I can drive 55: a proposal

By Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

What is the most radical, craziest, looniest suggestion yet to deal with America's gasoline crisis? Lower the national speed limit to 55 mph, an idea so subversive that the well-known socialist Richard Nixon imposed it on the U.S. in 1974, during the first oil shocks. The federal government's power to regulate speed limits, before and after, the purview of the states, was rescinded in 1995. But it's perfectly legal and plausible. So I say bring back the double nickels. I observe this because, recently, I drove a Saturn Astra with an instantaneous fuel economy readout. At 55 mph, the car achieved above 33 mpg. Above 75 mph it achieved around 23 mpg, a 29 percent reduction in fuel economy. Now, there are many considerations here: national productivity, the cost of transitioning to lower limits, the potential safety issues caused by a sudden rise is highway speed differentials -- between compliant drivers and the non-compliant.

However, the argument -- and it will certainly be mounted against any such movement for the 55 mph speed limit -- that is it somehow not effective in reducing fuel consumption, well, that's flat wrong. It absolutely would be effective, as long as it is effectively enforced.

Other radical ideas:

Tire-inflation tickets. Police and DMV could be empowered to check cars and trucks for proper tire inflation and write citations if they at less-than-optimal pressure.

Junker laws: Mexico recently stipulated that no car older than 10 years could be imported into the country -- the idea being to prevent Mexico from becoming a depository for America's crappy old cars. Well, why not here in the U.S.? Let's work to effectively phase out less efficient older cars. And before anyone raises the spectre of big guvmint taking away our "freedoms," rest assured you will search the Constitution in vain for a passage that provides the unfettered freedom to drive whatever hunk of junk you want, heedless of the greater good. Also, don't fail for the collector car canard. No one is saying you cant own a rare antique car; you simply can't license for the street. Eat that, SEMA!

Scrap current fuel economy standards and start over with a carbon gram/mile standard, modeled after Europe's. Carbon is a definitive indicator of efficiency since it it the result of combustion. Our current EPA/DOT regime is a failure. Re-write so that manufacturers, without obfuscation, achieve a fleetwide equivalent of under 150 g/km.

I'll be awaiting the pitchfork wielding rabble at my office...

Photo by Irfan Khan, Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Dan]

My 20 year old, six passenger K Car station wagon gets 25 to 28 MPG in routine driving around LA and passes the smog test. Why should I take it off the road when many new cars get no better mileage? And my car payment of $0.00 is right where I need it to be to afford $4.00 gas,

[Chris in Seattle]

You cut me right to the heart with this post. I like to think of myself as a responsible citizen of the world, but I'm also a car nut and the 55 MPH speed limit was my personal nemisis for a great many years. I celebrated when it was repealed. The thought of bringing it back makes me sick to my stomach. Especially now that cars are so good at going fast. Never being able to use sixth gear again? Revolution!

[tom]

55mph is unfair. If 55mph is imposed for fuel economy reasons then giant suvs should have to go at 35mph. Or if they can drive at 55mph then i should be allowed to 85 mph in my little hyundai. And if I carry 2 passengers 90mph. ect ect ect.

[scott lewis]

Ye gads, man! You're talking common sense! Don't you know that the American Common Sense era ended with the Carter Administration?

The USA is currently in the midst of its Retro Aggression Era. This is an attempt to fill the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union by finding evil bad guys to loathe, be afraid of, and secretly admire all at the same time.

I suggest you stockpile ideas like this until the Retro Summer of Love era arrives. Last I checked, that wasn't due until 2017, and then only for a short run of two years.

[Henry]

I seriously question the authors claims about Astra gas mileage. I drive a Saturn L100. On a long trip at 80 mph, I get about 29 mpg. My car is at least 200 lbs heavier and has a 2.2 L engine versus the Astra's 1.8. . Being up front, I would never try driving that at 55 mph, as I think that 55 is a stupid answer to a stupid question. Europeans have had prices over 3 bucks since the 1970s and have MUCH HIGHER speed limits than we do here. Their cars are a lot more efficient than ours at higher speeds. I have a proposal: bury the 55 mph speed limit in a radioactive waste disposal site where it belongs.

[Travis Y]

I have a 2001 Saturn LW300. It is a V6 wagon for eveybody that doesn't know. It gets 26 MPG and does so at 70-90 mph. It has the Euro specs on the control computer and tops out at 147 MPH safely. The efficiency is based on the RPMs of the motor. Not The speed. Better gear ratios and more gears to keep the RPMs at optimum levels is key. Diesel has mega torque and low RPMs. Hence the MPG is crazy. Check out Volkswagon TDI numbers. RPM and torque are key for fuel economy. If you step on the peddle and the car pulls hard then you feel great. Powerful feeling without high speed. Case in point was the 5.0 Mustangs of the late 80's and early 90's. They were slow but quick. People liked the pull from 0-60. The IROC-Z Camaro would kill it on the open road but not stop light to stop light. Look at BMW mpg using turbo and regular gas engines. 200hp with 100hp boost from turbos only when needed. 30 mpg for normal driving and kick when also needed. Problem semi-solved. P.S. if you drive a K car it costs alot to keep going and you have to pray everyday you get in that it will start. For the reader with the K car question.

[Brad Cuppy]

I did a trip where I drove from Colorado to California and back. I drove my 2006 Subaru WRX Turbo and my average speed was 80 mph. I got 31 mpg. I also utilized cruise control as well.

The idea of bringing back 55 mph - the one size fits all speed limit is a very bad idea. It fits the East Coast with towns being close together and the crowded roadways but not the Western states with little traffic and some distance between towns. That idea deserves an appropriate place, it belongs in the pit of h*ll.

[John Plunkett]

55 is great for urbanites whose freeways are so crowded you can't drive faster anyway. Letting gas reach an equilibrium/market price the sooner the better will ultimately achieve more efficient use of fuel than any other gimmickry, including hybrid cars and arbitrary speed limits.

[johhny bravo]

yes 55 is the right way to go. Think about it I go 55 you go 65. in an hour you are only ten mins ahead of me but I can still have money to buy the beer when I get there!
55!!

[Robert]

It takes quite a bit of restraint to put this kindly, I'll try.

Rather than shave 10% or so off a car's fuel consumption by driving 25-50 mph below the design speed of the roadway, you could dump the minivan with its barn door aerodynamics and get, oh, a Corvette, which can get 30mpg on the highway. Or a Corrolla, Yaris, etc.
Carpooling with only 2 people doubles the effective mpg, which is far more effective than driving at 55 or even 35. *How* to save fuel should be up to the individual, not the nanny squad.
Old cars? You've completely ignored the amount of energy, material and emissions needed to manufacture a new car; a very rough ballpark figure is that it requires about enough energy to manufacture a new car as to drive it 40,000 miles. So if the new car gets 20% more mileage, you'll break even at around 200,000 miles.

I have a modest proposal: You agree to drive slowly enough to save fuel at an equal rate to the savings I get from other means.
I bicycled to work, 15 mi each way. That cut out 60% of my driving. (Now I take the subway and have cut driving 80%, but I want to make it easy for you). You agree to drive slowly enough to save 60% compared to typical highway speeds, changing to secondary roads so as not to become a safety hazard. If you exhaust your gas allowance (40% of what you use now), you will park the car and move under your own power - no cabs, buses, or trains, which don't run on air and sunshine themselves. Now, how slowly will you have to drive to save 60% compared to average highway speeds? Dropping to 55 mph isn't remotely enough. You could try 40mph, but that would save at most 30% in a passeger car, and probably less. You'll also have to change roads, which might cancel the savings from slowing down. Experiment to see where your fuel allowance runs out.
Looks like some healthy walking will be in order! :-).

[Albert J. Pryor]

Summitted for your approval: I'm a 57 yr old, partially disabled guy with two OLD, but faithfully-running cars. One is a 1982, 4 cylinder, 2 dr sedan with 244k on its odometer, that passes the biennial smog testing with ease. My other car is a 1983 4 cylinder, 4 door sedan with 355k on its odometer. As these serve as my "legs," they WILL NOT be taken from me by you, Mr. Neil, or ANYONE ELSE, not without prying my cold dead fingers from their steering wheels, first!

[Dave]

55MPH will be very detrimental to the economy. Yes, many vehicles do get up to 27% better gas mileage at 55 MPH as compared to 75 MPH. However you are also driving 28% slower at 55 MPH. A 100 mile trip takes all most 30 minutes longer at 55MPH as compared to 75MPH.
The added labor costs to business paying for employees being on the road 28% longer is far above the savings in gas. That added expense will ultimately result in increased prices of all goods and services.
For the sake of discussion, let's use the your math for the 100 mile trip: A car that gets 25 MPG would get 31.75 MPG at 55 MPH (27%) - Gas at $4.00 per gallon - Employee labor cost of $15 per hour.
Driving at 75MPH will take 80 minutes and cost a total of $36.00 in gas and labor costs
( use 4 gallons of gas at a cost of $16.00 and the labor cost would be $20 (1.3 hours x $15/hour))
Driving at 55MPH will take over 109 minutes and cost a total of $39.87 in gas and labor costs
( use 3.15 gallons of gas at a cost of $12.60 and the labor cost would be $27.27 (1.8 hours x $15/hour))
THAT’S AN 11% INCREASE IN COSTS BY SLOWING DOWN TO 55MPH. The burden labor rate for many service industries is actually $25 to $ 35 and more and therefore the problem is even worse.
The saving lives argument has also be very exaggerated. The chances of being involved in an accident on the highway increase the longer you are actually exposed to the risk. In other words, if you are on the highway an additional 30 minutes per day, your exposure to potential risk has been increase 30 more minutes. Being on the road longer also greatly increases driver fatigue. Driving while sleepy is as dangerous as driving drunk.
The claims that the National Highway death toll went down around 1974 due to the 55 MPH limit imposed after the 1973 Oil crisis has often been disputed. It has been suggested that this drop was actually due to new enforcement of seat belt laws and people driving less because of high gas prices.
As a business owner of a service industry, the interference by the Federal Government to make me inefficient will cost me thousands of dollars. Those who want to drive at 55 are more than welcome to drive 55. Just don't make everyone else along with the economy slow down with you!

[Lorenzo]

to : Dan Neil
re: Smart for two

Hey Dan, you willing to make a bet on the Smart doing only 70mph?

cheers....lorenzo