Slowing down a way to fight terrorism
Patricia Hoffman, Denver
Monday, May 19, 2008
Recently, while driving from Sheridan, Wyo., to Denver, I discovered a way to save money, help the planet and assist in our "war on terrorism."
Having nothing else to do, I calculated my car's efficiency at the posted 75 mph (the first 200 miles) and at 62 mph (the second 200). The difference was astounding: 34 miles per gallon vs. 44 mpg.
A few decades ago, our nation adopted a maximum 55 mph speed limit to reduce the automotive carnage on our highways. Lives were indeed saved but our unrelenting quest for speed surpassed our desire for safety and "Stay Alive at 55" died a quiet death.
Now the stakes are higher. If we truly want to save money, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and cut down on the dollars going into the pockets of those who would fly airplanes into our buildings, we just need to slow down.
True, we might arrive a little later, but weighed against the millions of gallons of gas we wouldn't use and the enormous amount of money we'd save, isn't it time to consider this option?
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.
May 19, 2008
3:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Jimminy writes:
Pat-the double nickel was imposed to save gas,and kept in place to save lives.It did both. For anyone interested,the current price of a gallon of regular amounts to $.70-$.75 in 1973 money.Anyone remember what we were actually paying during the Gas Crisis of that year?
May 19, 2008
6:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
With an oil man in the white house it won't happen. I have slowed to 55-60 mph, increase of 10% in mileage. It's the same kind of situation in Afghanistan, they let them raise crops for drugs to fund their terrorism activities. This Government needs to do something besides paying lip service to the problems. Stop subsides for ethanol, spray those drug crops and lower the speed limit. What's stopping the states from lowering the speed limit? Slow down and smell the roses.
May 19, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Earl writes:
turn off you air conditioners and open the windows no fans and look at the money you will save and the energy needed to supply those comforts. start walking to work or ride a bicycle and think of the energy saved by not using it every day. doing that for a few months and you can see just how 3rd world countries really live and enjoy their life style.
we should lower our standards to theirs and lets do it now.
roger are you talking about LBJ or Bush as the oil man in the white house?
May 19, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gene writes:
Actually, I believe when the speed limits were raised back up in recent years, the death toll didn't increase.
May 19, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
I think a better way way would be for our country to unite, and back our troops without question. How about calling people like Bill Maher what they are, terrorist supporters. How about showing the terrorists that we won't put up with it, that our country as a whole is in support of tracking, and killing them without mercy. How about ceasing all the negitive comments in our papers.
May 19, 2008
7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
I'll bet if we slowed down to 35 mph, the savings would be even higher and the death toll from accidents would drop considerably. If it saves the life of even one child, wouldn't it be worth it?
May 19, 2008
7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Gene,
You are correct. NHTSA reported in October 1997 that after limits were raised in 1997, there were 66,000 fewer road injuries than in 1995. If the injury rates had been as high in 1997 as they were in 1995, approximately 17,000 more Americans would have been injured.
We can add this to the the list of other left-wing unexamined myths, i.e.,
increased funding enhances education
income redistribution decreases peverty
there are no Islamic terrorists
Obama went to Church for 20 years never heard the sermons
May 19, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
Jimminy
Excellent point. I believe gas went up to around $1.00/gal during the 1973 oil crisis. So we haven't gotten there yet. Do you remember what a new car cost in 1973? - about $3,500 for a typical full sized car - or 3500 gallons of gas? What can you buy for $14K new today? The largest component in the cost of driving is by far the price of the car. But nobody seems to complain about paying $30,000 for a new car.
May 19, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
sheepherder - yeah - I'd rather kill a terrorist than drive 62.
May 19, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
primafacie writes:
I'd drive slower and turn off the AC, but then I'd be late for work -- and sweaty.
May 19, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
primafacie writes:
"How about calling people like Bill Maher what they are, terrorist supporters."
Hmm, and I thought he was just a second-rate standup comic. My bad.
May 19, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
I have a better idea about fighting "terrorism" AND solving the gasoling price gouging problem: Instead of invading and occupying a country that didn't attack us on September Eleventh, An intelligent president could have invaded and occupied the country where 15 of the nineteen 9-11 Hijackers DID come from, and taken their oil production from them, as retribution for the Saudi government allowing its' citizens to conduct terrorist acts against us.
May 19, 2008
12:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
goodspkr writes:
Although the fatalities rate is the lowest in history at 1.5 deaths per 100 million miles of travel (down from 1.9 fatalities in 1991), the annual death toll tragically has remained virtually unchanged (40,000-42,000) since ... This from a 2003 report
May 19, 2008
12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Hengist,
Tim McVeigh was from Minnesota. What price do you think Minnesotans should pay for allowing one of its citizens to conduct terrorism?
So it would have been a better idea to leave Saddam in Iraq and invade Saudi Arabia. That sounds like an Obam supporter. He wants to pull out of Iraq and attack Pakistan.
May 19, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
sheepherder writes:
Sheik...me too! Join up and serve...or just sit back and type your uninformed statements. And yes, I did my duty....
May 19, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
sheepherder - if you don't like negative comments in the papers, why not move to Iran, Saudi, Cuba, N. Korea, etc. You served????? Do you even know why? Normally it's to defend freedoms like the right to be critical of the gov't.
May 19, 2008
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
Silly me, I didn't realize that Canada and Mexico were the countries of origin for those that flew planes into our buildings. Top ten places (according to the US Dept. of Energy) we get our oil:
1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil
May 19, 2008
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
I am always surprised at the reluctance of Americans to adopt common sense energy and money saving products and techniques. Why is it considered a sacrifice to trade a little speed for energy and gas savings? Why is it a sacrifice to avoid jack rabbit starts and idling engines or to keep tires properly inflated? I was taught by my depression era father that doing these things was simply the smart way of going through life.
Why has fiscal conservatism been abandoned by so many conservatives? Conservation is one pathway to both financial security and national security. I contend that it is a patriotic approach to our energy problems and it is a pathway that can be taken now, not years down the road.
May 19, 2008
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dan2 writes:
greenleaf,
Great comment.
My problem is not with "slowing down" but the idea that it should be mandated. Those that wish to over-consume pay the penalty, or are able to afford it (specifically commenting on gas and driving right now). It is, and should remain, a personal choice.
My issue, is with the false claim that we actually will put a dent in the "terrorists" cash flow, by "driving slower." Obviously, with some research, we see that would not EVER be the case. Another interesting note. The United States is the 3rd largest supplier of crude oil in the WORLD. So, why are we not self-sufficient? Because of regulations... The oil companies can make more money selling crude on the open market, then to the US. Maybe the answer is to relax rules and create incentives for the US oil companies to pay less taxes if they sell to the US at below market rate, then to mandate rates, limit supply, try to limit consumption, or raise taxes?
I appreciate your comments, I think above most others, because to me, they are reasoned, don't ask for the "government" to be the solution, and are based on researched information. Thanks for your many comments.
May 19, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
dan2 has a good point. ignorance about the behavior that contributes to our fiscal and foreign problems and the stubborness necessary to continue doing it is truly a personal choice.
May 19, 2008
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hengist writes:
Yankee,
Yes, it would have been better to leave Sadaam Hussain in power and take Saudi Arabias' oil. Sadaam Hussain didn't attack us. The Saudi Arabians did. I am for attacking those who attacked us first. I was against attacking the Bush family nemesis. We are not safer and we've gained nothing. On the contrary, We've lost thousands of good troops and paid close to one Trillion dollars. What do we have to show for it? The Dead and maimed soldiers.
You should listen to Obama. He will go after the attackers...not someone elses' enemy.
May 19, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
ezekiel777 writes:
nice try but mostly fluff. here are some REAL solutions:
we have not created a new oil refinery in this country in 60 years. increase refinery capacity.. stop importing fuel.
we need to expand ethanol and bio-fuel production to replace gasoline and diesel as our main vehicle fuels.
we need to expand production of oil and natural gas within this country. take the restrictions off drilling and pumping.
we need to increase the use and efficiency of wind and water power to produce electricty. more hydro-electric dams... more wind generator "farms".
take the limits off of what we can do. artificial barriers are our greatest threats to national security.
"I CAN'T DRIVE 55"
May 19, 2008
4:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Hengist,
i do listn to Obama. That's how I know he would surrender in Iraq to strengthen the military for the attack on Pakistan - the only Muslim country that acutally has nuclear weapons.
I hadn't heard the one about invading Saudi Arabia but I do hope you will keep promoting BO and his sensible plans for keeping America safe from the jihadists who attacked on 9/11.
May 19, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Greenleaf,
"I am always surprised at the reluctance of Americans to adopt common sense energy and money saving products and techniques."
You mean like replacing our coal-burning electric generating plants with nuclear? That would do the environment a lot more good than driving slower.
"Why has fiscal conservatism been abandoned by so many conservatives?"
It hasn't been. The better questions is: Why have so many Republicans abandoned fiscal conservatism?
May 19, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Dan2,
It's always good to hear a little positive feedback, thanks for that! Much the same can be said for postings. As an example, I liked your interaction with mytwosense on the man's influence on climate thread. That is a fine example of how we should be reasoning with one another! It's good to see quality postings such as the two of you always contribute.
May 19, 2008
5:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Yankee,
Actually, no, that wasn't what I was saying since that is a different topic altogether. I was referring to the point at which fiscal conservatism, common sense and environmentalism meet to help our pocketbooks, energy challenges and the environment. A winning concept for everyone; immediate and not actually a sacrifice.
For what its worth though, I would trade a state of the art nuclear power plant for an old dirty coal plant any day and for many reasons. It just makes sense!
So why have so many Republicans abandoned fiscal conservatism (I know its off topic, but I'm curious to hear your take on it)?
May 19, 2008
5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
greenleaf,
"For what its worth though, I would trade a state of the art nuclear power plant for an old dirty coal plant any day and for many reasons. It just makes sense!"
I don't understand your "No" which seems as though it should have been a "Yes."
"So why have so many Republicans abandoned fiscal conservatism (I know its off topic, but I'm curious to hear your take on it)?"
First, nothing we choose to discuss is off-topic. Second, Burke said something about power corrupting that is appropriate. In my opinion the Republicans became intoxicated by the power of government and abandoned fiscal conservatism, ignored basic conservative principles of limited government and as a consequence stand a very good chance of being handed a large defeat in November.
After all, who would choose disingenuous leftists in Washington when the real thing is so plentiful?
May 19, 2008
6:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Yankee,
The conservation steps represent the demand side of the commodities equation, not the supply side that nuclear represents, hence the "no" because I wasn't speaking toward the supply side. Its minor, we understand each other.
Your response on the fiscal conservative question was well said and agrees with my feelings on the subject: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Give the Democrats a few years in power and they will forget that little lesson and fall victim to power as well.
This is one of the reasons I will advocate for a third party in the middle to the end of my days.
Thanks for the response!
May 19, 2008
6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I actually took away a larger message from this letter. I think we need to "slow down" in many areas of our lives. People always seem so vexed, so hurried and frazzled. In my opinion, the mark of a truly civilized society is one that values plenty of leisure time, rather than thinking it's a badge of honor somehow to be overbooked, overworked, and overstressed.
May 19, 2008
7:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
Greenleaf
I will join you in supporting a third party - providing they support the principles of human dignity and limited government that the Founders designed for American society.
See you around!
May 19, 2008
7:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yankee writes:
MTS,
I generally agree that we should slow down and try to block out all the noise. But I would aloo catution that we were not put on earth just to enjoy the sunsets.
We do have work to do.