Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, ex-First Lady and likely future presidential candidate threw out an odd legal suggestion to the National Press Club this week: a nationwide return to the double-nickel. According to Clinton, "The 55-mile speed limit really does lower gas usage. And wherever it can be required, and the people will accept it, we ought to do it..."
The announcement comes as a surprise, despite rising gas prices and increased pressure from environmentalists, as it is unlikely to prove popular with voters.Naturally, that's not the only automotive issue on her mind... among other four-wheeled initiatives, Clinton reported that she is pushing for 50 percent of America's gas stations to offer ethanol by 2015, with 100 percent by 2025.
Sammy Hagar was unavailable for comment.
[Sources: The New York Post; Wayne State University via Autolife]
BREAKING: Layoffs and executive shuffles at Tesla Motors
SEMA Preview: Dodge bringing Viper-powered Challenger SRT10 Concept
CAR reveals spy shots of McLaren P11 supercar
2010 Chevrolet Camaro priced: LS $22,995, SS $30,995
BREAKING: GM and Chrysler talking about merger
Autoblog Comparo: Moving Mountains - Toyota Landcruiser vs. Hummer H2
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Routan
In the Autobog Garage: 2009 Chevy Cobalt SS Turbo
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 3
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mazda RX-8 R3, return of the "hummer"
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
ScoobWRX @ May 24th 2006 11:48PM
Horray! The liberals are here to save us all. Why stop at 55? Would 40 be better?
Alice @ May 24th 2006 11:55PM
Yet she gets to drive in a motorcade that speeds by as YOU have to PULL OVER?
Or how about her flying everywhere in a PRIVATE JET? How much fuel does SHE use?
Yet millions of clowns who read this board will want to vote for her. What rubbish!
Amy @ May 24th 2006 11:56PM
Oh no. Keep going all the way down to ZERO MPH. How would we ever survive if we didn't have them to tell us what's best for our lives?
Matthew King @ May 25th 2006 12:01AM
This would increase fatigue related accidents.
Dylan @ May 25th 2006 12:09AM
wow, 55mph thats what, around 80km/h...that sucks ass, dude. Its ironic because here (toronto) they're thinking of raising the 100km/h limit on the HWY's to 120km/h which is around 75mph. Its not much faster than what you currently have but that 5mph makes it funny as shit.
John @ May 25th 2006 12:15AM
Liberals trying to save "mother earth"... These socialist policies just show you how out-of-touch some of our representatives are in this great Republic...
Please protect me oh great [overbearing/tax & spend] government... I want to rely on you for everything! Safety, education, healthcare, my well-being all from my big [brother] government.
gbh @ May 25th 2006 12:15AM
Ugh. Another way for the gov. to remove cash from my wallet.
85th percentile has always had a good safety record, all this arbitrary stuff is just an excuse to tag you for speeding and get some more dough.
Aki @ May 25th 2006 12:16AM
More disturbing is her push for ethanol. Nobody will adopt ethanol, not with its cruddy gas mileage and high prices. 55mph? You'd save a lot more gas by forcing soccer moms to ditch their oversized SUVs.
ScoobWRX @ May 25th 2006 12:20AM
We must all stop manbearpig!
Chris @ May 25th 2006 12:25AM
Another stupid lib that's dead set against nuclear power (I guess 1/1000th of an accident at 3mile in the US in 50 years of controlled nuke power is too much) yet thinks ethanol is going to solve anything except GM's profit margin. I hope she really pushes this so she'll lose for sure.
Joe @ May 25th 2006 12:25AM
Yea!! the police state is pushed further. her husband encouraged the government to push health standards (and interference with apparent violators, i.e. big tabacco) so why can't she hone in on this... Heck maybe the law could state that we would all get governors in our cars that would make it drive at the optimal speed calculated from temperature and presence of Ozone so that the car will operate in the friendliest way. I mean concerned motorists see the safety benefits in the intrusive stability systems why wouldn't they want something that protects the earth too? Think about the children... Thats enough sarcasm for me.
Mary @ May 25th 2006 12:26AM
I find it interesting the only comments are from conservatives so far...
Guess we'll have to wait till tomorrow morning for the liberals to wake up and defend ANGRY Hillary!
I'm sure we'll have some really "great" defensive comments from Hillary' angry followers...
One of many Angry episodes: "Angry Hillary threw book at Secret Service agent":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/924906/posts
Anne @ May 25th 2006 12:33AM
Does anyone have any audio of her grating voice?
GZus @ May 25th 2006 12:35AM
I can be as liberal as they come. That being said, I am so sick and tired of her. If the Dems insist (and I mean not just the party, but the voters in the primary) on putting her up as the candidate, we might as well surrender the White House to the GOP for another 4 to 8 years. Seriously, haven't we had enough of that ignorant a-hole to last us a life time???!!! So I ask Hillary, for the good of all of us, please stop coming out with idiotic positions! Thank you!
UH2L @ May 25th 2006 12:41AM
Lowering speed limits is as bad of an idea as not doing anything to raise fuel economy standards for years and giving tax breaks on the mega-guzzling large SUVs. And you all know who defends those policies, (the ones who are mostly responsible for having gotten us to the point we're at), W and the Republicans. George and his good 'ole oil boys network deserve to be in this situation with high gas prices; the American people do not.
Thankfully, I drive vehicles that get 30 mpg+ at 80 mph. Maybe we should just reduce speed limits on gas guzzling vehicles for their owners' benefit. :-)
Oolon Coluphid @ May 25th 2006 1:08AM
Another liberal-leaning (social progressive/fiscal semi-conservative) here. If Hillary runs in '08, I'm voting Libertarian.
I can't drive 55!
Robert Brodrecht @ May 25th 2006 1:11AM
Sure. It reduces fuel consumption. But her "where it will be accepted" clause screws the whole thing up for her. NO ONE wants reduced speed limits. Even in crazy construction zones where it actually is dangerous to speed, people break the speed limit. No one wants to go slower. If the government reduces speed limits, they won't be doing it to a bunch of smiling, nodding faces. They'll be doing it to a bunch of pissed off people.
Nate Wesley @ May 25th 2006 1:16AM
Getting lost in the too predictable potshotting of Senator Clinton by irresponsible conservatives: The fact that most every car, truck, van, and sport-utility produced today STILL OPERATES MOST EFFICIENTLY AT 55mph when traveling on the highway.
Not surprising, considering most right wingers are less worried about resource conservation and the environment as they are about Jesus comin' back.
Karl @ May 25th 2006 1:19AM
I just recently purchased a 2006 Dodge Ram and Yeah, it's got a HEMI. It's a 5 speed AUTO. I just took it on a 400 mile trip and did some experimenting with different speeds to check MPG. At 55mph it got the worst of 18mpg. At 65mph it got around 19.6 and at 75 to 80 it was getting 21+ mpg. The rpm's were Under 2200. It all depends on the vehicle and the Driver. As far as Clinton goes, I think she Sucks. I sure will Not be voting for her. I Left NY because of her.
Robert @ May 25th 2006 1:20AM
Let’s add a little bit of science to this argument. Using 55 mph as a baseline the following figures are the increase in aero drag for a range of speeds.
60mph – 20%
65mph – 40%
70mph – 62%
75mph – 86%
80mph – 112%
85mph – 139%
90mph – 168%
95mph – 198%
100mph – 231%
Obviously, there are clear advantages in aero drag when driving slower. That being said, I think this a dumb, stupid, idiotic, moronic, etc. etc. etc. idea. Aero drag is just one component of fuel economy in a complex mixture of thermal efficiency, gearing, rolling resistance, rotational inertia, and accessory load.
If the goal is to decrease fuel usage then the means should be smooth operation of an efficient vehicle over shorter distances. I can imagine the speed disparity between various vehicles and the accelerating and decelerating between speed traps that will take place if the double nickel is instated. My guess is ticket revenue would increase; accidents would greatly increase, while fuel usage would stay about the same.
Something else to consider is that lowering the speed of every vehicle effectively increases the vehicle density. If a road with vehicles going 80mph suddenly drops to 40mph then the density of cars on the road will double. The end effect could be an earlier onset of gridlock with all of its resulting inefficiency.