Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Call or write your Congressperson:
- Thread starter Mr. dB
- Start date
Gail Morrison, whose lobbying led to the repeal of the NMSL last time around, has drafted this letter:
"Almost 14 years ago I packed up my belongings to move onto Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I had a purpose. I believed so strongly that the NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) was a bad law that I felt compelled to change it. . 'Fundamental to most laws in America is the thought that the behavior of a majority of people is reasonable. Laws are written to single out the unreasonable behavior of a minority of the population. Speed laws are based on the same ideas. NMSL violated this principle and most people did not observe this law. It made criminals out of most motorists, leaving us with the dilemma of deciding if we should drive a safe speed, which is driving with the free-flow of the traffic, because this is the safest speed, or driving a legal speed.
I was 100% successful in achieving my goal of getting a repeal of the NMSL. I have been pleased to see that the fatality rate has continued to decrease over the years. Thus the mantra that 'Speed Kills' was a myth. Now, I am hearing that 55 will save gas. This too will prove to be a myth due to several reasons. Most gas is wasted on urban driving due to poor traffic light synchronization; over use of STOP signs; continuous construction causing traffic congestion and the lack of traffic control to improve the even flow of traffic.
Only 20% of the traffic travel on high speed highways such as our Interstate system or similar highways. The results of reducing highway speed limits will increase the fatality rate due to differences in speed and keeping motorists on the highway longer.
There is no fuel shortage, only higher prices at the gas pump, thus re-instating 55 would only penalize motorists by keeping them on the highway longer, with the higher likelihood of being issued a speeding citation, since most motorists will continue to drive the speed they are accustomed. See the study enclosed The Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits. http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html"
"Almost 14 years ago I packed up my belongings to move onto Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. I had a purpose. I believed so strongly that the NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) was a bad law that I felt compelled to change it. . 'Fundamental to most laws in America is the thought that the behavior of a majority of people is reasonable. Laws are written to single out the unreasonable behavior of a minority of the population. Speed laws are based on the same ideas. NMSL violated this principle and most people did not observe this law. It made criminals out of most motorists, leaving us with the dilemma of deciding if we should drive a safe speed, which is driving with the free-flow of the traffic, because this is the safest speed, or driving a legal speed.
I was 100% successful in achieving my goal of getting a repeal of the NMSL. I have been pleased to see that the fatality rate has continued to decrease over the years. Thus the mantra that 'Speed Kills' was a myth. Now, I am hearing that 55 will save gas. This too will prove to be a myth due to several reasons. Most gas is wasted on urban driving due to poor traffic light synchronization; over use of STOP signs; continuous construction causing traffic congestion and the lack of traffic control to improve the even flow of traffic.
Only 20% of the traffic travel on high speed highways such as our Interstate system or similar highways. The results of reducing highway speed limits will increase the fatality rate due to differences in speed and keeping motorists on the highway longer.
There is no fuel shortage, only higher prices at the gas pump, thus re-instating 55 would only penalize motorists by keeping them on the highway longer, with the higher likelihood of being issued a speeding citation, since most motorists will continue to drive the speed they are accustomed. See the study enclosed The Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits. http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html"
Grumpy Old Man
Grumpy Old Biker Bastard
Mr. dB said:
It didn't work when they made the national speed limit 55 a long time ago.
Grumpy Old Man
Grumpy Old Biker Bastard
Mr. dB said:
Also created a number of State and Federal agencies, slower speeds will increase fines for traffic offenses.
Grumpy Old Man
Grumpy Old Biker Bastard
Mr. dB said:
As always, we are the ones that get fvked
digimon7068
New member
Grumpy Old Man said:
more cash flow from fines = less taxes (or at least less tax increases)???
Grumpy Old Man
Grumpy Old Biker Bastard
No they will say there is an additional cost that is substantial for enforcement due to the great numbers of criminal speeders.digimon7068 said:
No win for the public
I took a 5,000 mile road trip last month -- mostly in states where the limit was a very reasonable 75. Knocking the speed limit down to 65 would have tacked a FULL DAY onto that trip.
The argument about aerodynamic drag seems logical but there is a hole in it. On one extreme, a car that's not moving gets 0 mpg; on the other end, especially with a hybrid, there's a spot where the gas engine is most efficient, and the longer you stay there the higher the mpg, because the engine is going to burn the same amount of gas per unit time but you're covering more ground. We rented a hybrid, and it turned out for this car the sweet spot was right around 78 mph. We got 38 - 40 mpg overall, which is more than the car's EPA rating of 36 mpg calculated at 65 mph.
Look at diesel-electric subs; they don't throttle their diesel engines. WW II subs ran one to four diesel engines, but each of them was run for maximum efficiency (close to flat out), and the "throttle" involved how the electricity they generated was divided up between direct electric propulsion, recharging batteries, or compressing air. There are strong similarities to hybrids there.
Congresscritters need to get their mitts out of technology. I'm not sure what they're good for, frankly; maybe they should stick to deciding who needs to be horsewhipped? In which case I nominate that congresswoman for a reality TV demo of proper horsewhipping technique.
The argument about aerodynamic drag seems logical but there is a hole in it. On one extreme, a car that's not moving gets 0 mpg; on the other end, especially with a hybrid, there's a spot where the gas engine is most efficient, and the longer you stay there the higher the mpg, because the engine is going to burn the same amount of gas per unit time but you're covering more ground. We rented a hybrid, and it turned out for this car the sweet spot was right around 78 mph. We got 38 - 40 mpg overall, which is more than the car's EPA rating of 36 mpg calculated at 65 mph.
Look at diesel-electric subs; they don't throttle their diesel engines. WW II subs ran one to four diesel engines, but each of them was run for maximum efficiency (close to flat out), and the "throttle" involved how the electricity they generated was divided up between direct electric propulsion, recharging batteries, or compressing air. There are strong similarities to hybrids there.
Congresscritters need to get their mitts out of technology. I'm not sure what they're good for, frankly; maybe they should stick to deciding who needs to be horsewhipped? In which case I nominate that congresswoman for a reality TV demo of proper horsewhipping technique.
digimon7068
New member
digger said:
at 70 mph (around 1,900 rpm) my suburban gets 20mpg. . .any faster and the mileage starts to go south pretty quickly. . .going slower than 70 but not less than 55 doesn't make an appreciable difference. . .
"The more laws that are written, the more criminals are produced."
--Lao-Tse
"It's a pretty good rule of thumb that any law which is routinely ignored/flouted by a majority (or even a large percent) of the general, otherwise law-abiding public, is probably a stupid/unjust law."
--Eric Peters, automotive journalist
--Lao-Tse
"It's a pretty good rule of thumb that any law which is routinely ignored/flouted by a majority (or even a large percent) of the general, otherwise law-abiding public, is probably a stupid/unjust law."
--Eric Peters, automotive journalist
chris302001
Banned
digimon7068 said:
That brings up an issue I've wondered a lot about. Maybe some of you that have been around longer and know more about cars etc will have a better understanding than me, but what I dont understand is why we dont have more 6 speed transmissions with ultra high 6th gears or even 7 or 8 spd tranny's in order to put highway speed rpm's at near idle.
Or you could make a CVT that has a large gear ratio that would put highway speed rpm's near idle.......seems like it would help and not require any leaps in technology.......
Isn't that what overdrive was for when it was developed? Why cant we take it a step further?
What do you guys think?
I agree that a CVT and a "right-sized" engine is probably the simplest and cheapest short-term solution, but "idle speed" is not necessarily the most efficient speed for the engine. As long as it's turning over, it's going to be burning some fuel. Remember, when the car is not moving, that's zero mpg. Few cars will "cruise" at 200 RPM even with overdrive gearing.
The trick is to run the engine at the point where it is most efficient, so ALL the gas you burn is contributing to racking up miles, and don't idle the engine if you're not moving.
They are now doing amazing things with fuel injection and full computer control of the ignition, such as deliberately 'idling' two cylinders to run a six as a four. That's pretty cool.
If you want to go a little more high-tech, though, hybrid rocks. The "right-sizing" task becomes easier because you've got a cushion for upgrades and headwinds. It also adds regeneration to recapture wasted power on braking and downgrades, and gives you the major win of shutting down the gas engine when you stop, whether it's waiting for a stupid mistimed traffic light, or waiting for your Big Mac and fries at the drive-thru. Big difference in city traffic, plus a major air-quality gain where it's needed most.
Solar doesn't come close to providing the power to drive a real car, but the Prius is going to be getting a 2KW solar panel that should take care of the A/C pretty well, and that will eliminate even more engine idling.
The trick is to run the engine at the point where it is most efficient, so ALL the gas you burn is contributing to racking up miles, and don't idle the engine if you're not moving.
They are now doing amazing things with fuel injection and full computer control of the ignition, such as deliberately 'idling' two cylinders to run a six as a four. That's pretty cool.
If you want to go a little more high-tech, though, hybrid rocks. The "right-sizing" task becomes easier because you've got a cushion for upgrades and headwinds. It also adds regeneration to recapture wasted power on braking and downgrades, and gives you the major win of shutting down the gas engine when you stop, whether it's waiting for a stupid mistimed traffic light, or waiting for your Big Mac and fries at the drive-thru. Big difference in city traffic, plus a major air-quality gain where it's needed most.
Solar doesn't come close to providing the power to drive a real car, but the Prius is going to be getting a 2KW solar panel that should take care of the A/C pretty well, and that will eliminate even more engine idling.
chris302001
Banned
digger said:
Thanks Dig, I was hoping you'd respond.
damn--if i have to drive 55 i might as well hand in my drivers license now.....
By the way, reading about the 2KW solar panel made me wonder just how short of a "solar powered" car that leaves us.
If you take the "Smart" car, which will actually seat two adults and a sack lunch (but has the lamest excuse for a transmission I have EVER seen), my best guess is that it would be usable at 60hp. That's what a British roadster had back in the 50s. That translates to about 44 KW. or TWENTY-TWO "Prius roofs." (Cover a flatbed trailer with cells, then see whether the car can pull it?)
Now, let's say we improve energy storage -- batteries, solar hydrogen for fuel cells, compressed air, high-speed flywheels; anything that can store juice and release it on demand. It makes marginal sense to cover the side of a building to get that 44 KW for "free" and store it somehow, maybe; but putting the cells on the car is a losing proposition for anything but accessories and ancillaries, such as the A/C.
Gasoline and diesel are damn hard to beat for high-density energy storage, especially if you prefer your fuel to remain conveniently liquid at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.
If you take the "Smart" car, which will actually seat two adults and a sack lunch (but has the lamest excuse for a transmission I have EVER seen), my best guess is that it would be usable at 60hp. That's what a British roadster had back in the 50s. That translates to about 44 KW. or TWENTY-TWO "Prius roofs." (Cover a flatbed trailer with cells, then see whether the car can pull it?)
Now, let's say we improve energy storage -- batteries, solar hydrogen for fuel cells, compressed air, high-speed flywheels; anything that can store juice and release it on demand. It makes marginal sense to cover the side of a building to get that 44 KW for "free" and store it somehow, maybe; but putting the cells on the car is a losing proposition for anything but accessories and ancillaries, such as the A/C.
Gasoline and diesel are damn hard to beat for high-density energy storage, especially if you prefer your fuel to remain conveniently liquid at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.
