Senator Hillary Clinton Endorses 55 MPH Speed Limit

[aztc]

Drive 55 Conservation Project announces new bumper sticker goal and website update

"The 55-mile speed limit really does lower gas usage. And wherever it can be required, and the people will accept it, we ought to do it..."


2008 Presidential contender Hillary Clinton endorses a return to the 55 MPH speed limit.

US Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) on Tuesday endorsed a return to the 55 MPH maximum speed limit for "most" of the country during a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Senator Clinton, who is leading in the polls for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, responded to a question about whether she supported the Carter administration's national maximum speed limit.

"The 55 mile speed limit really does lower gas usage, and wherever it can be required and that people will accept it, we ought to do it," Clinton said.

The senator admitted that the move would be too unpopular to implement nationwide. "Well, there are just some parts of the country where that's just not going to happen," she said. "You know, where you've got miles of open, flat road."

"I mean, there are things that can be done. So maybe the trade off is, you know, most of the country where 55 miles an hour doesn't seem like a burden, we have that. In the rest of the country, inflate your tires before you head off into the sunset," Clinton concluded.

A newly elected Republican majority Congress repealed the national 55 MPH speed limit in 1995 over the objection of then-President Bill Clinton after groups like the National Motorists Association demonstrated the law's shortcomings as a "life-saving measure."

May 25, 2006 from http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/11/1148.asp

Visit http://www.drive55.org to join Hillary


Drive 55 Conservation Project - One million bumper sticker goal set

Responding to increased public interest the Drive 55 Conservation Project has released new bumper stickers that feature a green circle with 55 inside to let other drivers know the vehicle they are following is driving 55 MPH or less. Our Goal: One million Drive 55 bumper stickers.



Studies and real world experience prove that driving with an "Unleaded Right-Foot" and observing speed limits, never exceeding 55 MPH will reduce energy consumption by 20% to 50%, with no new technology or sacrifice in comfort or safety. In fact, traffic deaths and injuries drastically decreased in the years following the first national 55 MPH speed limit implemented in the 1970's due to the Arab oil embargo.

The people of the United States are under enormous pressure to reduce energy costs and here is why slowing down the pace of traffic still makes sense today.

Reduced fuel consumption - save up to 50%!
Reduced wear and tear on equipment and roadways
Reduced pollution, air, water and noise
Reduced congestion due to fewer collisions
Reduced collisions mean reduced deaths and injuries
Reduced dependance on imported oil
Reduced funding of oil wars

Increased cash to spend on other living expenses
Increased safety for drivers
Increased safety for pedestrians
Increased value of equipment due to less wear and tear
Increased life of taxpayer funded roadways
Increased ability for manufacturers to produce quality vehicles
Increased national security

All of this with no decrease in comfort, no new technology, no new fuel, and no inconvenience for anyone. Join us, get some of these bumper stickers for your vehicles and for your friends, together we can do this. Our goal is one million vehicles with this message on their bumper, Visit www.Drive55.org to check out the new website, download a free Real World Vehicle Efficiency Report, read reports, articles, EPA documents and order Drive 55 bumper stickers to help reach our goal of one million Drive 55 bumper stickers.

Tim Castleman
[e-mail]

[SmokingJacket]

1. I happen to agree with her -- and you -- but...

I wonder what kind of campaign issue this will make. It's my sense that people might find this hard to swallow...

[aztc]

134. Hard to swallow war too

Please help me help others connect these dots:

WAR...OIL...WAR...OIL



http://Drive55.org

[SmokingJacket]

153. I know... I know...

Interestingly, war was swallowed eagerly when we thought it was a "slam-dunk." I heard lots of crap about how war-for-oil was perfectly legitimate and reasonable... now that we're losing, at last tunes have changed...

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Yeah, and if you moderate your crack intake, it'll solve your addiction to that, too.

No, we need to move beyond Oil, find more advanced and sustainable ways to power our shit.

As for the 55 speed limit, I'm guessing you don't live in the West.

[usregimechange]

196. I find it hard to swallow too but am doing so some now.

[Stephanie]

2. She also came out in favor of pateurized milk.

And early childhood education.

[BuyingThyme]

24. And kittens.

[TahitiNut]

46. No! Not kittens!?! She'll lose the dog lobby!

:eyes:

[lutefisk]

84. She's more savvy than you realize:

[Canuckistanian]

56. I hear she's in favour of rainbows and puppies

Hannity is outraged.

[geardaddy]

99. Don't forget walks in the rain and sunsets.

[MedleyMisty]

3. Does she ever drive herself anywhere?

People aren't going to slow down for anything. I really think that the majority of Americans are innumerate and can't understand the black numbers on the white signs, because most people usually go at least 10 miles over the speed limit if not 15 or 20.

[Captain Hilts]

7. While in the WH she had an Olds cutlass in a garage she'd take out evidently.

[Clark2008]

25. Oh - they can read, but why bother?

[LostinVA]

38. She stated she is aware this isn't possible in many areas

It's a good idea energy-wise, as much as it would annoy me to have to adhere to. She's right.

[Captain Hilts]

131. It means IMMEDIATE conservation. So many Dick Cheneys on this board!

Immediate conservation no matter what you're driving.

Dick Cheneys, all you naysayers here.

[aztc]

138. Thanks for getting the point

It is gratifying to know there are others who can see the immediate benefit this would have, thank you.

[Captain Hilts]

152. I studied oil trade for years. So many here buy into Cheney's "personal virtue" argument.

There is only one oil market, and that's the global market.

I don't want to keep sending money to Osama bin Laden's family or Vladimir Putin.

They're buying into the idea that this is about personal freedom and preferences. It's not. They're consuming more gas than they need by driving huge SUVs or by driving 70 mph affects everyone else through noise, higher gasoline prices and through pollution and by keeping our government toadies to the Middle East. It's not about individual freedom.

[JVS]

213. What's your beef with Putin?

[RB TexLa]

4. Wouldn't effect me, I rarely go over 55 now.

[ProfessorGAC]

32. Same Here

I might hit 60 on the interstate when the limit is 65. But, typically i hit "cruise" at 55. I'm one of those folks you don't want to be behind, i guess.
The Professor

[Bake]

98. That's fine. Now please stay in the right lane.

:rofl:

Bake

[RB TexLa]

101. I dirve in which ever lane I choose to drive in.

[Bake]

104. If you're going to go 10-15 mph slower than the speed limit

AND stay in the left lane (interstate, of course), then you're not only rude but you're unsafe as well. And you can get ticketed for it in several states.

Bake

[ProfessorGAC]

112. Well, You'll Be Happy To Know. . .

. . . that i am a right lane driver. However, i sometimes think that people think the speed limit is a requirement. It's a maximum. It doesn't say "GO 65!" It says, "No more than 65!" Now, i understand there is a minimum too! And i don't go that slow. But, honestly, i'm not going to speed up beyond a comfort limit, and burn more gas for the convenience of others. I just won't. And, i CERTAINLY am not going to break the law for the convenience of others. Not gonna happen.
The Professor

[aztc]

143. Right on, right lane.

I get behind trucks here in California because they already have a 55 MPH speed limit statewide. Interesting to note some companies even advertise that their trucks are observing a 55 MPH speed limit, UPS & McDonald's come to mind. Oh, and the Truckers Association also endorses it to save fuel and improve safety.

[Balbus]

128. And some people piss on the toilet seat and don't clean it up.

There's no law against that, but they're still uncourteous jackasses.

[JVS]

167. Then if someone creams you while you're going slow in the fast land....

you'll have deserved it.

[dysfunctional press]

211. in illinois you can get a ticket for going 55 in the left lane

it's for passing, not stupid fucks who can't handle higher speeds.

[Madspirit]

221. You Do That

...and you will get a big old ticket in my state. It's not safe to be belligerent when you drive. The left is for faster drivers.
Lee

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. Whoa, she's really sticking her neck out this time... nt

[Captain Hilts]

6. This is VERY unpopular. Good on her for endorsing it. I agree. 70mph is a waste.nt

[Breeze54]

53. So is more dead drivers!!

[Exiled in America]

59. Speed limits over 5MPH don't equate to more dead drivers.

This was posted in another post below:

Higher Speed Limits, Lower Death Rates

Statistics surprise many observers of state's highways

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/11/02/MN65128.DTL


When California revved up speed limits nearly three years ago, critics predicted
highway carnage as drivers sped past the new 65 mph signs -- and into trouble.

It didn't happen. Fewer people died in California auto wrecks last year than in
any year in the past four decades, despite a doubled state population and triple
the number of vehicles on the road.

A total of 3,671 people died, far below the peak of 5,503 in 1979 and 5,500 as
recently as 1987. This year, the death toll is running nearly 300 lower than the
same period last year, California Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. Helmick said.

``I for one am not going to tell you that raising speed limits in California has
created a major problem,'' he said. ``We have never seen this kind of reduction
in my 30 years on the highway patrol.''

The reduction is part of a nationwide phenomenon. As Congress debated ending the
national 55 mph limit on most freeways in 1995, the Center for Auto Safety predicted
an extra 6,400 people a year nationwide would die in addition to the 41,000 killed in
1994. Instead, the federal government reported last week that the death rate on the
nation's roads fell to a record low in 1997.

And California's death rate is even lower.

more........

[Colobo]

161. I drive at 75 or 80mph and will continue to do so.

[Captain Hilts]

162. You are being very selfish. You are a hazard to other drivers and are helping drive up gas prices.

[Colobo]

166. No, I'm being a normal driver here in Florida

who has to commute and get to work/school in time.

[Captain Hilts]

168. Get up earlier, Mr. Greenhouse gases. Tell Osama Bin Laden I said 'hello'! nt

[Colobo]

172. Why don't you pick me up and take me to work?

[KittyWampus]

214. No MookieWilson, the gas guzzling cars that Detroit sticks us with drive up gas prices

[Captain Hilts]

215. There are a lot of cars that aren't gas guzzlers. No one forces people to buy SUVs.nt

[dysfunctional press]

212. same here.

nt

[Little Wing]

8. I can dig that. I normally drive around 60, so it's no biggie

[sniffa]

9. there goes sammy hagar's endorsement

she's toast.

[Cha]

73. Yeah, why do I always think

of Sammy Hager when I see "55 miles an hour"?

"I CAN'T DRIVE 55!"

[Forkboy]

120. LMAO

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

147. .

:rofl:

[yardwork]

10. We are facing much worse issues right now - I wish she would focus!

This is not the #1 problem facing us.

[gilpo]

27. Why does everything a candidate says have to be of earth-shattering importance?

This is how we get to know a candidate, we need the small pieces of information, too.

[yardwork]

35. The media ignores all the big issues and all we have left are fragments

I'm very frustrated. Thanks to the corporate-owned media, all we know about Edwards is that he gets expensive haircuts, and Hillary Clinton will take away our video games and right to drive fast.

The game is stacked well against us. The only way to fight back is for Democratic candidates to say practically nothing and focus only on a few key issues.

[LostinVA]

39. Energy is a major issue -- good for her

[meldroc]

11. This will float like a lead balloon in Colorado

Colorado and the other Western states don't have the population density of the coasts, so people tend to go 85+ in places. People here didn't like the 55 speed limit then, and they won't like it now.

65 might be less intolerable, but really, I think we should work more on alternative fuels and more efficient cars.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Yep, 55 here in Nebraska isn't going to fly, LOL!

[Maru Kitteh]

200. EXACTLY what I was thinking. Takes me long enough to get to Omaha from Kearney

now thank you very much.

Let her take a trip on 80 from the Wyoming border to Omaha. Imagine that conversation?


"Oh driver, make sure you stay under 55 O.K.?

100 miles later in the stark Nebraska landscape, "Driver I haven't seen any towns yet, are we going the right way?"

219 miles and 3.5 hours after the trip begins the town of North Platte finally appears. "How charming! Driver are we near Omaha now?"

Another hour and a half passes, nearly five hours and 316 miles have gone by. Kearney comes into view. "Driver, surely Kearney must be near Omaha! Are you sure we're still in Nebraska?"

Still another hour passes. Any quaint charm once imagined has faded into a dull terror that they have driven straight into an episode of "The Twilight Zone." The town of Grand Island is barely visible from the endless cruel interstate.

"Driver, how #%&king long do we have to go till we get out of this state?"

"Ma'am we still have about two and a half hours to go"

Hillary: "STEP ON IT!"

[BarbaRosa]

33. Forget NM on this one

If we get 55, then east of the Mississippi gets 45.

[kineneb]

193. 55 mph on I-5 is forever, no way will CA go for it

another rule created by people who have never driven in the west. Can we say losing people to falling asleep on the highway?

And I would like point out that my 5-speed car gets the best gas mileage at around 68 on the freeway...and the shift-point for 5th is at 60 mph. So 55 is not necessarily the most efficient speed for many cars.

[Danieljay]

12. Easy for her, easy for the big car companies... neither have to change..

its a win/win.

For Hillary and the car companies. Thanks a lot.

[Captain Hilts]

15. Wow! Someone's already trying to make her seem greedy and selfish for supporting this!

That was quick!

AND ignorant!

[Danieljay]

21. ok, I'll ask it so you don't have to. "Why do you hate Hillary?"

yadda yadda yadda.


There you go. Feel my hate.

[LostinVA]

40. I'm surprised it took so long

[Danieljay]

57. poor Hillary. She's so hated and misunderstood.

Who could possibly have an opinion about her without being a hater?

[paulk]

113. if your "opinion" wasn't so obviously colored by your

hatred, you might have a point...

[Forkboy]

121. And thanks for proving his.

[Danieljay]

206. BING! And YOU win the prize for proving mine! Thank you, Forkboy!

It amazing to me. I don't hate Hillary, I simply don't support her and disagree with her on a lot of issues.

Thanks for getting it. Then again, if you didn't agree with me, I'd have to accuse you of hating me.

Peace.

[MH1]

Far more useful would be to come out for increased public transit funding

and strong restrictions on subsidization of capacity expansion for private vehicle transit.

Anyone know if she has done that?

While she may be technically correct about the 55-mph limit reducing gas usage, I think it's a political non-starter, and not nearly as helpful as just getting the fracking cars off the road.

[Telly Savalas]

183. Have either Obama or Edwards said anything about public transit?

[Danieljay]

13. n/t Dupe

[jgraz]

14. Yes, god forbid we should raise CAFE standards

Just make me and my tiny car drive slower. :grr:

What we really should do is have 55 mph for light trucks, just like we do for the big guys. The real problem is the SUVs, so make them pay the price. That would not only help fuel economy, but it would probably cut down on all those SUV-induced traffic fatalities.

[Danieljay]

19. Yep, You are exactly right, political cake covered with creamy frosting!

This way, she can support the big auto manufactures and their desire to make SUV's, as well as gain the support of the union workers that build them.

[MGKrebs]

68. I know! You'd think she was running for office or something.

It's just ridiculous how these politicians say things that people (and companies) might support them for! It's surreal.

[jgraz]

106. Yes, apparently she's running for the GOP nomination

No principles, just power. Who cares what happens to the climate as long as Hillary's corporate leash holders continue to make money?

[SteelPenguin]

23. That would be reasonable

So it'll never happen.

Most people are bitchy unreasonable morons, and the concept of letting fuel efficient cars go a different speed than trucks would really draw the ire of some of them.

CAFE standards need to be raised dramatically but also tax breaks should be given for higher levels of efficiency. Really, I'd support higher taxes on inefficent vehicles but that would never fly. Instead raise taxes across the board, and then REWARD more efficient cars with lower tax status and have that tied to the rising CAFE standards.

Everything must be over 20 mpg, then if you're over 30mpg you get X tax break, and 40mpg Y tax break and 50mpg Z tax break and over 60mpg it's a tax free purcahse. Or something like that. Encourage people to buy that more efficient car. Encourage the companies to make more efficient cars. All the while keeping that baseline rising, so that the next yeawr it's 22/32/42/52 etc. Encourages inovation, buying efficient vehicles, and better standards for the future.

[bullwinkle428]

67. BINGO!!!! HAMMER MEET NAIL!

This strikes me as nothing more than a feel-good measure to avoid the real issue of taking the auto-makers to task by raising CAFE standards...

[JVS]

103. good post

[CrispyQ]

16. While I think 55 mph is a good thing,

I think this will lose her tons of votes. At 65 mph on I-25 people pass me like I'm standing still. They've gotta be going 75+.

Something funny: When Carter did the 55 mph thing in the 70s, in Colorado there was a big ad campaign with a burly looking State Trooper & the words:

55 MPH
Not Just a Good Idea,
IT'S THE LAW!

Several years ago I saw a bumper sticker that read:

186,000 Miles A Second
Not Just a Good Idea,
IT'S THE LAW!

;)

[Oglethorpe]

141. Nixon, not Carter

Actually Nixon originally did the 55 mph thing in the wake of the 73 Arab embargo. And, it was originally 50 mph before it was moved up to 55 mph.

Looks like CB radios and radar detectors may come back into vogue.

[riverdale]

17. Some people actually have to drive their cars

No inconvenience for anyone my ass! I wouldn't vote for her on this issue alone.

[TX-RAT]

18. Thats a vote getter for sure

:sarcasm:

[MH1]

20. "No inconvenience for anyone"? Get real.

I was leadfooting it on a long drive this weekend because of the need for my passenger to catch a train at the other end of our drive - if we'd missed it she would have had a great inconvenience of waiting about three hours for the next one and getting home very, very late at night.

Now consider:

1) My intent was to take the train in the first place and not drive my car at all this weekend BUT there is no reasonable rail option that gets me where I needed to go.

2) If there were more frequent trains that my friend could have taken from where I was dropping her, it would not have been as big a deal if she missed the one train.

Either way, more public transit would have done more to reduce global warming impact AND inconvenience. (I don't consider driving my own car a long distance a "convenience.")

I don't think many people with tight schedules will consider 55 mph speed limit "no inconvenience for anyone" even if I personally consider driving 55 the right thing to do whenever possible.

[Ganja Ninja]

26. The 55 mph speed limit wasn't all that bad back when we had it.

I could live with it again.

[RedCappedBandit]

205. Already like that here in NY

NOBODY follows this law. It is ridiculous.

[benEzra]

223. It was plenty bad here. (n/t)

[Ryano42]

28. On the Coasts, sure...

Urban areas, but here in the middle of NOWHERE...with fewer vehicles, I think it's a state by state thing. We have stretches where it is 250 miles between cities and...it takes forever even at 75. Now if they ever get their heads out about high speed rail (I worked on the TGV in France...great stuff) then NO PROBLEM!

:think: Now vehicles that get 60-70MPG at highway speeds are totally doable...using alternatives/hybrids... :think: as well as 55 in many areas! :patriot:

[Danieljay]

30. Youre right. Why not support fuel efficient cars and public transportation?

I know, I know. "Why do I hate Hillary?"

[One_Life_To_Give]

29. Nobody obeyed 55 last time

if it wasn't for the traffic jams I-95 in CT would have lost it's federal funding for excessive speed. A couple hours a day at less than 30MPH helped bring down the average speed and they were still marginal for fed funds then.

Rt 128/I-95 around Boston is posted 55. The hammer lane averages 80.
You put the limit back down on the rest of the roads. Nobody is going to follow it. Nobody will bother to enforce it. Everyone will drive what they feel like. Might as well be the Wild West out there as a poor law is as bad as no law.

[havocmom]

31. Does she wanna force car makers to build more efficient cars?

Take regular pickup trucks and SUV and make them count in a manufacturer's 'fleet average MPG'?

Does she come out against letting the auto industry do what they damn well please?

'Drive 55' :wtf: Too much pointless PR, not enough substance. Is she begging Gore to jump into the race?

[Missy M]

34. I find it interesting that something proven to reduce...

energy consumption is being dissed so badly. All the pluses when reducing the speed limit and yet people are against it. It doesn't make sense to me. You will still get to where you are going, what is the big hurry. She said she realizes it won't be accepted in wide open spaces so make sure your tires are inflated. People just don't want to make changes. I have a feeling if it were proposed by candidate(s) other than Hillary it would be fantastic and earth shaking. I'm all for it. Thank you Hillary.

[ieoeja]

44. And driving 45 would have even more pluses.

And so forth. Many people in modern vehicles feel frustrated driving 55 mph on the open road.

Furthermore, as this is a political website the people here usually look at everything through a political lens. My first reaction upon reading the headlines was, "you can kiss the West and the Great Plains states goodbye". In fact, were I Edwards or Obama, I would be certain to add this little tidbit to my campaign in Iowa. This could bury her chances there.

[Captain Hilts]

130. So many people here are saying it's like endorsing pasturisation of dairy products.

As you point out, it isn't.

This would not be popular at all.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. Well, some people think Manhattan is the Entire Known Universe.

Sure- if you live on the East Coast and everybody and his bastard brother bob lives within 5 minutes of your house, a 55 mph speed limit doesn't sound crazy at all.

[SheilaT]

36. You can tell she's

never driven an 800 mile road trip. Oh, right. She always got to fly in air force one, or probably by private jet these days. Or is she actually spotted in the Shuttle?

If we had the kind of inter-urban rail, high speed long distance rail, and good public transportation we ought to have everywhere, then millions of people would be actually willing to give up their cars. I would. But the reality is, for many of us, that we drive, often long distances, and being able to drive a fuel-efficient car at a reasonable speed (personally I tend to do 80 when I'm going cross country) is all we have left. At the end of ten hours of driving that's an extra 300 miles or so.

Raise the CAFE standards first. Charge a yearly gas-guzzler tax on every car that gets less than 20 mpg, and even more on those that get less than 10. If you want to drive a stupid, fuel inefficient car that's your prerogative, but don't punish the rest of us.

[Oilwellian]

119. I couldn't agree more

Best post in the thread. :thumbsup:

[Tesha]

37. Perhaps she can let Governor Corzine know that "91 is too fast".

Perhaps, as part of her campaign, she can let NJ
Governor Corzine and fellow Democrat know that
"91 is too fast", and that for the sake of the
planet (if not for all the innocent bystanders
on the Garden State Parkway), he should ask his
State Trooper chauffeur to slow down a bit,
maybe even down to the current 65 MPH speed
limit.

I wonder how fast Hillary's chauffeur drives?

Tesha

[LostinVA]

41. HRC cannot win on this board

This is a good idea, even though I'd personally loathe it, but it doesn't matter, does it? If she said, "All old people, children, and kittens and puppies need to be cared for and fed," people would criticize her as pandering, etc.

:sigh:


on edit: And, she even qualified her statement saying she she knows this wouldn't fly in many areas, but should be adopted where it WOULD fly. But yet, she's attacked for trying to force this nationally.

[yurbud]

43. I give her props where due. this is a non-starter though

[Missy M]

48. No she can't....

energy consumption is a big deal, yet when something is proposed to help cut energy consumption, no one wants to do it. No one wants to personally sacrifice, they want others to do it. I already drive energy efficient cars and have for years and I still think her proposal is a good thing. Why is everyone in such a hurry. I wonder what the reaction would have been if some other candidate made the proposal. If she said "All old people, children and kittens and puppies need to be cared for and fed" the reaction would be "what about 20,30, 40 and 50 year olds, why is she excluding us, she doesn't care about us".

[Skip Intro]

192. I absolutely agree.

As I posted below, if this had been Obama making these same statements the crowd would go wild.

[yurbud]

42. I've got a 64 mile commute in Souther California

It would take me 20 minutes longer if I went 55 instead of 80.

If they lowered the speed limit here, everyone would still drive 75+.

[nolabels]

50. So your one those people?

Out in the Inland Empire a person can be cruising in slow lane at about 75 and people will trying to pass them over on the shoulder :shrug:

[yurbud]

54. are you saying I'm driving at granny speeds? If I go much faster, my car will explode!

I drove a VW Bus in college that had a top speed of 69. If I had that down here, I wouldn't make it to the end of the on ramp before I'd be squashed into an accordian.

[nolabels]

97. Yea, pretty much

But mostly kidding

I enjoy the 55-65 range but everybody else on the road is in such a hurry most of the time. I keep up and stay in the fast lane just because it is most safe (if you are paying attention to where your driving that is). The one less car on the left trying to cut you off is the only reason.

With autos being engineered so much better for crashes, safety, abs, air bags and all that stuff people just think weird things and become aggressive on the Freeway because of it. My wife is that crazy way a lot also, so let me apologize in advance for her. She brags about never of being in wreck. When i am with her in the car i have to zone out her driving. Her driving is actually scary and embarrassing at the same time.

I lay low on the criticisms of my wifes driving now though. Her mother died in auto accident in the last few months and just everybody knows consequences speak louder than words

[yurbud]

181. she killed her own mother?

[nolabels]

209. Oh no, nothing like that

Her mom, older women we called Grammy was driving over to Uncle Johns early to help get Thanksgiving dinner set up for a traditional family get together. The truck she was driving had the left front tire (Firestone :mad: ) blow out at the exact wrong time.

She was on a sparsely traveled two lane highway when a big diesel truck was coming the other way. The blow out forced her to swerve into the other lane at just the wrong time. One second either way things might have been different. She didn't have a chance, she was in a Ford 4x4 F350. Even that larger type of vehicle didn't help, the big diesel truck pinned her in behind the steering wheel and she expired at the scene. All them safety devices are worthless when you have front tires that are not safe because of faulty manufacture.

Chances of that happening with all the circumstances seemed like one in a million but it happened.

[aztc]

62. $7.50 of each hour you work to pay for this commute

At .52 cents per mile, assunimg 128 miles round trip, you are paying over $60 dollars each day for this commute. Given an 8 hr workday, that means the first $7.50 each hour pays for the 2 hours wasted driving to and from. Get ajob earning $7.50 per hr less close to your home and come out ahead with two more hours to spend with your family.

[Little Wing]

93. 60 bucks a day?

I suspect somewhere along the way, you F'd up your math

[Xithras]

109. Yes, the posters math was off

At $3.50 a gallon, a car getting 30MPG costs about 12 cents a mile to run. Even factoring in oil changes ($30 every 5000 miles or .6 cents a mile) and new tires ($500 every 15,000 miles, or .4 cents a mile) and car washes, operating costs for a car don't typically break 15 cents a mile (unless you commute in an SUV, which is just dumb). There are additional costs including insurance and car payments, of course, but those rates aren't directly affected by the distance you drive.

A 128 mile round trip costs $19.20 a day. Given an 8 hour workday, that works out to about $2.40 an hour you're paying for the commute. If you're making $25 an hour and find a job next to your home that pays $23, you can take that job without any financial impact. If you're making $25 an hour and you find a job up the street that pays $18, you're losing money.

That said, I gave up nearly half my salary in 2000 when I decided to stop commuting to the Bay Area from my central California home (a 160 mile daily roundtrip commute). My pay took a considerable hit, but we adjusted and my quality of life went way up. Less stress, more time to do what I want, and more time with my family. I ride my bike to work now, and I shake my head at all the years I spent behind the wheel of my car sucking fumes on the way to a job that just "paid the bills". If you possibly CAN afford to quit commuting, you'll be happier for it.

[aztc]

123. My math is not way off, yours is

Most people immediately think of the direct costs of driving: purchasing and maintaining a car, paying for gas and oil, insurance, registration and parking. Further from the mind are other costs associated with automobiles such as road construction and maintenance that are paid for less directly, via taxes and fees. Since those costs aren't paid for directly by car owners, they usually aren't calculated as costs of driving. In addition, there are the other hidden environmental and social costs that drivers and non-drivers alike pay to support our primary mode of transportation - the automobile.
http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

[Xithras]

126. None of which impact the direct point being made here

You're talking social costs, and I'm talking direct costs. Eliminating a commute will not impact this individuals need to stop paying the social costs of commuting. The only question normal people care about is "Will I be able to pay my bills if I work closer to home?" The social benefits of a commute-free lifestyle are all well and good, but discussing them is pointless if adopting it means that you can't pay your mortgage.

[aztc]

133. I AM talking TRUE COSTS - show how my math is wrong please

And I am using just .52 cents per mile, rather than the TRUE COST that includes social.

Again:
Most people immediately think of the direct costs of driving: purchasing and maintaining a car, paying for gas and oil, insurance, registration and parking. Further from the mind are other costs associated with automobiles such as road construction and maintenance that are paid for less directly, via taxes and fees. Since those costs aren't paid for directly by car owners, they usually aren't calculated as costs of driving. In addition, there are the other hidden environmental and social costs that drivers and non-drivers alike pay to support our primary mode of transportation - the automobile.

http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

[jmowreader]

105. Or in the real world...

We'll assume the man has a car that gets 25mpg for this example.

Fuel: 5.12 gallons at $3/gallon is $15.36

Oil accrual: If an oil change costs $29.95 and lasts 3000 miles, that's about one cent per mile, so we'll say you take $1.28 off your oil change every time you make the drive. A car SHOULD use a quart of oil every thousand miles, and we'll say his leaks a hair, so let's say two quarts a week at $2.50 per quart...IOW, a buck a day for oil burnt or leaked.

Put aside five dollars a day for various maintenance items.

Tire accrual: We will assume a set of tires costs $800--tires, mounting, FET--and lasts 40,000 miles. That's two cents a mile, so $2.56 for his tire wear.

If he doesn't have to deal with tollbooths, we'll add in another $4.80 for beverages and come out with an even $30 per day. The IRS numbers assume you're paying yourself salary to drive, which he's not.

Now here's the big thing I'm wondering: what if there ARE no jobs closer to his home paying $7.50 less per hour than what he's making? You'd run into that situation here--I could easily get a job paying $25/hour in Raleigh, which is more than twice what I make, and if I had a car that would make it to Raleigh every day I'd do it.

[aztc]

124. Yes, in the REAL WORLD, the TRUE COST is much higher

Most people immediately think of the direct costs of driving: purchasing and maintaining a car, paying for gas and oil, insurance, registration and parking. Further from the mind are other costs associated with automobiles such as road construction and maintenance that are paid for less directly, via taxes and fees. Since those costs aren't paid for directly by car owners, they usually aren't calculated as costs of driving. In addition, there are the other hidden environmental and social costs that drivers and non-drivers alike pay to support our primary mode of transportation - the automobile.

http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

[yurbud]

182. I get 36 mpg, and only go that far twice a week, so it's about 3 gallons or $10 each way

$40 per week.

I make enough to come out ahead on the deal, and I drive through Malibu on the PCH one way.

[skipos]

45. Not that she has a good chance in the general election

but this will lose her many votes and gain her very few. I'll give her props for having a position that will make her numbers even worse, though I disagree with it.

[guitar man]

47. sorry, that would completely screw me

I'm an extreme commuter, about 96 miles or so each way, 75mph speed limit interstate. I make the trip 3 times a week and stay in the city a couple nights.

This morning, I rode my motorcycle at 50+ mpg as I do during the warm months here, generally april through october I'm riding quite often. My car gets 26-27mpg highway mpg when I'm not riding the bike.

I'm doing all I can right now. My house is paid off, and I have put it on the market a couple times in the last 4 years that I have been doing this commuting thing. Got some insults, but no real offers.

No sir, no way. 55mph speed limit would effectively put me out of business.

[aztc]

51. Long commutes inexcusable

96 miles each way? Sir, YOU are part of the problem, and you aren't even willing to moderate a little? Wow.

[guitar man]

58. maybe you would like

to offer an alternative? I have not been able to find a job in my area that will pay jack shit. I have 7 years invested in a job that I started at entry level and by taking a transfer 4 years ago was able to scratch my way into middle management and a decent living by working my ass off.

The goddamn problem is corporate greed and outsourcing making meaningful work and employement harder and harder to come by. I have a family to provide a living for and it's been a tough row to hoe. If I could sell my house without taking a bath on it, I'd do it in a hot minute and move close to my work. In the meantime, I'm stuck with what I have.

I'm going to be riding a motorcycle home in the rain today, at 50-55mpg, I'd say I am moderating as much as I can.

Anybody that wants to criticize can come try my shoes on for a while.

[aztc]

66. Let's do the math

Of course riding the motorcycle is extremely good, and helps offset the days you must use a car, but think about the rest of those driving - some just can't do the motorcycle thing - but these folks need to be able to safely drive 55, and it isn't safe when others are zipping around at 75 or 80, riding your bumper as they chat on the cell phone listening to Sammy Hagar...you see the point of the limit is to slow EVERYONE down, not just you.

Now, let's do the math. .52 cents per mile, X 96 miles = $49.92 each way, or about $100, each day. Assuming an 8 hr day, the first $12.50 of each hour you work goes to pay for this commute. Of course you save significantly by riding the motorcycle, but remember, not everyone can do that, and there is that trade off in comfort and safety, so while comendable in itself, your use of the motorcycle really can't be used to defend the higher speed limit. Thanks for thinking it over with me.

Tim

[guitar man]

70. I've done the math

over and over for 4 years now, and that's nowhere close. Where do you get .52 a mile?

[aztc]

75. .52 cents per mile IRS allowance

.52 cents per mile is the IRS allowance. The TRUE COST is actually MUCH HIGHER:
http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

[guitar man]

81. I'm not spending

anywhere near that. I am running about 60% of my annual commute mileage on the bike, and it is very cheap to keep. Hell, full coverage insurance only runs $120 a year, so that's 10 bucks a month for insurance. Other than that, I have to change the oil about every 3000 miles and the transmission oil about every 5000. As far as repairs go, it's an Evo Sportster, so repairs are practically non-existent, and if it ever does need repair, I'll do it myself, been riding and wrenching on bikes for 33 years.

The car is paid for, has been for a long time, so all the insurance I carry on it is liability. It hasn't given me any problems, so it's maintenence cost has been pretty low.

I wish I could claim .52 a mile on my taxes that would be great, but, that's not for us lowly employees, I guess you have to own a business or something to do that :(

[Rosemary2205]

60. Huh?

The guy is trying to sell his house and move closer to the new job. What more do you want. Geesh.

Besides that, I personally know people who spend 90 minutes on a train each way from home to work in the NYC area. Instead of being judgemental to someone who is having difficulty living in the city where the jobs are , why not be judgemental toward cities that are not investing in decent public transport -- that way workers can live where it's affordable and work where the jobs pay decent. -- Or judge the companies who refuse to spread the decent jobs out into the suburbs.

[LSK]

107. are you familiar with real estate prices in some cities???

:shrug:

[guitar man]

135. word

that's exactly what I'm facing, the differential between what has been ofered for my property in Tulsa vs. what I could buy in Oklahoma City with the proceeds.I have put a lot of hard work and effort into buying, improving and paying off my house and property where I am.

But I'm sure that doesn't matter to those who like to just arbitrarily point fingers and say "you're the problem." I guess my years of hard work should just be placed on the altar and sacrificed for whatever cause they champion. :eyes:

[aztc]

137. Keep the paid off home, dump the commute

It is great you have a paid off home, surely your expenses don't require such a high paying job? Why not dump the commute and settle for a few bucks less? In any case, I am sorry this got personal, it just blew me away when I saw that 96 mile commute as justification to waste even more...wow.

[guitar man]

145. I'll tell you what

I'll give you a stack of my resumes and you can hit the streets in Tulsa and see if you can find a job for me that I can provide a decent living for me, my wife and my 16 month old daughter because I'll be damned if I can find anything close to home that I'm qualified for that will pay me any more that 8 or 9 bucks a fucking hour. I REFUSE TO LIVE LIKE THAT and I'm not going to ask my family to suffer either.

If you want to point the finger, point it at the greedy corporate machie that puts us common working folks into such situations. I'd dump the goddamned commute in a hot minute if it were a viable option, I hate it. The last 4 years of my life have been nothing but long working days because of it. It's a hard, hard damn life, but I've never backed off anything just because it's hard.

Personal? When people start shooting their mouth off about my life when they don't know a goddamned thing about it, you bet it's personal.

[Oglethorpe]

146. Part of the problem

Far be it from me, as a newbie, to cast aspersions on a fellow DU'er, but a working stiff trying to get by in a lousy economy is "part of the problem" because he has to drive a long way to work? Man, this place is harsh!!!

[guitar man]

150. meh, you get used to it

at the end of the day, it's all just a bunch of words on a screen, sometimes those words piss you off, but you gotta keep it in perspective.

welcome to DU :hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

149. "long commutes inexcusable"

Pfffffffffffft. What are you, Emperor?

Thanks, Napoleon.

[guitar man]

160. rofl :)

thanks, I needed that :hi:

have a great day, I'm headed out to tackle 96 miles of wet roads on my bike....

[aztc]

165. Ok, rephrase that, Long commutes INSANE

Addicts in denial will defend their habit to the bitter end. It is INSANE to commute 96 miles each way every day. Study www.drive55.org and http://commutesolutions.org/calc.htm if this point is still escaping you.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Don't lecture me. I'd be the first to say we as a species are addicted to oil

and I'd also be the first to say long commutes suck.

But bitching at people- many of whom, due to real estate prices vs. where the jobs are don't have any CHOICE except to have a long commute (let me take a wild, flying stab in the dark guess and say you don't live in the Bay Area) is NOT going to solve our planetary petroleum addiction. Nor is getting everyone to drive 55 gonna stop the inevitable day the oil runs out from coming.

What WILL solve those problems? finding a better way to power our shit. That's what we need to do; mandating an extremely unpopular speed limit isn't going to solve the problem.

Really- I'm curious- where do you live?

[aztc]

176. Sacramento, Amtrak, Bike & Public Transit rider

I live in Sacramento and travel to the Bay Area often. In fact, I just bought a ten ride ticket for Amtrak for $127. Let's do the math. 90 miles / 12.70= .14 cents per mile vs .52 all those lone commuters are spending. Or is $1.19? (http://commutesolutions.org/calc.htm)

What is really fascinating is how many empty seats I see on Amtrak, BART and all the regional transit systems around here. It is amazing - lots of folks say they would use the system if it met their individual needs, which I guess means it must stop to pick them up at home, at their preferred time, and not stop anywhere along the way to their destination. But then there are SO many reasons people have to not use public transit, somehow I just really believe you may even have one I haven't heard yet. Or do you actually use the excellent public transit system we have here in the Bay area?

[Warren DeMontague]

177. I've taken that Sacramento Amtrak, many times.

As for excellent public transit, I'm all for it- but I live in Sonoma County. So don't tell me, tell the folks in Marin who voted SMART down (again) last year.

I'd love to see more public transportation options- hell, they should just Run BART all the way up here. That would be wonderful.

[guitar man]

217. let me rephrase this then

right now I'm stuck with what I HAVE TO DO to provide a decent living for my family.

now go fuck yourself if the point is still escaping you :grr:

[aztc]

49. Funding Petroleum Warlords

Speed addicts fund war and the criminals who love it.

[Captain Hilts]

156. The Saudi Royal family, Osama bin Laden, Vladimir Putin. Hand your cash to them! nt

[Breeze54]

52. Do you remember what we did with the last prez that supported 55 mph?

January 2, 1974 in History

Event: 55 MPH speed limit imposed by Richard Nixon

The 55 miles-per-hour speed limit came as a result of the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

-----------------------------------------------

Higher Speed Limits, Lower Death Rates

Statistics surprise many observers of state's highways

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/11/02/MN65128.DTL


When California revved up speed limits nearly three years ago, critics predicted
highway carnage as drivers sped past the new 65 mph signs -- and into trouble.

It didn't happen. Fewer people died in California auto wrecks last year than in
any year in the past four decades, despite a doubled state population and triple
the number of vehicles on the road.

A total of 3,671 people died, far below the peak of 5,503 in 1979 and 5,500 as
recently as 1987. This year, the death toll is running nearly 300 lower than the
same period last year, California Highway Patrol Commissioner D.O. Helmick said.

``I for one am not going to tell you that raising speed limits in California has
created a major problem,'' he said. ``We have never seen this kind of reduction
in my 30 years on the highway patrol.''

The reduction is part of a nationwide phenomenon. As Congress debated ending the
national 55 mph limit on most freeways in 1995, the Center for Auto Safety predicted
an extra 6,400 people a year nationwide would die in addition to the 41,000 killed in
1994. Instead, the federal government reported last week that the death rate on the
nation's roads fell to a record low in 1997.

And California's death rate is even lower.

more........

HRC is grasping at her republican straws again...... :puke:

[aztc]

72. Missed the point here

The point is to save energy, though saving lives is good too, IMHO.

Excerpt from: http://Drive55.org

In 1973 the US experienced a fuel crisis that had repercussions throughout the economy. Congress enacted legislation establishing a National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) of 55 mph. Although enacted for purposes of fuel economy, it resulted in a reduction in highway fatalities of over 9000 in the first year. When the immediate fuel crisis had passed, and cars were no longed lined up at the gasoline stations, an effort was made to retain the NMSL for safety reasons. There was strong opposition. Congress requested an independent review of the evidence, and in 1984 the Transportation Research Board issued their report (Committee for the Study of the Benefits and Costs of the 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit, 1984), making the following points:

Fuel Economy. The legislation was initially enacted for purposes of fuel economy. Gasoline consumption declined in 1974, for a savings of about 255,000 barrels per day (BPD) of petroleum, and it was estimated that in 1983, the lower speed limits accounted for savings of about 167.000 BPD. Although additional oil reserves have been discovered since 1974, there has been no absolute increase in the total amount of fossil fuel o­n the planet Earth. Consequently, the longterm importance of conserving fuel has not diminished.

Safety. The review concluded that the unprecedented decrease in highway fatalities, over 9000 lives, immediately following the enactment of the NMSL resulted from many factors including reduced exposure and reduced discretionary driving. However, taking into account other variables that may have contributed to the safety benefits, the report concluded that the NMSL continued to save lives. They estimated that, in the early years of the 55 mph NMSL the lower speeds saved about 3000 to 5000 lives annually. In 1984, there continued to be between 2000 and 4000 fewer fatalities, between 2500 and 4500 serious, severe, and critical injuries, and between 34,000 and 61,000 fewer minor and moderate injuries as a result of the lower speed limits (pp 16667).

At a change in velocity of 50 mph, the probability of the driver being killed is twice what it is at 40 mph. Incremental increases in speed add disproportionately to the probability of serious or fatal injury,

Motor Vehicle Injury Costs. In the US, injury, both intentional and unintentional, is the leading cause of death from age 1 to age 45. Because it so disproportionately strikes the young, it is also the leading cause of lost years of life prior to age 75, more than either cancer or heart disease. Motor vehicle injury is the largest single component of these losses (Committee o­n Injury Prevention and Control, 1999). A driver license from o­ne state enables o­ne to drive in other states, and emergency care and medical services must be provided wherever an injury occurs Even if o­ne is not injured, the costs incurred through taxes and health and auto insurance premiums reflect any increases in injury associated costs, The cost of motor vehicle injuries crosses state lines - it is a national problem, not just a state or local o­ne.

Read more here:
http://drive55.org/jm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=7

[Bake]

55. I couldn't drive 55 back then, and I'm sure not going to do it now.

My car gets about 26 mpg on the highway. If you want to reduce fuel consumption, do something about CAFE standards. How about lost productivity due to road time? I'm sure Hillary flies pretty much everywhere and has a driver when she's in a car, so neither the speed limit nor lost productivity is an issue for her.

Do something about the f***ing Hummers and monster trucks that get 8-10 mpg instead.

How many people on this thread advocating a 55 speed limit were actually around the last time this was tried?

on edit: Oh, by the way, good move, Hill ... you just lost a bunch more votes ... you'll do WONDERS for us in the general election if you're the nominee!

Bake

[aztc]

76. You will when it costs enough

Eventually, if speeding tickets and increased insurance won't slow you down, we will take away your driving privilege. Yes, I said PRIVILEGE, not right.

[Bake]

96. I'm so glad you're on the committee!

"WE will take away ..."

I didn't say anything about exceeding the current legal speed limit.

While YOU'RE at it, why just 55? Why not 50? 45? Hell, let's just ban cars altogether.

Another great idea from the nanny-state wing of the Democratic Party.

Bake

[aztc]

132. Moderation

WE, as in WE THE PEOPLE make laws to obey.

You ask why 55? Because it will be cheap to change all the signs, many just had the new limits tacked on over the 55. Because most will drive closer to 60 MPH, which is after all a mile a minute, which is pretty fast. Because it is a COMPROMISE for the nascar minded vs the no cars at all group. Because it has a demonstrated track record with real numbers to answer naysayers with. Because it worked in the last energy crisis, or did you not notice there is an energy crisis in the world today?

Moderation, that is all we are asking here. Obey existing speed limits, never exceeding 55 MPH. I think only the most selfish oppose this.

[Bake]

157. Start with the auto companies FIRST and I might think about it.

Until then, I'm happy with the 65 to 70 limit. Why should the INDIVIDUAL make all the sacrifice while the auto companies insist on cranking out the gas-guzzlers?

Raise the CAFE standards first. Let's see what impact THAT makes.

This is a BIG country. It takes a long time to drive it.

Bake

[Telly Savalas]

187. Aren't INDIVIDUALS the ones buying the gas-guzzlers?

[Bake]

219. Sure, because that's what the car makers offer for sale.

They can build bigger cars, light trucks, and SUVs that get better mileage, but there's no incentive for them to do it. They'll only do it if they HAVE TO.

Hell, they could probably build a f***in' Hummer that would get triple the mileage of current models, but they have no reason to do it.

Bake

[murloc]

61. I thought that nonsense was behind us.

What a terrible idea. (all over again)

55 is ok for congested urban areas but in the remaining 90% of the country, it is simply to slow.

[aztc]

87. Earth Day

What is the point of having just one day to respect the earth, whilst racing each other to the next red light every other day? Looking at your icon I get the impression you care about the earth, so why are you so unwilling to slow down a bit? We aren't saying park the car, we are asking for moderation. Help me out here...

[murloc]

122. Im not talking about racing to red lights

We agree there, its silly and wasteful.

Im talking about a safe efficient speed on the highways.

55 is simply to slow and to dangerous (speed differentials). We'll have folks running 55 mph along with folks running 70 or 75 (their speed now).

Thats the thing, the limit only changes a minority of drivers speed. Most won't slow down but some will.

IF people would actually all drive 55mph, I could proably get behind it. But we tried it for 20 years and no one really slowed down. (I would proably be better of renting a car when I need one).

FWIW, I rarely drive. My car is 5 years old and it has 29,000 miles on it. I last filled my tank in January. Most all of my driving is back home to visit relatives.

My concern is primarily safety, secondary is increased travel highway travel time.

In terms of environmental and resources, I think higher cafe standards and public transportation will yield far better improvements.

[The Straight Story]

63. It does not seem like she is really endorse it, but is trying to throw everyone a bone

"The 55-mile speed limit really does lower gas usage. And wherever it can be required, and the people will accept it, we ought to do it..."

Note - 'wherever it can' followed by 'and the people accept it'

In other words, if can be required and people like it I will vote for it, otherwise your ok doing 65.

[Norquist Nemesis]

64. Oh no! She just lost Georgia!

:sarcasm:

[Jonathan50]

65. The accident rate increases as the difference between speeds increases.

The faster drivers aren't going to slow down much and the slower drivers are going to slow down more, this will increase the speed differential between faster and slower drivers and is going to cause more accidents rather than fewer.

When all cars are going at roughly the same speed there are fewer accidents.

The interstate highway system was designed for 70 mph speeds with the cars available back in the 60s, today's cars are far more capable than were the cars back then even if the drivers aren't.

The most fuel is wasted sitting idling in traffic, your gas mileage there is much lower than it is going 70+ on the open highway. Cutting traffic congestion would be the best way of lowering oil usage with raising CAFE standards being a close second.

[aztc]

69. Thanks for helping make the SAFETY point

This is true - most collisions are caused by speed, and slow moving vehicles don't mix well with unchecked speeding vehicles. So please do at least obey existing limits, okay?

[Jonathan50]

234. I'm pointing out that it is *more* dangerous to drive more slowly than the rest of the traffic

Than it is to drive at the same speed as the average traffic.

I cringe continuously while driving slower than traffic, I've been hit three times from the rear and I have never hit anyone else from the rear.

[w4rma]

71. Another pressing issue by the Hillary campaign. And this "issue" I strongly oppose. (nt)

[aztc]

74. Drive 55 = No Mideaset Oil

The amount of fuel wasted racing each other to the next red light is about what we import from the mideast. Lets get the lead out...of our right foot! http://Drive55.org

[IChing]

77. She voted against raising CAFE STANDARDS

"Like it or not, Detroit still has tremendous sway in Washington," says Gupta. He notes that in the last Senate vote on CAFE, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, D-Mass, voted against raising standards, presumably because burning bridges with the auto lobby could hamper their presidential ambitions.



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/05/15/muckraker/

[aztc]

82. 2006 Toyota Corolla - 40 MPG @ 55 MPH

Sure increase CAFE standards, however, we can use 20% to 50% less, right now.

More Real World Vehicle Efficency Reports are on http://Drive55.org

This Real World Vehicle Report documents a 264 mile round trip from Sacramento to Guerneville, California on August 11, 2006. The rented 2006 Toyota Corolla 4 door equipped with A/C and a 1.8 liter 4 cylinder engine with automatic transmission carries an estimated MPG of 30 in the city and 38 on the highway.

As usual, in town I carefully obeyed all speed limits and when I was on the highway I set the cruise control at 55 MPH and occasionally hit 60 for brief periods. I turned the A/C system off and rolled the windows down about halfway instead. Though it was a warm day I was not unduly uncomfortable - especially when I thought about the citizens of Bagdad living with just 4 hours a day of electricity, and how uncomfortable that must be. Soon I was in the Bay Area and it was a cool 70 degrees anyway! So, by not using the A/C I saved another 20% of fuel.

The car was very comfortable and had lots of room. I took the wheels off my bike and the whole thing fit nicely in the trunk with room to spare. When I refueled it took 6.56 gallons and the odometer indicated I had driven 264 miles, which works out to 40.24 miles per gallon, or 40 MPG in this $12k-$15k car available to buy right now.

The hybrids that passed me were consuming more fuel.

[karynnj]

85. The Republicans and the Michigan Democrats blocked the

Kerry/McCain amendment that would have actually raised the standards and pulled SUVs under CAFE standards. The bill that remained did very little good and had problems. (this was 2001)

[porphyrian]

78. Yeah, punish us all before punishing Big Oil. - n/t

[aztc]

79. Punish Big Oil - reduce their income

Use less fuel, keep more money, prices drop, big oil is punished.

[porphyrian]

89. You really think that will reduce their income?

They have been making record profits while you and I pay double what we've come to expect in gas prices. Big Oil has no intention of making less profit simply because we use less gas - they'll raise prices even more.

[AZBlue]

140. A 55 mph limit has nothing to do with punishing or not punishing them.

It has to do with energy conservation.

[Deja Q]

80. If Bill had concerns, why did he sign the 55MPH repeal in the first place?

I don't know, but it was the wrong thing to do - especially for environmental concerns.

[aztc]

83. Republican congress,

Upon signing the legislation Clinton commented that it was the first time he had ever signed a law that he knew would increase deaths, but the republican congress rammed this through and he didn't have the political capital to veto it.

[murloc]

88. Even when Bill was wrong, he was right

As it turns out, highway deaths dropped dramatically when the new raised limits were introduced

[murloc]

86. Did Clinton do that? I seem to recall the limits raising

I remember being in a college class discussing the new raised speed limits. I was in college between 86 and 90.

It may just be my faulty memory though.

Regardless, a 55mph limit on open highways was just a bad idea no matter who endorses it. I think it may make sense for congested urban areas though.

The lives lost in speed differential alone (caused by a 55 limit) make it a terrible ideal.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

90. NYC and suburbs don't have anything higher than 55. I believe the highest

state limit is 65 MPH on certain roads.

[karynnj]

91. Can someone explain how driving no more than 55 miles an

hour can save as much as 50% of your gas.? I don't know the physics but this seems unlikely. I know that you get higher mileage highway driving than city. Is there some optimum speed that maximises gal/mile that is below 65 miles per hour?

I can see why it is likely that it is safer, but I really don't see this. I assume Hillary has people capable of looking into this if it is not a hoax.

[JVS]

102. it varies between vehicle

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

[karynnj]

115. cool website

There explanation is excellent and is more believable than some of the numbers in the op. The area I live in retained the 55 MPH, but going a bit south or north there are 65 MPR roads. Until the limits are changed, NJ is way too crowded to go 10 miles under the limit unilaterally.

[LSK]

110. it does not save you 50%

It will get you maybe 2 mpg at the most.

More gas is wasted on takeoffs and acceleration than just going a constant 55 or 65 mph.

[karynnj]

116. Thanks

[lutefisk]

92. So, this is all based on a response to a question 11 months ago?

This doesn't sound like something she is advocating, based on the link the original poster provided as reference for Clinton's support for a 55 mph speed limit.

From the report, it looks like in May. 2006, in response to a question at the National Press Club, she agreed that a 55 mph speed limit would save energy- well, yeah, that's true. Her response simply sounds like she isn't sure what to say in order to avoid alienating any particular interest group.

I think drive55.org is implying a bit much here regarding Clinton's support for a 55 mph speed limit (or maybe I missed the Clinton endorsement on the web site?):

"Visit http://www.drive55.org to join Hillary"

Best wishes with the issue, but I think this is just stirring up a lot of unwarranted Clinton bashing. Maybe the Environment/Energy forum would be a good place to duscuss the merits of a 55 mph speed limit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=115

[NoPasaran]

94. If this is true, she is now toast in the West

[originalpckelly]

95. I can only drive, 55...

:rofl:

Actually, there are a lot better ideas like contraflow that could relieve commuter traffic, and still keep people at safer and more fuel efficient speeds.

[JVS]

100. I like 65

[JVS]

108. I will only support a 55 speed limit if they let us drink beer in the car to alleviate boredom

I remember driving from PA to MN when it was 55 and the pace was excruciatingly slow.

[Book Lover]

111. Geez, this story is nearly a year old

At least the Hillary part is.


(If anyone recognizes my avatar, you'll know where I land on this issue.)

[lutefisk]

114. And it's a lukewarm, conditional endorsement- not a proposal.n/t

[ecstatic]

117. how about holding gas companies accountable?

geez

[aztc]

129. How about holding consumers accountable

Demand drives price, use less of any commodity and the price will fall, use more and it will go up.

See http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm

and www.Drive55.org

[gravity]

118. It's official, she lost

This proves she is out of touch with the average American.

Even if the speed limit is 55, people still go 75. The only thing it does is increases the fines for the traffic tickets.

[MonkeyFunk]

125. So she can't win no matter what...

Everybody here adores Al Gore and decries that we're not doing anything about energy conservation or global warming. We KNOW we're gonna have to make sacrifices to accomplish something, and when Clinton endorses one common-sense sacrifice, she's deemed as "out of touch".

Sigh...

[Evoman]

127. Has she made any statements about going after car manufacturers?

Maybe get some regulation in place to increase stringency...to lower CO2 emissions?

On edit: I'm not being snarky, I really am curious.

[gravity]

142. I was being semi sarcastic

But my point is the sure way to piss off a lot of voters is to lower the speed limit to 55.

[MonkeyFunk]

207. ah

so you want to find a way to make people sacrifice for the sake of the environment, but not piss them off.

Good luck with that.

[Retrograde]

136. Well, she just lost my vote

Not that she had it in the first place: Go Richardson!

As other posters have pointed out, she must not drive much. I don't either, but out here in the congested West we have roads designed for 80 mph, and lots of space between places. Why not come out for something that will have real long term benefits, such as more incentives for high-speed rail coupled with improved local transportations, or (gasp!) higher fuel economy standards for new vehicles?

Or we could go over to the metric system and all drive 90 kph.

[aztc]

139. 55 MPH = Incentive for more rail, better cars

Commuters watching rail cars zip past at 80 MPH while they are stuck in traffic poking along at 55 MPH will have a strong incentive to get on board the train next time!

A reasonable 55 MPH speed limit would make it easier for manufacturers to achieve higher fuel economy on newer vehicles without sacrificing safety.

[avrdream]

148. Interesting discussion.

I'm enjoying this discussion, if just for the mathematical analysis.

HOWEVER:

We Americans are trying to sort out the true stances of all the candidates and focusing on this teeny bit of old news doesn't help.

Acknowledging that this MAY be an important issue for some people, I still would ask the MSM to pay more attention to even bigger issues. There are decisions to be made right now and a very important decision to be made at the next presidential election. We may come to DU to get correct information but most Americans only pay attention to the MSM. I wish they would take their responsibility seriously for a change.

BTW, living Down Under for the last 3 years and the highest speed limit is 110km per hour in very rural places. Usually it is a painful 60 kilometers per hour (someone send Sammy down here to create a song).

[JVS]

163. You know what would be an incentive for more rail? Lower prices and better service

getting around in this country already sucks ass, the solutions to more efficient transportation shouldn't be to make it suck worse

[donco6]

179. Rail? Where?

Here the pathetic Amtrak is lucky if it isn't DAYS late. Utterly unreliable.

Light rail is good, but only covers a small, small portion of the Denver Metro area.

[Captain Hilts]

155. You like driving up prices and subsidizing the Saudi Royal family, Osama BL and VladPutin?nt

I'm a Clarkie and Richardson fan too.

[Retrograde]

169. OK, OK

next time I'll remember to add the :)

She's still my last choice. OTOH, I think she's doing a good job for New York as senator.

[Alexander]

144. I agree with her, but this will hurt her west of the Mississippi...

It is a great quick fix to jump-start our energy conservation and pollution reduction.

Unfortunately, since I've moved out west, it takes forever to get anywhere by car. I realize in context what she said was innocuous, since she didn't call for a national 55 MPH speed limit, however words can easily be taken out of context and spun as "Hillary wants to force us to drive 55!"

[Warren DeMontague]

151. Just another reason she's going to get clobbered in the California Primary.

Although if she wants to take a courageous stand on something, maybe she should start with Iraq.

[mark414]

159. sammy hagar will not be happy

[Colobo]

164. I would like Hillary to come over here (Tampa)

and tell the people who commute from nothern and southern counties to drive at 55mph on I-75.

[high density]

170. How about DriveASmallerCar.org

By the way, how many pedestrians are out there on 65-75mph highways? :wtf:

My car gets about 30mpg at 75mph. I'm fine with that, and it's better than a Nissan Armada going 55mph and getting 15mpg.

[Saphire]

171. Maybe she's never been to west Texas.....55 is just so wrong out here.

[donco6]

178. And Colorado. And Kansas.

No way.

[dflprincess]

194. And parts of Minnesota

I'm thinking of I-90 from where it meets I-35 near Austin, MN to Sioux Falls, SD. Fortunately, I don't make that drive often, but I can't imagine doing it at 55.

[pitohui]

173. oh god foot meet mouth

i love hillary to death but the best thing we can do w. this remark is pretend it never happened

[Warren DeMontague]

175. And yet, she's terrified to speak out against the Iraq War.

Who's advising her, Bob fucking Shrum?

[Ignacio Upton]

180. People will just ignore this law

The 55 MPH speed limit is incredibly stupid, especially when we can work to increase fuel efficiency by raising the CAFE standards, as other posters previously mentioned. Hillary will also lose votes on this issue in more rural areas, particularly the trending-blue southwest.

[MazeRat7]

184. Bullshit.. she should advocate for better fuel efficiency standards...

Once again, the "conservation" and "pain" is on the end user. The debate should be about increased fuel efficiency standards so we can drive at a reasonable velocity. Why are we, the end user, always being ask to sacrifice so corporations can maintain their margins ? Specifically, why is Hillary siding with the corporations and asking "US" to change rather than pushing them to make more fuel efficient vehicles... oh thats right, it would increase the manufacturers cost and reduce margins... silly me :sarcasm:

MZr7

[medeak]

185. 300 miles in every direction of nothing but barren wasteland

from where I live. Most accidents are from falling asleep going off road or falling asleep and rear ending vehicle in front of you.

Would like to see Hillary drive across my state at 55mph

[MazeRat7]

186. West Texas ? Like around Alpine or there abouts I'm guessing ? -nt

[medeak]

202. ever hear of area 51? n/t

[seabeyond]

216. panhandle of texas. right there with you. i would like to see stats last time they had 55

to see if acidents didnt go up and that was the reason changing it to higher speeds. we have double lane hiways, and open space, not even bulletin boards to distract. i couldnt do 55 if someone paid me. love colo 75.

[Skip Intro]

188. Good. Brilliant. If DK or Obama had done this, people here would be swooning.

You know its true.

[Colobo]

191. Bull. Obama comes up with this

and I will call him on it in a separate thread.

[Skip Intro]

195. I would actually compliment him on it.

Its a good idea both environmentally and politically. Repukes can't attack it without bringing up nixon and it would help the environment by slowing, at some rate, our consumption.

[Colobo]

197. It's not a good idea.

In places like Florida, where people commute and have to travel considerable distances to go to work, school, etc., it would be problematic.

[Skip Intro]

199. I imagine it'll be very problematic when the oil runs out...

[Colobo]

226. So what the heck do we do?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

189. It takes you longer to get places, and you use less gas?

:shrug: I don't get. 55 would not work anymore. People have tasted 70, 75, 80...There's no way they're going back to 55.
Duckie

[Marie26]

198. It does use less gas

Even accounting for the extra time. If Americans aren't even willing to drive a little slower to save the planet, I'd say we're in a heap of trouble.

[jberryhill]

203. Yes

The primary thing going on with the engine while you are cruising at constant speed is that the engine is countering wind resistance.

Wind resistance scales non-linearly with speed.

Look at it this way. Very roughly, if you double speed, you quadruple energy consumption. Now, do you want to use 1 unit of fuel and 2 units of time, or do you want to use 4 units of fuel and 1 unit of time?

[benEzra]

224. EXCEPT, the efficiency of an internal combustion engine is also nonlinear...

there is a particular domain on the BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) vs. RPM graph that an IC engine is 2 to 3 times as efficient as in its less efficient regimes. So increasing your speed may make you spend a bit more energy fighting aerodynamic drag, but it may also put your engine in a more efficient BMEP range.

I used to drive an '87 Camry with a 2.0 16V 4-cylinder, and it got equally good mileage at 70 as at 55.

[jberryhill]

229. That all depends on the gear ratios

...and I doubt that it is generally true that mileage at 70 MPH is better than at 55 MPH across the fleet.

[benEzra]

230. Not so much gear ratios; BMEP is dependent on engine load.

A car's engine is sized to accelerate the vehicle at a reasonable rate, so at highway cruising speeds, you are running the engine at very light load. My current car (a GM sedan) is very aerodynamic, so Autotap says it's running at 16% calculated engine load at 80 mph. At 55 mph, the car is almost idling (probably 5-7% calculated engine load, idle is around 3%). It doesn't matter HOW you gear the car, it will only be running at very low load fraction at 55 mph, because aerodynamic effects are not very significant at only 55. Certainly you can decrease internal friction and pumping losses by having a high final drive ratio (my car does), but the engine is still not going to be in its optimum BMEP/RPM zone.

Problem is, if you size the engine so small that it's working at a high BMEP at only 55, then the engine is so weak that your zero to 60 time will be like 30 seconds. (A lawnmower engine could propel most cars at 55 mph, but won't accelerate a car worth crap.)

What you CAN do to put the engine in a more efficient BMEP range are:

(1) deactivate half your cylinders at cruise, and run the other half at higher (and more efficient) BMEP;

(2) start with a tiny engine and turbocharge it to the gills for decent acceleration; with the turbo off, the engine will be at a more efficient cruise BMEP;

(3) go with direct injection and variable valve timing, which probably broadens the range of efficient BMEPs (most carmakers are moving in this direction, and direct injection also makes more peak horspower for a given engine size);

(4) go with a diesel;

(5) drive faster to put the engine in a more efficient BMEP range, but the mileage gains will be offset by increased aerodynamic drag. But if you are only going to get 34 mpg anyway, you might as well get it driving 70 as 55.

It's a very complex question with a lot of tradeoffs, certainly. I think there's no question that SUV's, pickups and minivans benefit a lot more from a slowpoke speed limit than aerodynamic cars do, because SUV/pickups/vans have huge frontal areas and the aerodynamics of a brick. Personally, I think the time and effort would be a lot better spent trying to persuade people to buy cars and wagons instead of SUV's and minivans, rather than trying to make drivers of efficient-cruising cars slow to a 55 mph crawl.

BTW, if you GAVE me a land-barge SUV, I'd sell it and get a small, good-handling car with good acceleration and efficient high-speed cruise. (My dream car is a Volvo S40T5 with a 6-speed manual; one of these days...)

[veness]

190. Thanks for the Drive 55 project, aztc! n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

201. Ugh! Might as well tell people that she is going to take their guns!

While it might save some gas it is a LOSER of a proposition.

Drive 55 MPH through Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. You will feel like you will never get to your destination. Don't even think about doing it in Montana or through Western Texas. Jeez...no thanks. That 55 MPH was terrible before and would be again.

I like the CAFE standards idea that was floated above much better than the 55 MPH idea.

[RedCappedBandit]

204. Not all vehciles are most efficient at 55mph

It is simply false.

[Strelnikov_]

218. Agree. My car is most efficient at 47 mph in moving mass from Pt A to B

VW Jetta TDI, 2005.

[misanthrope]

208. She just killed her campaign**nm

**

[B Calm]

210. I drive for a living. This would kill me!

[FogerRox]

220. Most new cars get best MPG around 58 to 62 mph

10 years ago the optimum would have been 55mph.

[benEzra]

222. Anybody who wants to drive 55 right now can get in the right lane

and do just that. But for freeways and interstates in rural areas, 55 is ridiculously slow.

Most U.S. gasoline is NOT burned in speed limit 70 zones; it's burned in speed limit 25-55 zones, i.e. congested urban areas. Lowering the speed limit on rural highways is just asinine.

My car gets better mileage at 80 mph than most SUV's get at 45. It's CITY mileage, e.g. stop-and-go traffic, that really sucks the gas.

[Roland99]

225. SCREW THAT!!

Should be 75mph for the upper limit in completely rural areas, 65mph in the suburban type areas, 55mph in urban areas.

55mph on the open road? Fucking insanity.

[mnhtnbb]

227. Out of touch.

Speed limits are hardly enforced at 65 in NC. I can just imagine the trouble
of enforcing 55!

[MissMarple]

228. Clueless. That WILL NOT go over in the mid west and western states.

I say make her drive across Kansas, down through Colorado and New Mexico, and back across Texas. That might give her a better perspective on that loser of an idea.

Give me a break! Who actually, in her campaign, thinks that is a good proposal when we need to win these states, not alienate them. For crying in a bucket!

[Radical Activist]

231. Or the South.

One more reason Hillary has no appeal beyond the east and west coast states.

[Firespirit]

232. Hillary can kiss my ass

I have a compact car that gets 35 mpg, so don't even TRY guilting me about the environment.

I used to have a 45-minute commute to school, because I could not afford to stay on campus or rent my own apartment and had to live with my family. Now I live near a city, but public transportation is horrifically unreliable and I get illnesses from the subway and bus.

If Hillary wants to do something to cut down on fuel consumption and waste, maybe she should stop cruising around in limos. Her campaign brings a new meaning to the word "waste."

[krkaufman]

233. Base the MPH limit on highway topology and usage density.

Makes sense to drop the speed limit on crowded, heavily used roads to get maximum gas savings, but similarly restricting the speed limit on low-usage highways would have diminishing return.