Why couldn't we lower the speed limits on US roads in order to save gasoline?

Question

Most of the time the highways I commute on are so congested you can go more than 35MPH anyway. Lower the speedlimit and raise the speeding fines.

Answer 1

FIRST people should not drive pick-ups when the do not need to because they are like a parachute behind a motor ! the worst aerodynamic shape ever.

Answer 2

Thats an excellent question, since it would absolutely have the intended effect, regardless of what people who think they know more than Sir Isaac Newton think.  They may not realize it, but owners of hybrid cars like the Prius see KE=1/2mv^2 proven when they notice their highway mileage is not really that much better than City mileage.  Plus speeding tickets are a long proven means of increasing tax revenues to smaller financially strapped communities.

Answer 3

Being on a highway and start/stop and up to 35MPH is actually WORSE than going 55 MPH believe it or not.  It is all the stop and go that is bad, not just from a gas usage, but also for wear and tear on your vehicle.

But yes, for the major highways, keeping speed to 55 is much better than pushing some speed limits to 65 or more.

However, let's face it, people are not going to drive 40 mph on a highway.  I just don't see it happening.  That's why we need to PUSH for more hybrid and environment friendly vehicles.

Have a great day!

Answer 4

Nah, people aren't driving that much anyway.

Answer 5

That would increase congestion.  Reducing speed limits would mean each motorist would be on the road longer.  This would have the net effect of adding more cars on the highway at any given time.

Answer 6

Yes, that is a good idea. Contact your State Representatives.

Answer 7

For the same reason that they refuse to ban the private posession of lethal weapons, abolish the death penalty and introduce more welfare programmes for the under privileged. I have the impression the US may be gradually turning into a self-destroying civilization.

Answer 8

Lower speed limits lead to consuming more gasoline aggressive driving actually saves gas, not defensive.

Answer 9

If people are only going 35 anyway, what is the point of lowering it? It wouldn't change anything. My car gets better gas mileage on the highway than in town with all that driving slow and stopping, so why not raise the speed minimum to save gas?

Answer 10

this was done in the late 70s and ultimately rejected because the public demands to drive fast, especially truck  drivers who make a living by driving because time is money to them

Answer 11

Why  do we depend on government  In other words why  do we not  have common sense and just do that,

Answer 12

Just because the area you live in is congested and nobody drives over 35, doesn't mean that applies to the rest of the country.  Like another user above me said, there are huge stretches of open highway in more rural parts of the US, where driving 35, or even 45,  would just be ridiculous.  There are roads out west where you can drive for miles and not see another vehicle on the road.

If you choose to drive 35, more power to ya. That's your choice. The govt. already intrudes enuf into my life as it is, "for my own good".  I'll drive the speed limit, thank you.

If the govt. really wanted to do something to reduce oil consumption in the US, they would require US automakers to produce more fuel efficient vehicles. It's sooooo simple, it's stupid.

Answer 13

This was tried before back in the 70's. It failed miserably.

The problem with this is:

Not every state is made like Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island. Even though the senators from these state think other states are and try to pass this from time to time.

States in the western part of the midwest and the west are huge in comparison. There are counties larger than these States mentioned. Going 55 in Massachusetts will get you across the state in within 3 hours. Going 55 across Kansas is almost 8 hours and going 55 across Montana is over 10 hours. This makes for very long drives going across country, timewise.

With much of the economy based on transportation of goods, longer travel time would be bad. The fuel savings often cited by "experts" was much over rated in the 70's and will be the same, again.

Answer 14

I think our resources would be better spent finding incentives to use fuel efficient vehicles, car pooling (which also alleviates congestion), updating bike paths (so the are safe and clear), and making public transportation a more realistic option in all cities.

Increasing fines on people who are just trying to get to work will give people a negative view of environmental issues.  Think incentives and opportunities -- not fines and restrictions.