CNN TV
SCHEDULE ANCHORS & REPORTERS CONTACT US HEADLINE NEWS



May 15, 2008
Posted: 05:21 PM ET

ALT TEXT
Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: AP PHOTO)

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Gasoline prices rose to a record today – for the 8th day in a row. The AAA says the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is now $3.78. That’s a 12% increase in just the last month. $4 a gallon is clearly in sight now, and if some experts are right, it could go a lot higher.

Surveys show that drivers have been changing their habits in order to cut fuel costs. They’re doing things like shopping for cheaper gas or putting less in the tank instead of filling up. But how about slowing down?

Cars are most fuel efficient when driven between 30 mph and 60 mph. Above 65 mph, mileage drops sharply. This isn’t rocket science. If drivers are forced to slow down, we would all use less gasoline. And if demand went down, prices might just follow.

One expert says reducing highway speeds from 70 mph to 60 mph would reduce gasoline consumption between 2% and 3%. That could translate into a price reduction of as much as 10%. At today’s price, almost 38 cents a gallon.

This is exactly what happened in 1974 during the Middle East oil embargo. President Nixon and Congress imposed a national speed limit of 55 mph. Congress repealed the national speed limit law in 1995, and today there are 32 states with speed limits of 70 mph or higher. In Texas, you can even drive 80 mph on some roads.

But there doesn’t appear to be much interest in Congress for a new national speed limit. John McCain and Hillary Clinton would rather pander to voters with the idea of a three-month vacation from the 18 cents a gallon federal gas tax which will never happen. And if it did, would save drivers a whopping 70 bucks.

Here’s my question to you: Should the highway speed limit be lowered to 55 mph to conserve gasoline?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Tina from Fort Worth, Texas writes:
It would not make much difference here in the state of Texas. If you do 55, you are bound to be run over and if you do 75, there is always someone out to knock you over into the slow lanes. Until they make all cars the same size that are only powered by 2 squirrels running on a belt then it will be fruitless.

Tom from Fort Lauderdale, Florida writes:
Jack, Anyone who would propose a decrease in the speed limit to save energy has overlooked the obvious cost of slowing down the entire country. The faster freight and people move across America has a finite bottom line number. Slowing down America as a solution to OPEC oil has all the logic of shooting ourselves in both feet with a bazooka.

Steve from Idaho writes:
It is about time we Americans quit whining and start facing the reality that our lifestyles are going to, have to, change! We pride ourselves on having 3.2 cars in our garage and feel it’s our right to drive our big 8-cylinder SUVs. Lowering the speed limit to 55 miles an hour, times millions of cars, will save gas, reduce waste and may even bring the price of gas down a little.

Katherine writes:
People never paid attention to the speed limit when it was 55 mph, I don’t see how changing it will help.

John from Washington writes:
No. The current market-based increases in gas prices will lead to rational drivers making their own decision to drive slower in order to conserve fuel. The increased prices will also help folks make the rational decision to trade in their wasteful behemoths for fuel efficient vehicles, as seen in the rest of the nations on this planet!

David writes:
Jack, I have watched many people speed by me only to meet them at the next light or toll both, so it sounds good to me.

Ken from Virginia writes:
No, Jack, they should have no limits. That way I will be able to overtake you one of these days on the turnpike.

Posted by:
Filed under: Oil Prices • Speed Limit


Rex in Portland, Ore.   May 15th, 2008 3:19 pm ET

This isn’t a matter of conservation, as it was in the 70s, Jack. This time the oil barons are much smarter and are squeezing every last centime and kopek they can out of everyone - a sort of last gasp profit grab before Obama puts a screeching halt to their perfidy (ummm, hope?). Hey, people still have some money, gas is plentiful, so let’s continue the speed rape. Faster, faster. They - the oil barons - still have 249 days of uncontested free reign over US policies, let them enjoy it.

Raymond Duke/Gatesville,Tx.   May 15th, 2008 3:21 pm ET

No it shouldn’t. Their is no shortage of oil. It is a scam by wall street ,the bush administration , opec and the oil companies. That 55 mile an hour is fine to do if you live in a city . It doesn’t hold water for rural America. It only allows the states to get richer by handing out speeding tickets. Besides Jack all them experts that advise the president and congress such as the economist are the reason this country is in the shape it is in. Take a couple of economic courses, listen to the foolish B.S. they propose , then get someone who has a decent education from a state college instead of Harvard or Yale to run the country and it will get straighten out. I rest my case by pointing out were all our last few presidents and contenders have graduated from.

Cynthia   May 15th, 2008 3:21 pm ET

It will be helpful, but even at that most of us are going to have to pull our old bicycles out of the garage and start using them as a means of getting around.

Sharon from Illinois   May 15th, 2008 3:23 pm ET

Yes it should be lowered. I drive 65 and people fly by me like I’m sitting still. If you lowered it to 55 they would probably still drive the same way they do today. We complain about the gas prices but nobody, nobody wants to change they way they live or learn to conserve anything.We are such a complaining selfish society today.

George   May 15th, 2008 3:24 pm ET

Yes lower the speed limit to 55 miles per hour, and limit everyone from driving but 5 days per week. It was good enough for us during World War II to conserve, and we all lived through it. Do something now before it gets too late to do it, and we leave this country in one hell of a mess when we die, and our sons, and daughters, and grandchildren will have to take up the problem. Raise the cost of gas to $10.00 a gallon, and that will get the attention of all of those people who are driving those gas guzzling vehicles.

David Natchez, Mississippi   May 15th, 2008 3:24 pm ET

They tried this already and all it did was tie up traffic and generate more speeding tickets. The price of gas and the amount I have to spend dictate how many miles I want to squeese out of a gallon. I also ride a motorcycle and it gets about 50 miles to a gallon even when I cruise at 75. It ain’t the speed limit stupid, it is the oil companies backing the speculators driving up the price and controling the refineries.

barbara   May 15th, 2008 3:26 pm ET

JACK,
Our Goverment has plenty of Oil in reserve and could release some to lower these gas prices,,,,,,,,,,,,,this Country should demand it of BUSH, then we would have to drive so slow or do without food to buy gas to get to work! As far as the speed limit I like it the way it is————-55 is much to low and everyone will be getting tickets and tickets today, are more or less in the hundreds of Dollars today then years ago! I would vote against lowering the speed limit.

Have a good night.
Barb from Florida

Peter Pan McKinney, Texas   May 15th, 2008 3:26 pm ET

The 55 MPH speed limit was enacted by Congress in March 1974 as part of a package of measures dealing with the oil crisis. It was thought that it was the most efficient use of an auto’s engine and thus would save fuel. As it turned out, however, the energy actually saved was minimal and at best 1 percent of gasoline consumption or about the same amount a driver could realize by increasing the pressure of his radial tires from 24 to 26 pounds
Air is cheap. Changing signs along the highway costing millions of tax dollars that no one is going to obey anyway is dumb.
Sorry Jack. That is a big NO SALE!!!!!

Stacy from Farifax, Virginia   May 15th, 2008 3:28 pm ET

Driving slower is one of many ways to reduce gasoline consumption. Americans should also be looking at other ways to drive less to work and school such as walking, biking or using public transportation.

In honor of National Bike to Work Week eveyone should commit to finding an alternative to driving at least once a week or whenever possible.

People would save money, there would be less traffic congestion and pollution and an added bonus: they would get some much needed exercise at the same time.

tom shaw   May 15th, 2008 3:29 pm ET

So, Jack, McCain and Hillary are “pandering’ with their ideas and Obama has all the answers for our gas crisis? Naw, don’t think so! Not so sure he would know a good plan if it bit him in the butt. Reducing the speed limit would be good in theory, but people do not obey the limits now, so why would they then? A lot of the gas consumed are from people setting in traffic each morning and evening at gridlock during rush hour. Solve that problem and you may actually be onto something. Until then, just stick to YOUR pandering to Obama…….

Eric Patton   May 15th, 2008 3:29 pm ET

Let people make their own decision how fast they want to go, just make sure I can pass them!

Mel Bakuy - Rancho Mirage, California   May 15th, 2008 3:29 pm ET

Jack, I remember 1974. Like a good citizen I entered the freeway that morning going 55 mph. After everyone gave me the bird as they went by and the big rigs almost ran me over and a police car went by me totally oblivious to the situation I gave up and went up to 65 mph. It is a good idea if they can and will enforce it but I don’t think they will.

Jason, Koloa, HI   May 15th, 2008 3:29 pm ET

Yes. All the money drivers save on gas they can use to pay the tickets they’ll probably get from being used to driving so fast.

Kim, Dodge City, Kansas   May 15th, 2008 3:30 pm ET

No, no and no. Not ever again. People will continue to drive as fast as they need to to get where they need to go. Driver’s would get more tickets, which will drive up insurance rates and that’s a big plus for insurance companies. And what about road rage? $4 a gallon AND you want me to drive how slow? Big Oil will just jack the price up to make up for lost revenue and the American consumer will be penalized again. I went through the oil embargo, and in the end the gas shortage was exposed as being a fraud with OPEC as a direct benefactor. Leave us at least one freedom.

A Kraft Naples, FL   May 15th, 2008 3:30 pm ET

yes yes yes the more we conserve on fuel and make efficienty our goal we can become less dependent on the foreign oil…we also have to start thinking of nuclear and coal energy to break this dependence and buy smaller more efficient cars….otherwise we will all be walking..which might not be a bad idea….

Kel from Auburn AL   May 15th, 2008 3:31 pm ET

Heck, no. It would just give small-town cops another reason to oppress peace-keeping out-of-town drivers that are trying to get from A to B and are forced to make trips through speed trap towns. People will speed regardless.

Adam from Orlando   May 15th, 2008 3:31 pm ET

Maybe not to 55, but it should be decreased. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will. People are in so much of a hurry that they’d rather spend a bit more than let up on the accelerator.

The problem is that even if it’s lowered, most people would just ignore the speed limit like they do now.

Len of Colfax, Wisconsin   May 15th, 2008 3:32 pm ET

Jack, I lived through the last time we had the 55 mph limit and while I would have liked to go faster, it was not really a great hardship. This time around, my wife and I have been going less than 65 mph for quite a while now, so it would not be much of an adjustment to go a little slower still. We have found that we are going a lot further on a tank of gas. This idea would probably make a lot of sense and would probably save people a lot more in the long run than the “gas tax holiday” that I thought was foolishness.

Nancy, Tennessee   May 15th, 2008 3:32 pm ET

Do people really think that a 55 mph speed limit saves gasoline. Someone needs to talk to some mechanics who understand car engines and how well they run at certain speeds. Especially at 30 mph a car is not at its cruising speed and does not shift into high speed overdrive. With the gear ratios that cars have now and overdrive, over 55 mph gives better gas mileage. If you are out on the Interstate doing 70 mph, you aren’t loosing miles per gallon by sitting in traffic idling. Give travelers a break. 70 mph on the Interstate is not whats breaking the oil piggy-bank. We need to look at all the other uses of oil. Why wrap everything up in four package levels? Wait until you get arthritus and see if you like trying to get into all that packaging that is made of oil.

Jacob, Alabama   May 15th, 2008 3:33 pm ET

No way, Jack. No one obeys the speed limits we already have. The only “benefit” of lowering the speed limits would be the added revenue from the inevitable rise in speeding tickets, and the rise in body shop work caused by rear-end crashes when a car going 75 rear-ends another car going 50.

Matt - Ft Wayne Indiana   May 15th, 2008 3:33 pm ET

Let it go. Nobody wants an hour drive to last more than that.

John from Eugene Oregon   May 15th, 2008 3:34 pm ET

Jack, In a word NO! It already costs me a fortune to buy gas with a 55 MPH speed limit it would take me forever to get any where. People in the east often have no idea how much open highway there is in the west.

mimi   May 15th, 2008 3:34 pm ET

Heck no, are you crazy!

Preston in Los Angeles, CA   May 15th, 2008 3:34 pm ET

That would be a high-speed hell no. You know, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he forgot to add our inalienable right as humans to go exceedingly fast. Let’s be honest Mr. Cafferty, when the speed limit was once 55 mph, you, like most people employed the 20 mph rule…if the speed limit was 55, you drove 75. In the process, you endangered lives by scanning for speed traps and gazing in the rear view mirror for pursuing Highway Patrol cars. 55 mph is just one more liberal measure to jerk with our need for speed. Speed does not kill, it just gets you off the road faster.

Allan,Cameron Park, Ca.   May 15th, 2008 3:35 pm ET

If there was indeed a petrolem shortage, which there is not. Then a phoney fix like lowering the speed limit would help a little but no one will drive 55 anymore than they drive the speed limits we have now.

Doug Pierson Tohatchi, NM   May 15th, 2008 3:35 pm ET

Jack: Not only no, but hell no! It is fine if you live in the east, but out here in the west it is a different story. We have to drive 30 miles just to get groceries. A lot of people live 60 miles or more from their jobs, and out here it is not that easy to just move. If you are driving 55 miles and hour it will take 2 to 3 days to go from Phoenix to Albuquerque. You easterners just don’t have a clue. At 55 mph how would you like to drive across Montana? What you would save in gas would go for motel fees. It would be nice if people slowed down some and frankly I am seeing that out here. Even the big trucks and not going quite so fast. But to mandate it?

Sabrina   May 15th, 2008 3:39 pm ET

Why wait for Congress to do something? As drivers, we all have the option of leaving a few minutes earlier and driving a few MPH slower and saving gas. Remember…it’s a speed LIMIT…not a speed mandate. Nothing says you must drive 65 or 75 MPH just because the sign is there.

Randy Comer   May 15th, 2008 3:39 pm ET

Not at the federal level. This should be mandated by the states. But yes, it should be lowered to 60. Please not 55.

Joe   May 15th, 2008 3:39 pm ET

I think the speed limit should be lowered to 55. Not only will it help cars save gas, but it is safer, there will be less accidents, and less pollution in the air.

Linda   May 15th, 2008 3:39 pm ET

The speed limit should be lowered. I have slowed down from 70-75 to 65-70 and drive states roads which have a speed limit of 55. I am getting 2-3 miles more per gallon of gasoline in my fuel efficient Mini Cooper. However, sometimes traffic is so heavy and is going so fast that I would be taking my life in my hands to slow down. If all would slow down, the savings and safety would be much increased.

Phil B   May 15th, 2008 3:39 pm ET

Yes, the speed limit should be lowered. But will it? Doubtful. Common sense does not seem to rule this land.

Gary S   May 15th, 2008 3:39 pm ET

We tried it once before and it didn’t work then. The better solution would be a strict enforcement of the present speedlimit. If people really went the posted speedlimit there would probably be the same effect of gas consumption as lowering the speedlimit. Also state coffers would fill up from speeding tickets!!!

izaard   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

Band aid on a bleeding artery

Cory Peterson   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

No, we should not lower the speed limit. We should make finding an alternative fuel for vehicles one of the top priorities, however, for the Global War on Terrorism. We are paying the bills of our enemy by purchasing oil from the middle east.

larry   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

DO NOT lower the speed limit. Pay NOW or PAY LATER.

Jon   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

Glad to read this column. We need to think outside the box!

John in San Diego   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

Jack, lowering the speed limit - like we did in 1974 - is a symbolic gesture that had little effect then and would probably provide even less benefit now. It’s a way of looking like we’re doing something, while doing nothing, sort of like an alcoholic solving his problem by having one less drink a month.

Dan (Kirkland, WA)   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

I live on the east side of Lake Washington in the suburbs of Seattle. My commute consists of driving between 1 and 35 MPH. Lower the speed limit all you want. I’ll still be sitting in some of the worst traffic in the country.

Matt   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

No. Lowering the speed limit will only cause more congestion on our highways. In urban areas, 55mph is necessary, but out in rural areas we need higher speed limits.

Wayne in NH   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

Jack, It worked before.It will work again. Demand goes down and prices will go down. It will give everyone more relieve on their monthly gas bill at the pumps then the so called gas tax holiday. It can be temporary. It will not cost us anything except a few a little time. It will hit the big oil companies right where hurts, in the CEO’s wallet. But this one will never fly, because it will not get any politician a quick vote.

Bill Woessner   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

I don’t know about you, Jack, but I live near Washington, DC. Around here, the speed limits are mostly irrelevant. During rush hour, you’re stuck in stop and go traffic all the time. When traffic isn’t bad, people completely ignore the posted speed limit. I think you could change the speed limit to 25 mph and it wouldn’t really matter.

Steve Aldridge   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

Yes it should be 55 for cars and 50 for trucks.

Robert   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

How would this solve the problem in any respect? Why not then 40 or 30?
If it were really a pinch to people’s wallets to pay this much for gas, they should have bought more fuel efficient cars instead of their Hummer H2s and Ford Monstrocities.
I drive a Honda Civic & it costs me about 40 to fill it up. I also live in Seattle where I don’t need to drive everyday. It sucks to have to spend that much for gas, but how can anyone really say this came as a surprise dispite the years of warnings we ignored?

Ryan, St. Paul, MN   May 15th, 2008 3:40 pm ET

No way.

Erik   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

Yes. Federal control is the answer to every single problem.

Steven Davis   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

No, I dont believe that the fed should mandate 55 again. Despite the fact that there are places with speed limits higher, individuals can CHOOSE to do 55-60 on their own. I believe people are informed that lower speeds can save them gas, and they speed anyway. Just like here in NYC people are told that mass transit can save them money, but the streets are always packed with cars anyway.

Gabriel   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

55 or 60. Yes it should. I frequently drive, on the freeway at those speeds. I get remarkably better gas mileage - so much so that I think the 2 - 3% increase in efficiency might actually be quite conservative. It’s certainly a much more sane position than a meaningless ‘vacation’ which does nothing to address the root cause of the problem and, realistically, gives nothing back to the population. $70? Over 3 months? Come on. That’s $23 per month. Or about 75 cents a day.

Gerard   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

I’m surprised they haven’t lowered it already. With speed cameras in effect through most of the liberal states, they could fine 99% of all drivers and rake in millions of dollars. Therefore, I am soundly against lowering the speed limit. It’s only going to save fuel if people drive slower. Enforcement is costly, so how is the government going to rebalance its priorities? And fuel prices work with supply and demand. If demand decreases, prices should decrease. But if demand decreases, they could then lower the supply, which would maintain higher prices.

Dan   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

Yes, just hire more Highway Patrol to inforce the law.

Bill Clough   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

No. Absolutely not. The double nickle was nothing more than revenue enhancement via tickets, and when the police weren’t around it was ignored, diminshing respect for the law in general. Making sure roads flow traffic efficiently results in much greater fuel savings and reduces tailpipe emissions as well. Stop and go traffic, stop lights that interrupt the smooth flow of traffic, and creating situations where people are nearly forced to jackrabbit their starts to make the next light before it turns red - these are by far a greater enemy to fuel efficiency and clean air.

Matthew Bonazzoli   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

Absolutely not. Think of the time it would waste and time is more valuable than gasoline. Besides, if we really want to save gas we should as a nation ban toll booths on interstates. These outdated money grubbers cause all traffic to slow down and many cars to come to a complete stop. Also, traffic lights are another area to be looked into. How many of us have been stopped by a red light with no traffic in either direction? Proper planning of traffic paterns, lights with traffic sensors and even god forbid, replacing useless traffic lights with stop signs would all begin to save gas.

Frith   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

In Kentucky the speed limit was changed recently from 65 up to 70. I try to drive at 65 if I can because the price of gas is just absolutely ridiculous.

Scott   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

The speed limit should not be lowered but people can voluntarily slow down. I have been doing this when time is not a consideration.

David Brumley   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

Outlawing large vehicles in the city like SUVs and 3/4 ton pickup trucks would be a lot better idea.

Mike out West   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

People didn’t drive 55 when it was the speed limit. Why would they now? Besides, accident rates have gone down with the higher speeds. Not to mention the fact that people are in a hurry, so slowing down is just not an alternative.

John   May 15th, 2008 3:41 pm ET

To quote Sammy Hagar: “I can’t drive 55!” If you’re going to have a national speed limit, please, no lower than 65. You’d still get a lot of the gas benefits but wouldn’t be so darn, frustratingly slow.

Ralph, Long Island, NY   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

Couple that with aggressively writing speeding tickets and we should be able to balance the budget, and make social security and medicare solvent forever.

Jeff in NC   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

The speed limit should be a function of safety. Drivers are not obligated to drive at the limit. It should be left to individuals to make a personal choice to slow down and save money; not government mandate.

Frankie   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

No the people that like to speed will speed.

Billy G in Las Vegas   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

a better question might be WHY is Detroit not building a plug in electric car with a 150 mile range at 70 mph? as someone who rarely drives more than 100 miles per day, I would sure buy one.

Don   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

So they can reduce production to keep the prices up?

What planet are you on?

Tom   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

No!!! God, with all of the misery across the board these days, I want to at least keep the joy of being able to drive fast! Besides, do you really think anyone is going to obey the lower speed limits? They don’t even obey them now, as I am reminded everytime a BMW passes me going about 90.

Russell   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

Don’t mess with the speed limit. If slowing down saves you gas money, then you should switch to a more fuel effcient car. The whole purpose of driving is to save TIME. If you want to go back to the slow way, try walking everywhere.

Paul from Houma, Louisiana   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

No, this will affect all Freight Transportation companies. They barely make shipments on time as it is. I used to do programming work for a national freight company.

If we do this, they will miss schedules and in a lot of cases this includes food and other necessities we need for daily living. If they reduced the speed limit, it should at least not apply to freight trucks.

We need long term solutions, there is no quick fix band-aid. I firmly believe the core problem is not oil, its the value of the dollar dropping. This is not some new crazy oil just got more expensive issue. We need to address the core problems that caused this massive increase.

Jack Day   May 15th, 2008 3:42 pm ET

Absolutely, lower the speed limit on all roads

bill spencer   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

No that might slow george bush down from leaving the white House.

Cory   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

This is a terrible idea of continuing to expand the federal government’s grip on society. Let the states decide what speed limits should be set in their state, as it is their right to do so. Lowering the speed limit across the nation will not singlehandedly lower people’s driving speeds, as in many places drivers still drive 5-15+ mph over the limit anyway. There would instead have to be an increased expense placed on police departments to step up speed traps, thus pulling them away from more violent offenses. It would seem that, on face value your suggestion could solve one problem, but perhaps you have not considered the far reaching effects of your idea. Perhaps, when proposing suggestions you might also drop the excessive sarcasm at the end of your statement.

Tracy   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

I definitely think the speed limit should be lowered. I drive 130 miles a day round trip to work. In the last month I have stopped driving 80 miles an hour and now do not drive about 65 miles an hour. My car gets 30 miles to the gallon when driving 65 mph and was only getting around 24 mpg when driving 80 mph. I save an average of $20.00 per week now driving slower. Dropping the speed limit would decrease the demand in turn help to lower the price of gas.

Christopher   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

No!!! Our speed limits are already way below many other countries- the answer is more fuel efficient vehicles not lowering the speed limit to 55mpg. They had this same idea in Germany and it was struck down in a second.

Mylon Stark   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

Jack - before there is action to lower speed limits, we should enforce the existing speed laws across the country.

It seems the majority of drivers arrogantly and blatantly disregard our road and driving laws - treating speed limits as nothing but a suggestion.

Let’s get serious about the penalties for speeding: if the penalty is 2-digits (e.g., $90), add a zero at the end; if the penalty is 3-digits (e.g., $120), add a one at the beginning. Perhaps, when those who disrespect society’s laws incur such appropriate monetary penalties, they’ll lighten their feet and rid themselves of a self-created empowerment to spit on our laws.

Gary Rygh (pronounced Rigg)   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

I myself have a heavy foot, I was driving at speeds of 70-75 mph. I work 46 miles away, I have slowed down to 60 mph & I am saving approx 20.00 per week. So what I am arriving 10 minutes later at least I am not giving it away or blowing it out of my tailpipe.

Jeff   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

Instead of lowering the speed limit, something that people view more as a guideline and in reality won’t do anything to improve the fuel situation, why don’t we make a ban on driving on the freeways unless you have at least 2+ people during rish hour. If you want to come on the freeways with only one person, charge a tax of say $10 per day. That would make people think twice about not carpooling, using public transportation, or riding a bike.

Jeff, Orange County, CA

Jim   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

Jack, Having lived through the last 55 MPH speed limit, there is no way I would do it again. People drove just as fast as today but, got ticketed. A better solution is to build more fuel efficient cars and the only way for that to happen is public demand which will happen as fuel costs keep escalating.

Concerned Citizen   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

How about instead of doing something like that and wasting tax payers time and money debating it in Congress lets do something like invest in alternative fuels. The rising gas prices and the conflict in the Middle East are connected. If we could get away from using foreign oil the Middle East would implode on itself and the problems for the most part would disappear.

Micki   May 15th, 2008 3:43 pm ET

Most definately!!!!
Lincoln, NE

JC   May 15th, 2008 4:02 pm ET

How many Band-Aid’s does it take to actually solve a problem?

michael   May 15th, 2008 4:13 pm ET

Another bandaid!

Here’s my answer. Create and offer the Cafferty prize, a 1 billion USD prize to the company that can create and manufacture a viable alternate fuel solution that meets our needs and can bring it to market in the next 5 years. Just ANNOUNCING the prize will slash oil prices and spark a Kennedy-esque storm of inovation.

Not enough money? Make it two! We can spend a billion a month on this stupid war, why not challenge our country and make independence from oil our goal? - michael / barrington, IL

bill   May 15th, 2008 4:14 pm ET

The 55mph limit was based on the estimated drag coefficient of cars in 1974. They estimated the point where ground resistance equalled wind resistance and it was 55mph. It is different now. It was a giant guess.

If prices are high, people will drive slower to save–market forces will change behavior, not politicians.

Eric   May 15th, 2008 4:15 pm ET

How about we just tax stupid fat a$$ rednecks who choose to buy SUV s and monster trucks then to live so far from where they work? We’ll use the taxes to create world class bike and pedestrian infrastructure and to give tax breaks to people who are part of the solution already. Lowering the speed limit or suspending gas taxes is NOT a solution. It’s just more stupidity and ignorance… What is wrong with us Americans? Even the French get it!

Jerry - Houston   May 15th, 2008 4:17 pm ET

A couple of key facts
We consume upwards of 17 MILLION barrels of oil per day in this country. That is 714 MILLION gallons of oil per day. Of this, well over half must come from foreign sources - such as Venezuela and the Middle East.

At currentl consumption, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will supply us for a total of 2 months. 60 days.

Yes, roll back speed limits. No I do not like it, but it might help. Force higher Coporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requlations again. That might help. I have to admit that it bothers me to hear a guy filling up his Ford F-250 that he uses to commute to work complain about fuel prices and then go blasting off at speed limit + 10. A bit hypocritical, don’t ya think?

While people are bashing the oil companies, what about the auto companies? The profit from a Lincoln Navigator is astronomic compared to a Chevy Aveo. They have a HUGE incentive to push larger, less economic vehicles.

Joe DeRosa   May 15th, 2008 4:18 pm ET

Lowering the speed limits might be a good way to take a bite out of consumption, but to postulate that it could result in a tangible price change at the pumps is naive thinking, at best. The oil companies and their partners in crime, the commodity traders, have a proven track record of maintaining or raising the prices at the slightest provocation. There’s almost a sense of cockiness about the price swings, first a little tentative, then more brazen…. raise it 2 cents, lower it a penny; raise it 10 cents, lower it 3 cents; raise it 18 cents, lower it 6 cents, and so on…Nice little trend there…not!

Robert   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

Until the current laws are enforced, lowering the limits isn’t going to do much good. As other commentors have pointed out, if you drive the speed limit on the interstates today you get run over, so lowering the limits isn’t going to do much. There a better uses of our time and resources that passing yet another law that no one obeys.

Reginald Letivy   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

The price of gas should be raised to $37.13/gal. This calculation is based on a number of factors, including average barometric pressure in the U.S., diastolic/systolic levels, metropolitan rainfall PH measurements and nominal IQ quotients (taking into account nominal LDL cholesterol). At this point, equilibrium will be achieved and oil shortfall concerns will begin to fade.

Marc   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

Absolutely - lower the speed limit. It’s established science that lower speeds conserve gas, so a lowered speed limit would translate into improved gas mileage on a large scale. The only reason many people aren’t already lowering speeds is because all other commuters around you are going breakneck speeds and it’s almost unsafe to travel at even slightly slower speeds.

Even if you don’t think price of gas will drop; your consumption of it WILL. And less consumption means less money spent at the pump. Also reduces our national dependence on foreign oil; improves national security; yada yada yada — this has so much positive impact it is a no-brainer: enact a lower speed limit. NOW PLEASE!

Rick from western Massachusetts   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

Definitely not Jack,
That would only mean that we’d be exceeding the speed limit by 15 or 20 miles an hour instead of 5 or 10. Most people on the highway today seem to drive at between 65 and 75. I don’t think people are going to change their habits just because a law is changed.
I do have an idea for saving lots of gasoline and electricity though. Let’s go to a four day work week with the extra day off coming on Wednesday. That would mean an immediate reduction in gasoline consumption of around 15%. Plus the energy saved by not having businesses heat or cool their buildings for an extra day. By having Wednesday off we would not be enticing people to travel more because of a three day weekend every week. People could keep their kids home from day care, spend quality time with their families, mow the lawn before the weekend. I think most people would be willing to spend 2 extra hours at work the other four days of the week if it would save them a commuting day. Of course we’d still expect you to show up on Wednesday Jack.

Cameron   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

I got a better idea how about these nazi styled CEO’s of the Oil and Gas companies making 30 billion dollars of profit quit making sorry excuses and build more refineries.

John   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

Jack, maybe we should all POST our own lowered speed limits. Since gas has been on the increase I have been monitoring my speed and gas consumption. I must say that I was surprised at the difference driving 55 rather than 70 made in my fuel usage. So if we know driving faster uses much more fuel, it seems more of a personal choice.Oh by the way I drive a company truck, and I do not pay for fuel. I for one will be the one in the slow lane, honk as you go by!
When we are at the off ramp Rippy Mart and I’m buying a slurppie and you are filling yours up, well I know what I’ll be thinking!

Mark   May 15th, 2008 4:23 pm ET

I think that this is a great idea. i drive a 95 ford taurus and the speedometer is marked at the 5’s with 55 in yellow from the last time the speed limits were 55. not only do i think this would help save fuel, it would help to slow down semis. if i felt like i could drive 55 on the highways now and be safe, i would

Monty   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Hm…let’s see. We’re locked into a death struggle in a volatile region and we’re trying to determine how best to remain dependent upon it.

I’ve got a kooky idea: why don’t we either tax the oil companies on their war profiteering and reduce the deficit or allow them to invest it in bringing hydrogen and electric methodologies to market sooner rather than later? They even get to pick which one after we make the taxes so unreasonable it makes R&D a no-brainer.

Take a look at the Tesla that the Silicon Valley guys have produced and tell me why it can’t work here except no one has any incentive in the mass market to do it. Give them the incentive by hurting their pocketbooks, they’ll come around.

frenchie   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

55 did not and will not save fuel. It is silly to believe that it will drive down fuel prices. As has been iterated here, it will only drive up the amount of speeding tickets issued and the resulting insurance rates. The gas price will never drop down to where it was even 5 years ago. This isn’t a supply and demand issue either. It’s simple greed. For the government to even discuss this is ridiculous. Don’t we have other more important issues, like where’s Osama. Oh yeah, the government can’t, doesn’t want to accomplish that so they need something to justify their existence.

Bill   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

No. If you want to drive slower, use the slow lane, and the rest of us will use the fast lane. The high cost of gas has resulted in LA freeway trafiic actually improving, as more people are using mass transit and cutting down on discretionay driving. So, if it takes gas at $5/gal to get people using more mass transit and buying more fuel efficient vehicles, then I’m all for it - and I’ll continue driving fast in the meantime.

From Los Angeles

Devin   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

It really doesn’t matter if the speed limit is reduced. The speed limit is 60 now and people still drive 80! All that will be accomplished from this is more money for the state’s from more speeding tickets. Most will not pay attention to this. The most that will come of this is someone driving 75 mph instead of 80.

Dave in Chambersburg, Pa   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Good Idea, but what’s the point without enforcement, which is none existent in this area. Of course a National speed limit bill could provide funding for enforcement, this is in turn would raise taxes. You just end up paying a different robber.

Dennis   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Jack, just the view I would expect from a liberal. You all think government intervention is the answer. We are not capable of making rational decisions for ourselves so government must make then for us. Hang in there Jack, the Gestapo is just around the corner.

Michael Stout   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

No. Ridiculous idea. Always has been. Speeds are much higher in Germany and they do fine. They also have much better drivers than we do. We should focus on making a driver’s license much harder for everyone to get so we have more skilled drivers on the road. Keep illegal and suspended drivers off the road, and make drunk driving penalties more like they are in Sweden. First offense, 1 year suspension. 2nd offense, you’re off the road for good.

SD   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

So, we are supposed to go backwards when it comes to progress?

In this day in age and technology, we should be riding in self-driven machines traveling at high speeds to get us were we need to go, instead of wasting time sitting in a car. I find it ridiculous that we are still using a combustion engine to transport us and goods across this planet. The technology is there, but it is being held back from the public so that the rich can get richer off of old technology and us the public. That fact that oil is a commodity and traded on the stock market with crazy investors driving the price so high its hitting us were it hurts is BS.

Justin   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Slowing down will take you longer to get places, no? How will spending more time on the road save you gasoline? Won’t any advantage gained by driving slower be negated by more time on the road? I don’t get it… Slowing down might all be well and good if you live out in the country and have wide open roads to drive down but if you live in the city, slowing down will only cause you to miss green lights…

Preston   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Leave the speed limit alone. I will continue to drive 55mph and laugh all the way to the bank. Maybe people will start to live closer to their work instead of commuting the long distances. I hear its a buyers market for houses.

Joe from Nashua, New Hampshire   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Jack, You could lower the speed limit to 55, but unless drivers actually OBSERVED the speed limit, the number on the signpost would be mute. We desperately need INDIVIDUAL, voluntary compliance - whether there is a patrol car in sight or not. Unfortunately, that will never happen.

Ken Burke   May 15th, 2008 4:24 pm ET

Another law that just makes lawbreakers out of everyone? Nobody drove 55 when the limit was 55. More speed, more gas? More gas, more cost. Price will take care of speed, leave the lawmakers out of it.

Laura Thompson   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

This is so difficult to answer. But I thinks it’s up to the person behind the wheel, let them spend their earnings on gas if they rather go faster. But the responsible one’s will cut back on their speed to conserve. The speed limit of 55 is obsolete, it’s almost impossible to drive that slow on highways. So again it’s going to be up to the consumer after all it’s their money to spend.

Vic   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Honestly, whether the speed limit gets lowered or not I have found myself driving between 55 and 60 mph almost 100% of the time on the interstate now. Sure everyone passes me but the reality is that it doesn’t add THAT much time to my commute and it saves me quite a bit of gas. My average MPG has gone from 27 to 35!

Linus   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Not until they open up ANWR for drilling.

Punch a few more wells in the ground in Alaska and build a couple more refineries, prices will tumble.

Pete   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

You want to lower the cost of gas? Try letting the oil companies drill more. Let the oil companies refine more. The problem is that we are so dependent on foreign oil. And ethanol isn’t the answer either. That only drives the cost of food up!

Rick   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Right lane 55mph for those of us who want to save a few $$$ and BIG tickets for tail gating. Left lane leave the speed limit alone. People are much too stupid to realize how badly we destroying our economy, the environment, and our national security.

Greg, PA   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Jack, you know that I quit smoking last year because I got tired of coughing them up and tired of paying over $4 a pack for them but I still want a cigarette everyday. We have a gas habit in this country and it will finally go away when we are broke and bankrupt we are still going to want it but we won’t be able to pay for it. When we are a third world country after this depression is over it won’t matter whether we drove there at 55 or 75 we will all be dead and damned.

Mike Cuomo   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

It doesn’t matter, this country was built on Supply and Demand and inelasticity. As long as the price goes up and people continue to purchase this necessary product the price will stay high. People complained when it was 2 dollars and they didn’t change their ways. Now its almost 4, at some point it will level off and start to drop, but we have to be smart consumers and stop buying it.

Pat Mount Jackson, VA   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

No, instead let’s stop those in the Federal Government from driving their huge SUV’s and flying all over the country and the world on their “Bipartisan” junkits.
Imagine how much that would save !!!!

Jill   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

This is just another way to get more revenue from speeding tickets. Much better to get rid of gas guzzlers than give cities, police, and traffic schools more revenue.

Christopher   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

It amazes me how many people turn this into a politics and conspiracy theory - I also have experimented doing 65 all the way home from the city to my Farm in the country - Last week all I passed were Semi trucks as they get it slow down and gas consumption goes down - I only passed 5 cars all week - The laws of Pysics really do apply here. Those that speak of education should really turn off there gaming systems and do some real study on the subject and look at what is going on in the rest of the world - Maybe travel a bit - I just got back from Peru - We are spoiled rotten and need to wake up.

Ivan Miller   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Yes, lower the speed limit. It will make our traveling much safer along with saving gas.

Paulet   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Yes, “driving slower saves consumption and lives” — In my state, it used to say “55 saves lives” — people should be conserving in all the same ways we did in the 70’s, — grocery stores should give up Plastic Bags as well — everyone should be working towards conserving.
Most stores I shop automatically give you a paper bag or ask for your “green” bag but there are a few large chain store holdouts that actually “hide” the paper and have only plastic available — I had one bagger who actually put my plastic bag inside a paper bag??
We should also go back to glass bottles for Milk, Soda, etc and disposable diapers with cloth linings

both sides now   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Driving 10 mph over the speed limit costs a lot, reducing fuel effiency by 20%. Think of it this way:
Two men driving side by side, same cars, same distance.
One drives 65 mph, the other 55 mph. The one driving 65 pays $3.70 per gallon, by comparison the one driving 55 is paying the equivalent of $3.00. That’s no joke!

R Jamerson   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Rather than creating more traffic issues for rural citizens, the speed limit could be lowered only in urban areas. The amount of petroleum used to create the myriad of plastic products in the world should be evaluated; I suspect that volume could be substituted for natural products as was more the case in the 1970’s..fewer plastic bottles, metal dashboards in cars. Might actually allow American industries to start working again.

Amarjit Dhillon (Boston MA)   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Reducing Driving speed is nice observation but has anybody ever given thought on the following to save millions of gallons of gas and time around the country.
If cops catches a car driver for some violation in rush hour then all the cars on both sides of the highway reduce speed to well under the speed limit which could have cascading effect upto 15 miles and everybody spends extra 20 mins. burning more fuel.
If the cop simply turns-off his flashing lights after catching then this could help.
I have seen number of times even if cop catches someone on the other side of highway the traffic slows very significantly. And after passing the cop, it gets normal. Why is this? Either people should not scare and keep driving at normal speed or cops should turn-off their flashers or some kind of exception during rush hour to solve this.
thanks
-Amarjit Dhillon
Boston MA

Imran   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

I think speed limit is a bad idea. More tickets will cost hunders to each one of us. So instead of looking what best suits me, we should look at the bigger picture. Bush, Cheney, Opec and Oil companies are goons and think alike. They sure will come up with something different to make hay while the sun shines. This is a problem for all Americans because its just not gas alone anymore but the price of everything else is going up. Where will it stop or if ever, lets just hope for the new administration to seriously consider issues at home. As some one well said! Charity begins at home.

Dennis   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Who is to blame?

By telling us to drive 55mpg, you’re telling us that we are to blame.
In the same breath you tell us that cars are more efficient at 55-60mph.

Humm.. I think we are on to something there.

US fleet average mpg is either worse or the same as it was almost 30yrs ago! Funny thing is we’ve stopped making engine efficiency improvements when we stopped making progress in space. NASA goes for the stupid shuttle..instead of landing on the moon..GM makes the Hummer at 12 miles per gallon.

Bush’s energy policy says US manufactured cars should be 35mpg by 202; Europe has that NOW! Japan is already at 45mpg. Who invented cars? Who was the first at mass producing cars?

Why are our car companies so pathetically resistant to making fuel efficient motors? While Toyota is working on 100mpg+ hybrid cars, GM wants to keep making huge tank like gas guzzlers. Oh Yah, Toyota is the World’s number #1 car manufacturer now.

Execs in the auto industry are arrogant. They just want to keep making suvs and trucks and maintain usage of ancient inefficient combustion engines. STUPID!

Carolyn   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

I have been driving 60 MPH for some time now. I can definitely tell the difference in fuel consumption. Also, I believe the truckers have slowed down as well to conserve diesel fuel. Why can’t we all be a little more conscious and slow down ourselves without a mandatory speed limit. I wish we could tell them all where to stick their oil.

wendy   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

Hell no jack, it would be foolish for speed law to enforeced to 55. I’m truck driver and seeing every car out on road here doing 55 or less would actually cause more accdents than anybody would know.

It’s stupid idea, and I hope it never passes.

Wendy from ca
(truck driver)

R A Nelson   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

I agree with Overby….for all you SUV owners that are whining about the high prices, I’ve got two points to tell you:
1) You should’ve seen this coming for several decades
2) I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona I’d like you to look at

trish   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

think it should be 45mph, less deaths, and road rage. dont know for certain who is to blame for the oil prob, but im sure that if we were smart we would have drilled ,and gone for alternatives a very long time ago

will   May 15th, 2008 4:25 pm ET

How about when I ride my motorcycle and you got soccer mom driving the mini van, trying to feed a kid and talk on a phone going 10 under saying that everyone is driving too fast? Screw you lady! There is no way anyone is going to drive 55. Boy, there was a song made like that…

And can I say, speeding tickets? Oh yeah! How about a seatbelt law? Hmmm…… Do we see a trend? Government, big oil all trying to suck money out of our already empty wallets. If you want to go slow, get in the right lane. I am sick of people not following the already established laws, yet want more big brother action. Get real people!

Brat   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

The stategic petroleum reserves are not for lowering prices. They are for offsetting shortages. Its about the only thing that Bush has done right. Of course the oil companies are still getting paid for this oil. The government needs to enforce laws against monopolies and price gouging. If the poor slob that is eeking out a living trying to run a filling station overcharges by a penny, he is brought up on charges. Yet Exxon is robbing the entire world blind and not one politician has the guts to do something about it. I’m waiting for Exxon to erect one of their signs over 1600 Pennsylvania Ave any day now.
Congress is more concerned with steroids in baseball and Football coaches spying on the other teams than helping the American people deal with this problem. Maybe Roger Clemens and Barry bonds should start stealing gasoline then they might get off their duffs and do something

Alan, Buxton, Maine   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

I was a truck driver the last time the limit was 55mph. The only ones who benefit are those who are issuing speeding tickets. Try driving across Kansas on I40 at 55mph; it can’t be done! 55 is not a realistic speed for modern cars and truckers would have to spend hundreds more hours behind the wheel which will result in higher delivery costs negating the savings in fuel. The automobile makers know how to double or triple the mileage we currently get. Require that they do so and the problem will diminish markedly.

Jack   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

Who cares if the jerks in the Hummers & Expeditions get 10 mpg? Certainly I don’t. Sooner or later they’ll figure it out. Let the rich spend it all & join the rest of us. Remember nature’s little law - survival of the smartest! Life is an open book test - answers are all around you…

Osemeke   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

Chester, Pennsylvania

Most of us don’t have the “retired” stickers on our car. The authorities cannot teach us how to conserve our fuel. Lowering speed limits will make road trips too long and tiresome causing US to switch to other faster means.

Jeff from Stamford   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

Jack,

There are to many factors to blame and simply suggesting a speed limit change would have almost zero impact on anything except an increase in accidents.
The reason is not enough enforcement in place with little chance of more since their fuel costs are rising as well.
Also technology has changed since the 1970’s. Advanced transmissions today allow for similar or in some cases slightly better mileage at 65 then at 55. Today’s 5 and 6 speed transmissions have different ratios then the older 3 speed/2 speed transmissions.
My final point is I disagree with your mixing conservation with cost. The financial markets are what is driving the costs today. Contrary to what the common press would have uninformed readers and viewers believe, it is not BIG OIL or OPEC. Any petroleum use we would reduce by would be quickly used up by emerging energy thristy countries like China. This is not simply about America any longer. American energy use has dropped as prices have increased. It has done NOTHING to ebb the flow into Asia.
Obviously everyone should conserve where possible but a national speed limit would do little save fuel and more importantly, impact cost.
High oil costs are here to stay. They will NEVER go down again. As Americans, we need to understand that and focus on mass transit and get away from the 2+ car families.
I feel sorry for those in low income areas who have got to be taking it on the chin right now. I can assure you that the Commodities Brokers living in Fairfield County Connecticut are smiliing while pumping $4.25 a gallon gas ALREADY into their fancy SUV’s. As if they would pay attention to a 55 MPH law anyway.

Get used to high prices people. They will not go away.

Tim Ruther   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

I am not in favor of lowering the speed limit. I would propose, however, that an immediate transition to manual transmissions, would decrease the average amount of fuel required to drive an automobile by about 10%. Automatic transmissions are inefficient and the automobile industry knows this.

A drop of a demand by 10% would be huge, and would relieve some of the demand pressure right away. I am not certain, however, that the oil companies would favor such a move.

Bobby   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

Lowering the speed limit might help alittle, but that’s really the wrong direction. When I lived Germany back in the 70’s and 80’s, where there is no speed limit, the mind set is it’s my car, it’s my gas and it’s my taxes. When america finally gets fed up with higher cost, they will get rid of their land yachts and get transportation that is effecient. I saw a guy in the news the other day complaining about fuel driving a 38′ motor home, boo hoo, get a tent.

Harold in Reno, Nevada   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

Heck, let’s lower it to 25 or 15 mph and do away will all speed zone changes like school zones - think of the $$$ saved on fewer speed zone signs. Actually, that would probably do away with the need for 90% of the cars on the road too. Oh, and by the way, I checked my Toyota’s mileage last month on a 2,000 mile trip and it got better mileage the faster we drove up to about 70 mph. There was about a 5% drop-off going fater than that.

BJB   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

No. Cars are tuned to be most efficient between 30 and 60 mph. Why hasn’t the tuning changed at the manufacturing level? Also, time is more valuable than cents per gallon. Finally, this is a band aid solution for a much more fundamental problem–Reliance on oil.

Mark   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

America is a free enterprise society. Here we go again with govenment trying to regulate our lives. What? change laws to reduce the speed limit but not change laws to ban SUVs? Hey, if you want to change or create laws to reduce fuel usage just ban fuel sucking vehicles and force people to start walking, biking or driving electric vehicles to work.

Look at the the govenment is doing to to the national debt. Look at what they are doing in Iraq which is what is creating this mess in the first place. No thanks, leave the goverment out of my life and lets not create more laws. There are too many as it is and most of them just put money back into the lap of government anyway.

Supply, demand and price will eventually force change with vehicles and the way people move about.

Mark

Chip in CA   May 15th, 2008 4:26 pm ET

I wrote Governor Schwarzenegger several years ago and suggested a STRICT, read finally enforced, 55 on congested area freeeways like Los Angeles and a 65 as a maximum speed limit. I never heard back from our Gov who was driving a Hummer. The lower speed limit would easily meet a mandated 10% cut in fuel consumption without any vehicle sacrifices. It would also lower my insurance rates and cut the millions of gallons of wasted fuel spent by cars idling because of accident slowdowns caused by jerks driving 90 miles per hour plus on LA freeways.

Marco Menin   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

Yes, lower the speed limit and we will save some lives as well, not only gas. What we see here in Florida makes any human scare of going out… of course we will need more law enforcement, but since we are already paying for them, just put them back in the roads…

Scott Hines   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

Do we really need a law for this Jack? You’re right, the fact that lower speeds = less fuel consumption isn’t rocket science. So how about we wise up, and start slowing down to conserve fuel of our own accord. To me this seems preferable to creating more federal regulation. Remember, we have to pay these geeks to push this crap in to law. We also have to pay to have speed limit signs put up, and on and on. Let’ stop the madness. It’s time we stop looking for legislative “help” from the nanny state. Don’t forget that it’s really big government that made most of this mess to begin with.

Tex in Oklahoma   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

No, the speed limit and conservation are the not the issues. Cheap gasoline is the issue. Right now, we pay more for bottled water than gasoline. It is still a bargain at $4 per gallon.

Jess   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

George- You are an ass!

David Moore   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

Dear God! I thought I was the only crazy thinking we should reduce speeds to save fuel. We all whined and complained in the 70’s when speeds were reduced to 55 but all of us became accustomed to the new speed and it didn’t hurt us one bit. LETS DO IT!!

Michael - chicago   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

No. Lowering the speed limit won’t help much. What we need is $5 gallon tax instead of 18 cents. That will force people to conserve - buy smaller cars, drive less, use mass transit. Use the tax money to fund mass transit.

Andreas   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

How about forcing American car company’s to addopt european standards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Andreas
L.A

Nitin   May 15th, 2008 5:08 pm ET

Well I won’t be surprised the next thing you would suggest is the only solution being public transport or go back to bullock cart days.

Adjusting or compromising with problem is never a solution, hammering the problem and its source make differences.

Ginny   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

It should be up to the individual driver. I think this oil problem is really blown out of proportion and I think it is helping the owners of the gas stations.

The American people are being held hostage because owners and suppliers know that a car is a necessity in this day and age and that drivers have no recourse but to pay the price.

Ginny
Lebanon PA

Dixon Gannett   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Jack;
An interesting question. 18-wheelers have dropped their speed, somewhat, with no option. Interesting. I’ve been told that there has been a 67% percent increase in Toyota Prius orders - a three month wait, you say. Well, you want people to save fuel? Hey, Hummer, let’s start with you and all the other large SUV’s that one person rides around in. When that’s done, let’s go after those pickups that people have put large tires on. And, what the hell, let’s do what the CEO of Shell Oil says - build another refinery. When you’re done, put a little order into your driving habits. When you’re through with the grocery store, stop by the drug store on your way home instead of tomorrow.
Oh, yes, my new Prius! Last Sunday on a trip to our daughters, we got 50 MPG. Prius’s don’t get what the factory says? Can’t prove that by me. I’m happy as a lark by my purchase. How about you? I can cruise at 70 MPH and still get 45-48 MPG. Stick THAT up your Hummer!

Lil from TN   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Not unless it is going to be stringently enforced. These days, if you go 70 on the interstate (our speed limit in parts of Tennessee), you’ll get run over by all the people doing 80 and 85.

Julie   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Finally someone else notices what a joke that gas tax is. Hilary and McCain obviously can see how stupid Americans are and wanted to use that to their advantage. Never will a democrat and republican work together to “save people money”. McCain is in favor of it because of the large businesses and the gas companies that will prosper because of this and Hilary thinks she can fool all the working class Americans she has.

Tony L. Clifton   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Jack, I’m going to quote Sammy Hagar and tell you that, “I can’t drive 55!”. However, if Congress enacts a national speed limit to “tard out” highway drivers to 55mph and waste countless hours of our lives on the road traveling, why not also impose a law to cut the work week down to 3 or 4 days? I mean, as long as we are pretending and you feel that it is important to “stop and smell the roses” by shifting society down a gear, then I’d like more time to enjoy my life NOT working. I know, a bit off-topic, but the fact is, most people just do not want to drive slower.

Paul Nay   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Lowering my driving speed from 65 to 60 mph on highways would probably increase my true highway gas mileage from 45mpg to 48 or maybe even 50, while increasing the time it takes to drive from Santa Barbara to LA by, say, 10 minutes. Heck, yes, do it.
By the way, I drive a Prius - the old model. The new one does better. Funny, isn’t it, that it’s been out for five years now and it’s still the greenest car you can buy!

Doug   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Apparently conservation is no longer in the american lexicon. I drive 55 anyway. Sure, everyone passes me , but it is a pleasure to get the additional mileage. Of more concern, is that the higher speeds make the smaller lighter vehicles and motorcycles we will certainly begin using more unsafe. Many times in the 70’s I would have been killed at higher speeds, but was saved by the fact that people usually only drove 65 in the 55 mandated zones. I would love to start riding my motorcycle again, but I just cringe at the thought of a SUV running me over while I do the speed limit. At least at 55 I had time to react back then.

David   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

How about better rail and bus service to the suburbs. In Atlanta outer counties voted against extending the rail 5 years ago and now it would take a while for the infrastructure to be built. Speed limit is not what is killing gas. Gridlock on the highways needs to be fixed. Give a tax deduction to people who use mass transit. Maybe more people will start using that option instead of going 5MPH on the freeway each morning and afternoon which is wasting much more gas than driving 70 MPH.

Tony   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

No, I don’t think the speed limits should be lowered to 55 mph. This country is just too big for that. Keep the speed limit where it is, if you want to go slower you can ( hopefully in the right lane) the speed limit is a limit and should be realistically set. I think we need to expand our rail and bus systems so people can get from place to place without a car, or having to deal with flying.

fasmover   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

Look, oil is a finite resource. It won’t be here forever. Trying to save it is a waste of time. Get rid of the speed limit, let everyone drive as fast as they want, and when the oil runs out we will all have great stories to tell. Buy the fastest car you can afford, get on the highway and let it rip!!

sean   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

It sure sounds like everyone is making an excuse for not going slower. Everyone wants oil to be cheaper but no one wants to make any sacrifices. I drive a truck and like to go fast so gas costs a bunch. Recently I decided to slow from my normal cruising speed of 67 down to 62. I have received over 1 mpg more out of my fuel. That adds up over the course of 17000 miles driven each year. Now just think how much that would save over the course of a year if everyone did that. Makes you wonder doesn’t it. I am only 32 and think people should start living the way people did many years ago. Americans have become pigs and feel that we should have anything we want. Maybe no one is conspiring against you steal your money. Don’t forget, no other country in the world lives like we do here in America, maybe you would like to move to China or Burma. We should all make some sacrifices and reduce oil consumption. Does each slice of cheese need to have a plastic wrapper?

Jayson   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

No it shouldn’t be lowered. The price of gasoline could easily be addressed by taking advantage of the oil we have here in the US until current technology makes it possible to switch to viable and affordable alternative fuel sources. Drilling in the US would lead to more tax revenue from oil royalties and the ability to eliminate the federal fuel tax since the royalties could take their place.

Of course this will never happen because the brilliant politicians in Washington think that as usual it is just better to do something even if causes as many problems as it fixes. In this case that being the decision to turn a food staples into fuel instead of waiting for ethanol production technology to advance to the point that another source could be used. Now we have a situation where not only fuel is expensive but food prices are going up which severely impacts those who are already struggling to get by.

So much for the Democratic party solving all the woes of this country and bringing civility and bi-partisianship to Washington.

Harry Katz   May 15th, 2008 5:09 pm ET

If someone is to save $70 due to the 18-cents-a-gallon decrease over the summer holiday, they would have to use 388 gallons over that 3-month period. That would be 129 gallons a month, or about 30 gallons a week. If an average miles-per-gallon rate of 22 were used it would would mean that the “average driver” would have to drive 660 miles a week, or 94 miles a day!

Now, I ask, what “average” driver drives 94 miles a day???!!! I drive an average of 35 miles a day, so if I were to take advantage of that 18-cents-a-gallon decrease I would only save $26 over that 3-month period, or about the equivalent of a cheap dinner with my wife. And meanwhile, states would be deprived of the many millions of dollars they could use to repair our roads and bridges if the cost of gas wasn’t reduced.

Hillary and McCain are offering a cheap trick to voters in order to garner cheap votes. Hooray for Obama for not acting like the “average” politician and putting our real interests first.

Tony (Pittsburgh, PA)   May 15th, 2008 5:10 pm ET

I will gladly pay the higher amount for gas if paying less at th