What IF.....55MPH was the speed limit

Two thoughts.
Zero insults.
(That's just how I roll....)

1. It's not the "Nation's" money....it's the People's money. Granted. There are national interests involved, but it seems to me that we've been there, done that WRT to "one size fits all" speed limit. Everybody always lies with numbers, but I'm thinking that while the double-nickel NSL did save energy, there really wasn't much of a ROI when you consider the costs of implementing this policy.
If you really want to force people to save gas?
Institute a higher fuel tax.
No new road signs to buy.
Unfortunately, here in the real world politicians in both parties always find a way to spend more than 100-percent of every penny that they can get their grubby little fingers onto!
So...twenty years from now, we'll still be arguing the same silly stuff.

2. How much of the total petrol use in the US is accounted for by privately owned autos? How many of these operate on the Interstate Highway system, and for what percentage of the time? In other words...how much fuel would you really save?
Truely, there would be savings but at what cost?
It's sad how liberals are quite lion-hearted in defending the Bill of Rights and deriding the federal government when it comes to issues of National security (Patriot Act, airport screenings, "no-knock" warrants, etc...) but if you try to apply those same principles to preventing the Federal government from usurping the rights of State governments to ply their trade, then you're branded as a "Tea Bagger" or a "bitter clinger."

I'm not all that emotionally attached to this argument for two reasons.
We've already been there/done that.
NO politician with a three digit IQ is going to try to do it again.

 

100% agree. Everything else is pissing in the wind. And fwiw, I don't want to force people to save anything; I want the cost of consumption to not have subsidy, and to include cost externalities. Funny how that position is rejected by the non-liberals.

What will you say to the tea baggers who then claim infringement of "economic freedom?"[/quote]

 

People as represented by their government called the nation. Civil War is over. Union won. The nation was saved from the slavers hiding behind a contrived states rights issue. You might want to read history of Andrew Jackson, the first president who faced down the states rights slavers in North Carolina. Jackson being a slave owner and a Southerner from what would be a Confederate state provides clear arguments on why "the union must and shall be preserved".

Massive national trade deficits, massive national debt due to 22 years of national war waged for oil supplies, destruction of nation's environment...it is totally a national issue.

Great idea. No one oppose a gas tax to pay for the $14T in gas wars more than the "state's rights" proponent.

Some do, some don't. Recent history shows one recent president who spent much less, ran budget surpluses.

Big savings, $500B per year in trade deficit tax on US economy. $500B in military costs to prepare for a fight oil wars in Middle East. $500B in pollution costs from air, water to global warming droughts etc.

 

Link I can read ? I'm not being facetious by the way.

I really am unclear what benefit the South provides to the Union. The disadvantages are obvious.

 

Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times.

 

+1

Absolutely. Those boys in washington - and I call them boys because they don't deserve our respect, have lots of bad ideas. When the power to set speed limits was returned to the states, not a single one decided that 55 was the best maximum speed. It makes you wonder if people learned something. Along with 55mph nmsl, we had oil price controls, and tarrifs on imported cars for a big part of the period. These are things that lead to higher oil consumptions

While adding a tax to oil, might reduce its consumption, instead those that had a better idea how we should spend our money, were keeping the price lower. I'm absolutely sure that if Nixon had removed oil price controls, and instituted an oil tax instead, consumption would have dropped more than that piddly little 0.5%

These roads over 55mph are about 1.2% of the roads in this country. We can look at the old statistics which incorporates cheaters to find out we can not save much oil at all unless heavy enforcement is implemented. Now if you are an insurance pac, that makes perfect sense, as you can charge speeders higher rates. If you are a citizen or a state government its not such a good trade off.

Absolutely, but we have those with a firm misreading of history that want to repeat the bad experiment.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the government using its taxing authority to put in bad programs. The federal government did a poor job with the national speed limit. When the federal studies looked at results they were nothing like the politicians promised. You know we do have this thing called the constitution for a reason.

 

Thanks, but I was more interested in reasoned arguments rather than a tautology.

 

The boys from Texas in Washington being the worst of the bunch, wacky ideas leading us to fiscal disasters, national security disasters, economic disasters. 22 years of oil wars, 30 years of fighting against all kinds of fuel efficiency from 55 mph speed limit to tax incentives for hybrid buyers.

Not the least, crazy ideas that states rights trumps national interest on national issues such as energy policy that puts the entire nation at risk.

 

You are free to donate an extra $1/gallon to the government, they will accept it.

 

Did these numbers normalize for improvements in auto safety such as airbags, crumple zones, safety cages, seat belt laws etc? If not, we are comparing apples and oranges

 

No they were not normalized. Those for lowing speed limits would be foolish to pay for such a study, as it would make the statistics look worse for the 55 mph era. As I mentioned in the low hanging fruit comment, many safety devices were added during the 70s which accounted for the drop. This may be one reason that groups misinterpreted the drop in fatalities as caused by the lowered limit. Other groups claimed the drops were other factors such as you mentioned. The recession played into the statistical anomaly at the start of the 55 mph speed limit.


Crumple zones and airbags were widespread before 1995, the start of the second period of data - post 55 mph repeal. It is thought that suvs and distracted driving (cell phones) have caused increased fatalities during this time, while lower drunk driving, higher seat belt usage, and traction control have reduced them.

So yes there are lots of things going on, as predicted by those that thought fatalities would not go up. The trick for those that claim the speed limit was the single figure that lowered fatalities is to explain why safer cars and better roads were not why fatalities dropped. Remember they made predictions about what would happen, and it never happened. Apples and Oranges indeed. There are human factors involved also, and these favored decreasing fatalities as the speed limit was raised.

 

What I always say to them. STFU!
They're almost as hypocritical as the ideologues on the other side of the spectrum. Both extremes are like European 'footballers'. They're hate-filled nut jobs that could give a rip about the sport, but rather use it as a venue to sling piss, and vent rage.
Some of our 'activists' are more of the same.
Same thing.
Different game.

The only two 'little' problems that I have with further taxing fuel, is that (1) the EU is doing that already, and while they have more mass transit options than we do, their energy use is rising as well, AND they're no better off financially than we are. MANY more taxes. MUCH less freedom. WORSE off financially---and they also have a VAT in addition to their high fuel taxes, both of which are conspicuously absent when somebody does a stare and compare with our taxes and theirs.
I have NO problem with a consumption tax! If there were a clear plan to divert the additional income into something worthwhile---I'd sign off on it RIGHT NOW.
However (comma!!!!!!!) (2) our government must also do something worthwhile with the additional income----something that we're no better at than our good friends over on the other side of the pond. Either party. Examples abound.

Lower the NSL?
It's stupid, ineffective, already been tried, AND as somebody very effectively pointed out before......there are (still) 50 state governments.
NONE of these....even Hawaii (ever driven there?) have not seen fit to adopt a 55mph state speed limit. There are (still) some very VERY liberal State Governments. Where's the moral courage out there on this issue?
If somebody wants to drive 55 on the interstate?
Fine by me.
Fact is...there are many people in these parts that do just that. I would wager that none of the '55-fanatics' herein practice what they preach (see above: footballers.)
When I meet them...I never tailgate. I wait for a safe place to pass, and let them practice their personal energy policy in peace.

 

Bingo.

 

Dude, take a break and take a look at reality.

Nixon was not saving the union by putting a national speed limit in place. He actually wiped his a$$ with the constitution while in office Nixon Articles of Impeachment . His oil price controls, import tarrif on efficient cars, and nmsl likely netted the nation more oil use not less.

The federal governments rights are enumerated in the constitution. We have amendments when it needs to be changed. This camels nose under the tent, was enacted by congresses taxing authority. Since it could tax, it could also with hold highway funds from states it did not like. That would be all the states today, as none of them have a 55 mph speed limit. This represented an out of touch Washington, controlled by special interests like the IIHS, to pass a law that became more and more unpopular as its failure was seen by "we the people". Now if it was an unpopular law like an oil tax, that is perfectly within the rights of government, and it might have a chance of working. The nmsl with oil price controls only made the countries problems worse. Your lack of perspective just is shockingly bad.

No state has a 55 mph national speed limit. The states in 2012, do understand their roads and safety better than nixon did in 1973. For you to ask for an expansionist government to reenact a failed law, that is against the wishes of the DOT in every state shows how out of touch you are. Can you get the government of a single state to try your experiment, and lower their speed limit? I doubt it, but stop crying about saving the union. The law wasn't about saving a damn thing.

 

There is a logical disconnect between your desire to save fuel and the need for a law.
And the drop in highway deaths that was correlative to the speed limit being dropped to 55 mph was later shown to be caused by an improvement in auto safety devices. That research was instrumental in restoring the 70 mph speed limit.

Remember that economics is the principle governing the allocation of scarce resources that have multiple uses.
The consensus seems to be that the cost of time lost to a 55 mph speed limit outweighs the money saved in fuel. You may not agree - in fact it may not be true for you. That means that you are free to drive whatever speed you find most economical - without forcing your opinion on everyone else.

 

Here's my wacky idea for this thread......

Ration Gasoline.

Of course this will never happen, but it addresses so many issues. Think about if you were limited to 520 gallons of gasoline per year. For a 15 mpg truck, you would be able to drive 7600 miles per year, while a 25 mpg sedan would go 13,000 miles. Need to travel 20,000 miles? Better get a car that will get 40 mpg, or slow down, or car pool, or use mass transit.

If you really feel the need to drive a super de duper sports car or a Hummer, that's great....but in this scenario, there are real consequences.

Raise non rationed fuel costs signficantly (kinda like the $0.20 per mile past 10,000 miles on lease agreements help curtail excessive mileage) to curtail the desire to exceed your gas ration limit.

 

This works in time of war because of patriotism. In times of pease we develop a black market and hate for the government. I don't understand why anyone would advocate this leap to socialism when the wars are winding down. We have enacted cafe standards. The next step would be an oil tax. The thought that the heavy hand of government rationing of gasoline is a good idea, strikes me as odd. We can't even get a budget passed.

We do have a big expansion of the medicaid costs and a medicare system that is on the ropes with the low cost care act (obama care, or obama cares). That would be a good place to spend a regressive oil tax. It seems better than a payroll tax to pay for these new government burdens coming on line.

 

He was saving the nation by pushing for energy conservation. Nixon realized the threat to national security of the US oil dependence and imports when the Saudi oil embargo hit. Nixon, Ford and Carter were all nationalists who pushed energy efficiency as the only real means to energy independence.

That all ended in 1980 when Reagan went with the Saudi/Saddam/BinLaden (all Reagan/Bush allies and clients) oil policy of making US dependent on Middle East oil to profit US oil industry, US military industry and sell the US out on cheap gas. 22 years of oil wars, 50,000 US casualties, $14T in debt are the cost of that mistake.

55 mph would be sign of political courage and national will both of which are lacking today.

 

Yes, yes nixon was a patriot that wanted the best for the country not himself. We can see that "i am not a crook" meant he was only acting in americas best interest when he decided he was above the law.
Nixon Articles of Impeachment
You know when your the president, you make the laws, they don't apply to you. At least that is what he said in that interview.

Yes we can see clearly from the chart that reagan caused all the trouble.
U. S. Total Petroleum Consumption
Wait, don't look at it. It seems that the effects of the recession, higher prices from the oil embargo, and the 55 mph dropped oil consumption in the US in 1975 all the back down to 16 mmbbl/day level where it was back in 1972. You know when nixon was rapidly increasing imports and had his oil price controls. Then we zoomed up to a peak of 18.9 mmbbl/day in 1978. That 55 mph speed limit sure did the trick. Ford did institute cafe standards and the strategic petroleum reserve that took place under reagan, but we can thank the fall of the shah for the reduced consumption in 1979 according to the eia. You can give carter credit if you want for that drop, I don't but some blame him for turning it into a crisis. He did get us to be friends with Saddam and got us involved in Afghanistan. You can give him credit for the entire sense of wars in iraq, afghanistan, and even troubles today with iran. You could, but I don't, lots of presidents, Regan, Bush, Clinton, son of Bush the sequel, since the blunders could have changed course. hmm Under Reagan oil consumption continued to drop to 15.3 mmbbl/day before heading back up. Nothing like data to enhance your point.

Courage like Nixon showed by violating the constitution. Courage of the ideals to hurt the country even if its unpopular. No, I don't think we want this president or the next to show that kind of disdain and hate for the american people.

 

So, what makes people think we were actually doing the 55 speed limit back then? Break 1-9, break 1-9, any smokies up ahead?