Republicans for Environmental Protection: Ready for Return of the Double Nickel?
This is a post by Jim DiPeso, policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection
“Go on and write me up for 125
Post my face, wanted dead or alive
Take my license and all that jive
I can’t drive … 55!”
-From “I Can’t Drive 55,” Sammy Hagar, 1984
From its birth during the grim days of mood rings and the OPEC oil embargo, the 55-mph national speed limit experienced an unhappy existence – reviled by drivers and ignored more often than obeyed.
Fighting 55 was an easy sell for state politicians, especially Western governors presiding over rural states where long drives through empty country are part of everyday life. In 1987, when Congress allowed states to raise the limit on rural interstate highways to 65 mph, several did. In front of motorists egging him on, Nevada’s then-Governor Richard Bryan personally switched out the hated double nickel on an I-80 speed limit sign outside Reno. Bryan, a Democrat, topped off the photo op with imprecations against what he called East Coast speed limits. And a good time was had by all.
Eight years later, the national speed limit was euthanized by the 104th Congress and 55 vanished from the nation’s consciousness. Twenty somethings who hear Hagar’s song on the radio today may be excused for wondering what the old rocker was screaming about.
But maybe not anymore. With high gasoline prices, the old idea has been dusted off.
Senator John Warner, R-VA, has asked the Department of Energy to study whether reimposing a national speed limit would make sense as a way to bring short-term relief from high fuel prices. Warner’s letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman quoted a Congressional Research Service study estimating that the double nickel cut national petroleum consumption by about 2 percent.
Warner’s letter said that once a car’s speed increases beyond 60 mph, every 5 mph above 60 amounts to an extra 30 cents per gallon in fuel costs.
What Speeds Are Most Efficient?
Warner asked Bodman to figure out what speed would be the most fuel-efficient in today’s cars, estimate the total fuel savings that lower speeds would yield, and determine whether the savings would bring price reductions.
The retiring senator emphasized that he is looking for short-term relief. More domestic oil production and development of alternative fuels are long-term fixes that won’t much to bring prices down anytime soon, he pointed out.
“We must be straight with the American public and not raise hopes that these (long-term) efforts will provide immediate solutions and possible relief,” Warner wrote. The overheated partisan rhetoric coming out of DC shows, however, that Warner’s more verbose colleagues are not heeding his cautionary advice.
But back to the main point of his letter … would reinstating a national speed limit lower demand for oil? There is evidence that drivers are responding to high prices already by cutting back on driving and packing themselves onto transit for the daily commute. Thirsty SUVs are sitting unwanted on dealer lots, a ’90s fashion statement done in by practical economics.
Warner’s questions to Bodman are straightforward inquiries about physics, auto engineering, and economics. Getting answers to them would be useful. But dicier social questions unmentioned in Warner’s letter bear examination. Would a national speed limit be welcomed by drivers stressed by high fuel costs? Or would it stir up the old resentments expressed in that ’80s rock song and foster a culture of evasion? Those questions are worth pondering too.
Image credit: Pat Hawks at Flickr under a Creative Commons license
I think that the answer to the writers questions on a national maximum speed limit are known. The national speed limit was the most hated and disrespected law in the history of the United States. In addition, it was the most ineffective and counterproductive. It wasted 1 billion man hours per year and had NIL effect on fleet fuel consumption http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0208.html.
The effects of the national limit on highway fatalities are rightfully disputed as well.
Even if it did, people should be free to choose how they will conserve gasoline. We don’t need nannies from the District of Criminals telling us how fast to drive. Our state governments, bad as they are are infinitely better at regulating travel speeds.
A national speed limit is an idea whose time has passed. It deserves to rot in a roadside garbage can.
Guys, you don’t know hoe good you still have it. Here in Germany, the gas price is more than twice as high as yours! I cant’t proce it, of course, bit I’ve got the distinct impression that German drivers are driving more slowly in order to save fuel.
Isn’t this a “free” country? Shouldn’t I be trusted to choose how much I spend on fuel? And at 100mph my car gets similar MPG to large SUV’s at 60. If this is really about fuel consumption and not about the government wanting more money from tickets, should I be allowed to drive 100mph?
how, of course..
Henry, I would argue that the most hated and disastrous set of laws in US history would be those relating to Prohibition. Other than that, though, I agree with your points.
I think it makes perfect sense to return to the double nickel. If a statistical argument can be proved it does save on emissions, then computer speed limiting should be mandated to enforce such options. It just makes sense, because people like “Ben” will never slow down based on laws alone.
Bringing back 55 would be about the dumbest thing, ever.
The first time it came around, was because of a “soo called” shortage. Nobody is talking shortage, this time. Never mind we have, literally twice the population we had in the 70’s and the same infrastructure. Just how stupid are these people?
How fast you go is only a small part of the equation. Like dieting, it is not “how fast you eat” as much as it is “how much you eat.” Commuters are the biggest consumers of gas. If more people worked remotely, fuel consumption would drop considerably and the roads would be less congested and more efficient for workers that did not have the option of working remotely.
Remote Office Centers make is possible for most office workers to work remotely. A Remote Office Center leases individual offices, internet and phone systems to workers from multiple companies in shared centers located around cities and suburbs.
Government and private sector employers need to support remote working arrangements in order to address energy, congestion and carbon emission issues.
People who are interested in working remotely can do a web search on: “Remote Office Centers” – in quotes, in order to find remote office center near where they live.
One quibble with the article as written:
“We must be straight with the American public and not raise hopes that these (long-term) efforts will provide immediate solutions and possible relief,”
As I read the context, I think that the parenthetical expression should have been “short-term” not “long-term”.
I am not a fan of 55. I got my first driver’s license right around the time that it went into effect – 1975.
At the time I lived at the far end of a long, flat peninsula (Florida) with straight roads conservatively designed for traffic flowing at 70 MPH. Not a happy situation for those people, especially for those whose income depends on the miles that they cover – the truckers. Not only did 55 inspire Sammy Hagar, but it also inspired memorable, if not particularly good, movies like Smokey and the Bandit. Any laws that are so uncomfortable for people that they inspire vast numbers of them to break the law should have very short lives.
With modern aerodynamics, there is also less impact on fuel economy from increased speed than there was in the 1970s. I applaud Senator Warner’s request for information and study, but I hope that the researchers do not approach the question with the answer already in mind. I will grant that a sample of one does not make a study, but my Jetta TDI only loses about 3-5% of its MPG between 55 and 75.
In today’s airport security environment and unreliable flight schedules, I have often taken to the road instead of the air for trips of less than about 5 hours. Door to door, I end up saving a considerable amount of time, aggravation, and perhaps even carbon.
Those trips stretch to six hours at the slower speeds. Sounds selfish, perhaps, but I figure I am already doing well by driving an automobile getting 40+ miles per gallon and filling it with 1-4 people. Please do not make me a criminal by changing the speed limit.
Actually the speed limit serve some purpose in terms of contributing towards the environment. It might be looked upon as trying to subdue human rights but in reality driving at lower speed helps to reduce the drag and ensure lower fuel per distance ratio is achieved.