I suspect the population will be reduced to just a few hundred, or the number that avoids creation of babies that can play Duel of the Banjos with their toes, and if you want to go outside you have to wear a rebreather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebreather) and just in case you fart, you have to wear gas tight plastic underwear or shove a cork up your ass! :rolleyes:

Eh, I think intitially you were correct on imposing a hard speed limit at 50-55mph, but after that you went all wrong. The penalty for going over is outrageous, not to mention 10% of 50 is 5... not all spedometers are spot on, and on top of that if you change your tire size (put 20s on dat dawg!), that can throw off the spedometer even more.

You were even more wrong on wanting to increase the speed limit, what we need is a gradual lowering of the speed limit over the next decade or so. There are several reasons for this. The biggest reason is that we need lighter cars, which of course improve gas milage considerably, but also more importantly the biggest thing holding the electric car back from getting off the ground is the cost of batteries.

By lowering the speed limits, the demands on the batteries will be greatly lessened, in a variety of ways. First off at moderate to high speeds, drag increases by the cube of the velocity. This, in addition to the average aerodynamics and gearings of a car, is the reason that 40-55mph (depending on the car) is the most fuel efficient speed - traveling faster becomes grossly inefficient as the air resistance increases exponentially. I am no automotive engineer, but I would suspect cars can be designed to perform optimally at lower speeds - it's simply a matter of the market wanting a fast car for the interstate driving we currently do.

Secondly, to drive those fast speeds you need a safe car, which typically results in a heavier car. By reducing the speed limits, you can signficantly reduce weight while remaining safe, as it will not have to be engineered to withstand the same level of impacts as many are tested for in our current high speed society.

The net effect is that we have lighter cars that are designed to travel slower which are more energy efficient. I suspect that the current problems with battery technologies would be greatly reduced if the auto engineers designing these things weren't trying to build them to go toe-to-toe with the over powered tanks we have on the road today. It will be easier for consumers to make the transition to slower, even less convient, vehicles when they become accoustumed to slower speeds imposed by gas conservations efforts.

I'm not suggesting 25 mph speed limits every where, but perhaps gradually reducing the high way speed limits to 55, then 50, and then eventually 45. And residential areas to 15-20, and busy roads with high volume traffic maybe 25-30 (versus the 35-40 we have now). Commutes will take longer, but it is surely faster than walking! Some people may have to move closer to work, or get another job - such is life. You have to make the best of what you have, and in the future it looks like that may be less than we are currently used to.

Eh, I think intitially you were correct ...I was not proposing a blanket increase in speed limits in all places. Only those places where the current limit seems wasteful. Vehicles typically get the best fuel consumption when they are in the highest gear with the lowest engine rpm - thus, at 20 mph fuel consumption typically sucks. If a street requires a permanent 20 mph speed limit, then it should be closed to through traffic and made into a pedestrian and cyclist zone.

In fact I am not even proposing that the 50 mph upper limit should be set in stone. I've experienced a few descents where gravity can get the car above 55 mph.

What I am arguing for is that things should be changed to minimize fuel consumption, given the present vehicle fleet - not some fanciful wet dream of future vehicles that can be made gradually lighter because at lower speeds impact energies are reduced.

I am arguing that it is daft for vehicles to sit idling at a red light at 1 AM when clearly the cross road is deserted. The law on red lights needs to be softened, or the sensors and change cycles need to be made smart enough to considerably reduce the chances that fuel will be wasted unnecessarily at a red light.

lowering the speed limit wont do anything other than cause more traffic which cause even more pollution. making them lighter is going to lower the comfort and safety of a vehicle and if we want a light comfortable and safe vehicle...well thats going to cost a fortune. A reasonable solution is to demand better fuel efficient vehicles like hybrids to meet todays performance standards (main reason why i wouldnt get one...and plus it costs more). besides cars these days are more efficient than ever (celica gts engine was the first to have a 1 to 1 liter to hp ratio and the acura rsx type S went even further with a 2.0 making 220hp) and i believe car manufacturers are constantly trying to produce better fuel efficient vehicles thanks to the strict laws they have to follow and the consumers constant demand of a faster vehicle. Oh one thing i learned from talkign to taxi drivers here in nyc is that they are being forced to start driving hybrids instead of the gas guzzling crown vics so that is definitely a plus to our environment. oh and stop using plastic bottles?...whats the other alternative that wont change the price for consumers?

I was not proposing a blanket increase in speed limits in all places. Only those places where the current limit seems wasteful. Vehicles typically get the best fuel consumption when they are in the highest gear with the lowest engine rpm - thus, at 20 mph fuel consumption typically sucks. If a street requires a permanent 20 mph speed limit, then it should be closed to through traffic and made into a pedestrian and cyclist zone.

In fact I am not even proposing that the 50 mph upper limit should be set in stone. I've experienced a few descents where gravity can get the car above 55 mph.

What I am arguing for is that things should be changed to minimize fuel consumption, given the present vehicle fleet - not some fanciful wet dream of future vehicles that can be made gradually lighter because at lower speeds impact energies are reduced.

I am arguing that it is daft for vehicles to sit idling at a red light at 1 AM when clearly the cross road is deserted. The law on red lights needs to be softened, or the sensors and change cycles need to be made smart enough to considerably reduce the chances that fuel will be wasted unnecessarily at a red light.

okay...speed limits were made for safety reasons along with red lights lol speed censors are a great idea for areas with a low pedestrian rate, but how the hell are you going to do that in nyc? i certainly wont want to have to run across the street just because a car has triggered the sensor...especially when im a slow old man.

Speed limits of 20-50????? Wow, y'all are really whacked. Do you have ANY idea what that would do to the economy???? Go over it and lose your car - you forgot to mention they'd also lose their job and home cause they now can't get to work. Don't tell me about taking a bike. MOST non-bike commuters travel 20-200 miles a day.

Well, expect to pay one heck of a lot more (at least double everything) for your food, gas, electricity, tow truck, and anything else you need to buy..... oh, and that nice (or crappy) job most people have to drive so far to cause they can't afford housing near it - forget it. They're out of a job now. An 8-hour daily commute (200/25 mph = 8 hours) just ain't gonna happen. And don't tell me "mass transportation/trains". How ya plan on building all those train tracks? Hmm? We ain't got no passenger terminals anywhere near here. Don't even ask about the bus. Heck we only have ONE taxi - not comapny - that's ONE TAXI period and there are over 15,000 people in my city. And don't forget, the 4 walls and roof over their head....... housing industry would totally collapse.

I'm not saying that we don't need to do something. But, damn it! COMMON SENSE has to rule.

What most people don't understand, is how DEEPLY ROOTED transportation is in everything that we own or use. Do you realize that with the exception of the air you breath, EVERYTHING that you own or use was transported by truck? "well some stuff goes by rail." Still had to get it to and from the railhead.

"Oh, well I buy local produce" - still been trucked: seeds; fertilizer for it; tractor to work the fields; piping for the water; chemicals for the water [well water - so, like they had to drill the well]; got it to market didn't they?

That car you own? Raw material to the processor; rough metal to the foundry; metal pieces to GM; car to the dealer. And that's ONLY the metal. Plastic for the dash, rubber for the tires, silicon for the ECM..... the list goes on and on and on and....

Guess what.... the same thing applies to that bike that you ride.

Oh, and if you (or someone you know) has to breath O2..... then guess what - not even the air they breath hasn't been moved by a truck.

Common sense is what is needed, but you also have to look at the BIG picture. How everything is interlinked. And what may seem like a great step could easily cause catastrophic results.

You have defined the problem. Now where do we go from here?

(25mph is absurd)


Speed limits of 20-50????? Wow, y'all are really whacked. Do you have ANY idea what that would do to the economy???? Go over it and lose your car - you forgot to mention they'd also lose their job and home cause they now can't get to work. Don't tell me about taking a bike. MOST non-bike commuters travel 20-200 miles a day.

Well, expect to pay one heck of a lot more (at least double everything) for your food, gas, electricity, tow truck, and anything else you need to buy..... oh, and that nice (or crappy) job most people have to drive so far to cause they can't afford housing near it - forget it. They're out of a job now. An 8-hour daily commute (200/25 mph = 8 hours) just ain't gonna happen. And don't tell me "mass transportation/trains". How ya plan on building all those train tracks? Hmm? We ain't got no passenger terminals anywhere near here. Don't even ask about the bus. Heck we only have ONE taxi - not comapny - that's ONE TAXI period and there are over 15,000 people in my city. And don't forget, the 4 walls and roof over their head....... housing industry would totally collapse.

I'm not saying that we don't need to do something. But, damn it! COMMON SENSE has to rule.

What most people don't understand, is how DEEPLY ROOTED transportation is in everything that we own or use. Do you realize that with the exception of the air you breath, EVERYTHING that you own or use was transported by truck? "well some stuff goes by rail." Still had to get it to and from the railhead.

"Oh, well I buy local produce" - still been trucked: seeds; fertilizer for it; tractor to work the fields; piping for the water; chemicals for the water [well water - so, like they had to drill the well]; got it to market didn't they?

That car you own? Raw material to the processor; rough metal to the foundry; metal pieces to GM; car to the dealer. And that's ONLY the metal. Plastic for the dash, rubber for the tires, silicon for the ECM..... the list goes on and on and on and....

Guess what.... the same thing applies to that bike that you ride.

Oh, and if you (or someone you know) has to breath O2..... then guess what - not even the air they breath hasn't been moved by a truck.

Common sense is what is needed, but you also have to look at the BIG picture. How everything is interlinked. And what may seem like a great step could easily cause catastrophic results.

You have defined the problem. Now where do we go from here?

(25mph is absurd)

I think the best thing is for everyone to do their part...setting up carpools to work, recycle, buy a hybrid if you really care that much etc. Its hard to get everyone to agree and do what is right, but i think every individual contributing alittle is a big step towards a better a environment. I think the easiest way for people to accept these little things like carpooling and recycling is through media =) (we're a sucker for media)

I live in a small city of 100K in the midwest. It's mostly middle class and above incomes. There has been no change here. People are driving as much as ever and faster than ever. I don't think the masses are making changes nor do they intend to. The masses of people will only make major changes if forced to via much higher fuel costs or stricter laws. Every day I see new large SUVs and F150s on the road and driving fast. Sure a few people are making small changes but I honestly don't think the masses are.

In my city there are recreational bike paths but very few people commute on bikes and no one uses them for shopping. A friend does bike commute to work to the largest employer in town (30k employees) and he told me approx 12 people use bikes to get to work. Change is needed but people are very resistant!

the funny thing about this thread is that it wouldn't have even been a topic if it wasn't for the high gas prices...which shows how selfish we are since we wont acknowledge an on going problem unless its effecting us personally. we are no different than those rich fellows that are still driving their hummers or gas guzzling sports cars around because the gas prices aren't effecting them as much.

This subforum gets more and more bizarre the higher gas prices get.

then the national speed limit should be reduced as soon as possible to 50 MPH.

How 'bout first we go take a car road trip through North Dakota, Montana, Nevada's Great Basin and back through rural Utah.

If you've ever felt slow on a bicyle out in the big wide American west...

I would nominate this for most asinine post of the month - but I do agree with your point about stop signs becoming yields. I have no idea why it takes drivers so long to just go. whether driving or biking. Plenty of times I'll drive or bike up to a 4-way, do a COMPLETE stop, look at everyone, and just push on and everyone's still sitting there.

I like the whole Dutch method of eliminating signage at smaller intersections. Bikes, peds, scooters, and cars see each other, acknowledge, and figure it out. It works.

What is it with people on this subforum and some kind of uncontrollable urge to control other people behavior?

This subforum gets more and more bizarre the higher gas prices get.


What is it with people on this subforum and some kind of uncontrollable urge to control other people behavior?



I would nominate this for most asinine post of the month [Snipped]




And there has been some stiff competition too!:innocent:

I like the whole Dutch method of eliminating signage at smaller intersections. Bikes, peds, scooters, and cars see each other, acknowledge, and figure it out. It works.
I've been in one small town in northern Saskatchewan where there were no stop signs except on the main streets. It was awful. The locals had some sort of system but out-of-towners (like me) didn't see stop signs so we didn't stop. I had a few near misses that day and I got my share of middle-finger salutes. It could have been worse. I was driving a company car. I don't want to think about what would have happened if I had gotten back to the office with collision damage.

Speed limits of 20-50????? Wow, y'all are really whacked. Do you have ANY idea what that would do to the economy???? Go over it and lose your car - you forgot to mention they'd also lose their job and home cause they now can't get to work. Don't tell me about taking a bike. MOST non-bike commuters travel 20-200 miles a day.

Well, expect to pay one heck of a lot more (at least double everything) for your food, gas, electricity, tow truck, and anything else you need to buy..... oh, and that nice (or crappy) job most people have to drive so far to cause they can't afford housing near it - forget it. They're out of a job now. An 8-hour daily commute (200/25 mph = 8 hours) just ain't gonna happen. And don't tell me "mass transportation/trains". How ya plan on building all those train tracks? Hmm? We ain't got no passenger terminals anywhere near here. Don't even ask about the bus. Heck we only have ONE taxi - not comapny - that's ONE TAXI period and there are over 15,000 people in my city. And don't forget, the 4 walls and roof over their head....... housing industry would totally collapse.


1) your example of 200 miles/day is an absurd one. I know someone, somewhere does it. Regardless, that person is part of the problem, not someone who needs to be accomodated.

2) no transit options in your town? I'm sorry, but you and everyone else there decided to make that your home. Before you start typing... i KNOW the inevitable response is that "not everyone can afford to move". Well guess what? Not everyone can afford $4/gallon, much less 6 or 8, gas. Maybe they're getting by now, but eventually the cost of living is going to catch up with a large percentage of our country.

Fighting to preserve the status quo is only going to make it harder on them in the end. Actually, it's going to make it harder on all of us, because these people will end up having to be supported by someone. All these suburbanites who are voting against transit funding will end up paying in the end, and with nothing to show for it.

I for one am now car free (but my wife still has hers) and I don't think that lowering the speed limit is a good solution to to reducing oil consumption. Yes when individuals reduce speed their consumption goes down. But there are better ways to get people to slow down than with enforcement, which has its costs.

The best way to reduce oil consumption is increase its cost. Tax gas to reflect its true value and not its "subsidized" low price for Americans, and gas consumption will go down. Where I am gas is nearly $8 per gallon. The high price on gas will and does reduce consumption and reduces speed.

Lets do a little excercise on this point. I used to drive from time to time between Paris and Rennes (300 km). I take the train exclusively now. But at a reasonable speed 130km/h (80mph) I would get about 8 liters/100km. Going at 160km/hr (yes I would go that fast) the milage dropped to around 13l/100km. Over a 300km trip at 1.40 euros per liter this would make a price of 33.60 euros in gas at 130km/h and 54.60 at 160km/h. That's a 20 euro penalty for a 2-3 hour trip. Granted if I went slower, the advantage would be greater.

Raise the price of gas, put on a carbon tax but leave people alone and allow them to make their own decisions. I know I did, I'm car free now and loving it!

1) your example of 200 miles/day is an absurd one. I know someone, somewhere does it. Regardless, that person is part of the problem, not someone who needs to be accomodated.

2) no transit options in your town? I'm sorry, but you and everyone else there decided to make that your home. Before you start typing... i KNOW the inevitable response is that "not everyone can afford to move". Well guess what? Not everyone can afford $4/gallon, much less 6 or 8, gas. Maybe they're getting by now, but eventually the cost of living is going to catch up with a large percentage of our country.

Fighting to preserve the status quo is only going to make it harder on them in the end. Actually, it's going to make it harder on all of us, because these people will end up having to be supported by someone. All these suburbanites who are voting against transit funding will end up paying in the end, and with nothing to show for it.

200 miles a day absurd? No, not at all. Chambersburg is 100 miles from Baltimore.... not quite that from DC. Harrisburg is about 50 miles away. A LOT of people in the area commute to those places daily. THEY chose to live here because they could buy a house with land for a fraction of what they could there.

Many companies are opening distribution centers here as we are in an excellent "hub" area. It creates more local jobs. But not many high tech/white collar jobs.

Did I chose to live here? Well ya. But I don't go long distances. I commute 14 miles a day, hardware store across the street, groceries and Target 2 miles away. Basically less than 10 miles to anything else I need.

What I'm saying is that you can't just make sweeping changes and not expect major consequences down the line. And don't expect the government to really help the situation. The government doesn't do anything well other than the 'military' and spending money - our money.

The American public has to be educated and persuaded to change how they do things. Just issuing an order doesn't go over very well here.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X23MoTtVplE

Gas at $4 is still cheap.

Some tighter incomes can't afford it, but that doesn't make it expensive. The average American is thinking about the high price - but they are still paying it. Many are stuck with fuel-sucking vehicles and will be for a couple more years. Either way, the gas is not expensive enough to elicit widespread change in this country yet.

Hopefully the price rises (because it is only going up from here) slow enough that Americans can change their ways, but fast enough that they don't get used to the prices. Getting used to prices is a strange phenomena... Pay $4 gas for a month and you drive past $3.75 and say "whoa gas is cheap".

I can only speak for two places, my college town and my hometown. My college town has gone from a few cyclists to bikes literally everywhere. There were enough bikes for pedestrians to complain in the student newspaper about the number of bikes. This is a good thing. My hometown however is very different. Everyone MUST drive atleast 10 miles out of town for their crappy jobs. Median household income here is $26,000/yr. Even these people are still driving, many have "country taste" and still can afford to drive their lifted F-350s everywhere. Zero cyclists still and I highly doubt there ever will be. The infrastructure just doesn't exist for it here.

---

When gas hit $6 or $8... maybe they'll lower speed limits. I don't think it'll happen soon though and I don't think it should. One person mentioned hybrids and lower limits would increase efficiency of the batteries. I'm pretty sure that hybrids don't use battery power on the highway so that wouldn't matter much. Changes of our vehicles could do alot. Many small changes. (Which should be the theme of this problem) More aerodynamic vehicles. A little less weight. Smaller wheels (why the hell do many cars come with 18" wheels?!). Lighter wheels. Little changes could go a long way.

Right now the fact is horsepower sells cars, fuel efficiency does not. Until that changes not much else will.

The market will sort it out.

It's already happening, with people bemoaning their SUVs--my buddy who works at a bank is seeing trucks and SUVs being repo'd at a much higher rate these days--and trading them in on economical cars. Hybrids are fashionable. Dunno about the rest of you, but I was out on the roads this memorial day weekend, touring on a motorcycle, and everywhere I went, people were generally driving slower on the highways, and there was a lot less people moving about than I'm used to seeing on a holiday weekend.

Scooter sales are up, mass transit ridership is up, even bike commuting (*gasp*) is making the news as a viable way to get to places.

All because of market forces and the price of gas, without artificial controls like lower speed limits imposed from up above.

People will make the move when it starts impacting their wallet. Signs of this are all around, even now before any real crisis has hit.

So what is this problem crying out for a speed limit solution? The market is already taking care of it without gov't meddling.

This will never fly ... ever ... never ... ever ... EVER. Why even discuss pie in the sky?

... Brad

screw that we should be upping it to 80 mph.

The market will sort it out.

It's already happening, with people bemoaning their SUVs--my buddy who works at a bank is seeing trucks and SUVs being repo'd at a much higher rate these days--and trading them in on economical cars. Hybrids are fashionable. Dunno about the rest of you, but I was out on the roads this memorial day weekend, touring on a motorcycle, and everywhere I went, people were generally driving slower on the highways, and there was a lot less people moving about than I'm used to seeing on a holiday weekend.

Scooter sales are up, mass transit ridership is up, even bike commuting (*gasp*) is making the news as a viable way to get to places.

All because of market forces and the price of gas, without artificial controls like lower speed limits imposed from up above.

People will make the move when it starts impacting their wallet. Signs of this are all around, even now before any real crisis has hit.

So what is this problem crying out for a speed limit solution? The market is already taking care of it without gov't meddling.

Regarding "before any real crisis has hit" - the crisis has already hit. The nature of the crisis is analogous to an earthquake where one does not feel the ground move or the buildings shake, but suddenly realizes that they are inside a collapsed building. Exactly as per Global Climate Change, few will truly believe there is a crisis until the water arrives, and by that time it is also truly too late.

Government, especially the current administration will not be able to do anything, an unpopular president trying to do something that would be unpopular with the majority of (naive) people has no chance of success, and even though it is the right thing to do, would not want to put the finishing touches to a ruined legacy.

Relying on the markets is also a case of too little too late. Oil companies are already asking airlines for cash up-front and South West appear to be the only airline with sufficient credit to avoid this. Last winter a lot of people took delivery of heating oil, they were unable to pay for, expect to see a cash up front requirement this winter, for oil that is much more expensive than last winter. Also expect to see a considerable lowering of the threshold at which utilities get disconnected.

A prolonged deep cold spell during the winter of 2008/09 and people without heating oil, will result in a spike of deaths among the elderly and vulnerable due to hypothermia, depending on the news climate at that time, this may or may not be picked up and reported by the main stream media. Or it might just be a footnote along side news of the consequences of the bigger crisis - the end of cheap oil.

The American public has to be educated and persuaded to change how they do things. Just issuing an order doesn't go over very well here.

I think relentlessly climbing fuel prices will be educational enough. At $2.00/gal, 200 miles a day is an ordeal, but quite affordable. At 4.25/gal, 200 miles a day starts to look a lot more absurd, especially if you didn't get a chance to trade in the F150 before trade-in prices tanked. People are going to have to either find work closer to home, or move closer to work, if they want to keep any of their money, and there's really no way around this simple, hard fact. It's very unfortunate that the change is happening so rapidly, though; with no time to make adjustments, many people are going to feel a lot more than a pinch.

On another note, it might be a good idea for the government to give truckers a break on diesel, maybe allow them to buy fuel with far fewer taxes added on, you know, to avoid a general economic meltdown.

A LOT of people in the area commute to those places daily. THEY chose to live here because they could buy a house with land for a fraction of what they could there..

So they made the choice, to trade lot size for commute distance. Now, I understand that moving or trading an SUV for a hybrid isn't something that just happens, but in the long run high energy prices will change behavior. It may take years, but population shifts will occur, because people can no longer afford living so far from work. Think about it, assuming you work 20 days a month, every additional mile you live from work nets you 40 extra miles a month. Assuming you get 20 mpg at $4/gal it's costing you $8 per mile per month. So your example of 100 miles, would be a net cost $800/mo. Or 9.6k/year.

Here's the easy solution.

1) Go to ANCO, open a minimum self directed trading acount ($5K).

2) Type in B1RBQ08M, and you're long one 42,000gal gas contract.

3) Sit back and grin as you make Bank at $420/penny rise in gas.

http://www.ancofutures.com/index.aspx?sym=RBQ8&page=TradingMain2&bcPage=chart





(Any information given here is for informational purposes only, and is not to be construed as trading advise. Trading commodities can entail substantial risk of loss, nor is it ever a good idea to take any advise from any yahoo on the internet.)

screw that we should be upping it to 80 mph.
Why?

Regarding "before any real crisis has hit" - the crisis has already hit.

...and people are making adjustments--decrease in use/sale of gas guzzlers, increased ridership on public transit and bicycle commuting...

Again, I don't see the point of additional gov't control when market forces appear to be having the desired effect. And if it's already too late, what's the point of needless gov't over-regulation after the fact?

If we enacted a 50mph speed limit tomorrow, how would that help those of us who depend on home heating oil this coming winter?