Senator suggests return of national speed limit to save gas
Associated Press
Originally published 11:39 a.m., July 4, 2008
Updated 11:39 a.m., July 4, 2008
WASHINGTON — An influential Republican senator suggested Thursday that Congress might want to consider reimposing a national speed limit to save gasoline and, in turn possibly ease fuel prices.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to look into what speed limit would provide optimum gasoline efficiency given current technology. He said he wants to know if the administration might support efforts in Congress to require a lower speed limit.
Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.
As motorists headed on trips for this Fourth of July weekend, gasoline averaged $4.10 a gallon nationwide with oil hovering around $145 a barrel.
Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year.
"Given the significant increase in the number of vehicles on America's highway system from 1974 to 2008, one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater," Warner wrote Bodman.
Warner asked the department to determine at what speeds vehicles would be most fuel efficient, how much fuel savings would be achieved, and whether it would be reasonable to assume there would be a reduction in prices at the pump if the speed limit were lowered.
Energy Department spokeswoman Angela Hill said the department will review Warner's letter but added, "If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production."
The department's Web site says that fuel efficiency decreases rapidly when traveling faster than 60 mph. Every additional 5 mph over that threshold is estimated cost motorists an additional 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs, Warner said in his letter, citing the DOE data.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
July 4, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
joe writes:
There are morons in our congress, and Sen. Warner has demonstrated that he is a prominent member of this group. He won't propose and support a bill to encourage additional drilling for oil or refinery construction in America, he won't support the Yucca Flats nuclear material repository, he won't support building more nuclear power plants, he won't support anything except that which restricts American's ability to go their way as efficiently and quickly as possible. How small minded can you get? Why is this particular fossil still in congress? I suggest he be booted out at the next available opportunity and replaced with someone with fresh outlooks on the nations energy concerns.
July 4, 2008
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chadley25 writes:
The notion behind driving a bit slower to save fuel is valid and sound. However, why not just make it a "campaign" of sorts (like the "Keep America Beautiful" anti-litter campaign of the 70s) -- a suggestion rather than a national law? Does this senator have any clue how much it will cost to replace (again) every speed limit sign on the freeways of this country? I can't imagine that would be cheap at all. And then, in a few years, undo the limit and do it all over again?? Just make a cute "mile a minute" slogan, encourage people to drive 60 instead of 70. (And keep emphasizing the substantial drop in MPG when driving at higher speeds, as this article does.) Perhaps enough people will take the bait and reduce their speed to make a dent in our national oil consumption. I think revisiting the national 55-mph speed limit is a bad, bad idea, though.
July 4, 2008
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
cojab writes:
To Senator Warner and all of his kind... GO TO HELL!
Maybe people on the East Coast in their tiny little states would not be so inconvenienced by the re-imposed 55 mph law, but we sure would be out here in the West.
Hey Congress! Find some other way to achieve fuel savings.
Don't even think about it!
July 4, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
weblair writes:
The answer is for people to drive more fuel efficient cars rather than to reduce the speed. A Suburban or F150 is still a gas guzzler at any speed. Why punish those of us who drive fuel efficient vehicles? If you want to drive 55, go ahead. Just stay in the far right lane.
July 4, 2008
12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
ShowMe writes:
Better yet, Senator Warner, why don't we save even more fuel and go back to the horse and buggy. So what if it takes us a month to cross the nation...
July 4, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
rumblebars writes:
I was just learning to drive when the old "double-nickel" limit was upped to 65 on the interstates. I seem to recall that Colorado jumped first on it and changed the posted limits immediately. Which was fine with me! I was also very glad when they later were able to raise the limits on non-interstate highways as well, as I do a lot of driving on such roads.
I've been waiting for some lawmaker to try this now, and am surprised it hasn't come sooner. I have already been having the thought that re-imposing a 65 or 70MPH cap might not be a bad idea. Now, 55 or 60 MPH is just too slow, at least out here in the west. 55MPH was in line with the technological level of the carbureted and un-aerodynamic cars of the early 70s, but not so today. So while I'd be opposed to 55 or 60MPH, a 65 limit would be OK with me. A lot of people are probably going to drive 70 on 65 MPH highways anyway. So personally, I'd support a 65 limit, as long as it applied to all types of highways.
July 4, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
DMGintheUSA writes:
This is probably one of the most ridiculous ideas I've heard from one of our senators in at least a couple of days!!!
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY EVERYONE-
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL OF OUR MILITARY MEN AND WOMEN!!!
July 4, 2008
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
rumblebars,
Hey "kid" I remember when Tricky D1ck (Nixon) dropped it TO 55 mph :-)
Nebraska beat Colorado (and a bunch of other States). The Unicameral passed a Bill about ten years prior to the demise of 55 that if you were speeding on I-80, but kept no higher than 65 mph you would get a $10 ticket and no points.
Scott
p.s. Once again the RMN purity filter strikes! For us old farts we remember the nick name for Richard Nixon, Tricky D1ck. BUT, the RMN purity filter would not let me spell out d-i-c-k! What a bunch of losers!
July 4, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Lowering the speed limit didn't save gas in the 1970s. CAFE standards saved gas and forced the big three automakers to build a better quality machine for a while. Mandate fuel economy standards for light trucks (also called SUVs) to conserve gas. Letting them skip on those standards was a big mistake.
The other way to save gas is to quit driving. John Warner and his fellow Republicans, along with a significant number of Democrats, may not be smart enough to figure this out. The people need to push Congress to invest more in mass transit and to rebuild our passenger railroads.
July 4, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
rushrulesbaby writes:
John Warner is an idiot! He should be a demoncrat!
July 4, 2008
4:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
gkb2008 writes:
Thank goodness Warner will be gone in a matter of months as he is not seeking re-election. Virginia is a fine place for a 55 mph speed limit as in much of the Northeast Megalopolis. Here in the Mountain Time Zone and adjacent High Plains, Great Plains, and Pacific Time Zone, any idea to lower the speed limit from 75 mph is an utterly ridiculous idea that will be scorned and opposed by greater than 90 % of the citizenry. There are other constructive ways to increase national fuel economy in the nation's fleet. Lowering the speed limit is a no go. That dog won't hunt !
July 4, 2008
7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezekiel777 writes:
like the old song says: "i can't drive...55"
can we stop with the nanny-state mentality. yes, people will get better milage if they drive slower... but its THEIR money to spend or to save. let THEM make that decision for themselves.
take the barriers off oil production and refining. that will take down the high gas prices. it will also improve our economy. gee...imagine that; i'll have money to buy gas and drive a car and still get to make my own decisions without uncle sam telling what to do. will wonders never cease!
July 4, 2008
9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
Why doesn't Warner do something about the oil speculators on wall street? Oh, I forgot, that would mean getting rid of the two nincompoops now residing in the White House and Blair House. The big dawgs friends are ridin high until Jan 20, 2009 when they'll have to spend even more money on the gas and oil commercials trying to convince us that they have our best interest at heart. These are the criminals that should be spending time in the cells next to Bush and Cheney.
July 4, 2008
10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thunderwalker writes:
You know what? We are the United States of America. We are a nation born out of a quest for freedom, a yearning every human being is born ingraned with.
The idiots are the people who keep electing, and re-electing lawyers whose only real obejctive thereafter is to get re-elected. Why are we looking to them for answers when they're not any more insightful, wise, or intelligent than we are. We elected them, we tell them what they need to do, they don't tell us what they're going to do.
Let's just let them legislate this country to the hilt, blow up our taxes and make us all slaves to their whims. Sorry, I didn't elect representation so they can tell me how to live.
They keep telling us to convserve... this F*($ing America. We lead, we don't follow. We are the last best hope of mankind, not Socialized Utopia. You go ahead this winter and keep you house at 60 degrees and you watch Excel go to the PUC and ask to increase rates because we're not using as much natural gas, and they're losing money as a resort.
This country is going to die of the stupids.
July 5, 2008
1:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
clyde writes:
10-4 Good Buddy. We have a bear in the air and a local at mile marker 280. Roger, Rubber Ducky, it looks like we have a CONVOY.
July 5, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
American100 writes:
Fatalities rise with higher speeds as well, thus raising the cost of insurance.
July 5, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Not sure if legislation is needed for this particular effort. I've actually seen a visible change in the speed rate of drivers on the road over the last month or so. Folks are already slowing down. I guess the word is getting out on a mass level that this helps to conserve gas.
Thunderwalker: "You go ahead this winter and keep you house at 60 degrees and you watch Excel go to the PUC and ask to increase rates because we're not using as much natural gas, and they're losing money as a resort."
I don't doubt in the least that if we do conserve, the utilities and other corporate interests will try and find a way to reap their money back. But I guess I digress with you in that we should keep feeding the system that all this is based on: reliance on fossil fuels. As long as we are dependent on those sources of energy, our wallets are at their mercy. We've gotta get off that bus, friend.
July 5, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I too have observed people slowing down. I am frequently joined in the "snail lanes" by others these days, and is it just me or are there fewer monster Hummers on the road lately?
I think high gas prices are giving people plenty of incentive to slow down without additional regulation being necessary. I do, however, still see plenty of people sitting in parking lots, windows up, AC running as they eat their lunch or talk on their cell phones. The 200 horsepower air-conditioned seat. How can they afford that, let alone rationalize it?
July 5, 2008
3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
Yes Gene, I do veer to the right on occasion:>)
July 6, 2008
1:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
Isn't Warner the guy that was dumb enough to be Elizabeth Taylor's 10th or 12th husband? So now he is a great brain and an expert enviromentalist in the same vein as Big Al Gore. Well at least Al isn't dumb enough to stand in line as the next groom.
As posted above. It's my money to save or squander. My Silverado 2500 HD gets better MPG at 70 than it does at 55 at 85 it gets a little iffy r.e. MPG, maybe the same as at 55. I've done a few modifications of course.
July 6, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
We will get the most selfish generation award from our childrens children...
July 6, 2008
4:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
Retread
That would be our Grandchildren right? Mine already know I'm selfish. They have learned to live with it. Sometimes when I realize once again that I can't take it with me I pop for a day at Elich's and enough gunk to make their mothers mad. We usually take a little cruise in the Silverado because they like to go fast. It's in their blood. You are right I am selfish.