Trucker's Association wants a 65-mph national speed limit... for everyone?
The trucking industry spend $113 billion on diesel fuel last year, and the way prices are going up, the industry will shell out $135 billion this year. To help restrain that kind of runaway profit-loss, the American Trucking Associations has released a list of ideas on how the federal government can lower fuel prices.In addition to asking the government to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, open up currently prohibited areas for drilling, and fund the EPA's SmartWay program, the ATA wants two intriguing things: speed limiters set at 68 mph on all new trucks, and a national speed limit of 65 mph.
While many states limit trucks and autos with trailers to 55 mph in any conditions, there are states that allow truckers to drive faster, and we find it interesting that the trucking industry wants the federal government to police its drivers with a 68-mph limit in order to save fuel. As for the 65-mph national limit -- the press release doesn't make a distinction, so it looks like the industry is proposing that measure for all vehicles on the roads. If that's the case, not only do we not know how that would bring fuel prices down at all, we don't know why they think slowing cars down in the states that have 65+ speed limits would help the price of diesel fuel. Thanks for the tip, Dan!
[Source: Truckline]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg "2011 Audi A8: Live from Miami")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Gregg 10:40AM (3/31/2008)
It's a great idea. The roads are chockablock full of 18 wheelers these days, and most all of them are going 70 or better. It isn't safe to have those behemoths moving that fast, especially in winter or in heavy traffic conditions. As for 65 national limit, it would make it less confusing for drivers and law enforcement (it is the most common max speed for divided highways already), but perhaps exceptions should be made for the long relatively empty stretches in the west.
Reply
dskinner 1:15PM (3/31/2008)
I agree, it is so stupid for average drivers to have the ability to drive 80mph legally, 85 in some parts of the country. A set 65mph limit is one of the few government regulations I would agree with... and I drive 50 miles/day on the freeway!
lad 12:07PM (3/31/2008)
Make it 55 mph and keep them off the city freeways during commute hours and you've got a deal. Ever get behind one of these guys when they are blasting down the highway at eighty? They cover your car with rocks and everything else that's on the road. A national speed limit of 55 mph makes sense; 65mph doesn't.
500 1:37PM (3/31/2008)
Wow, this thread really brought out all the nutcases today. "Auto enthusiasts" who want a 55 or 65 mph national speed limit? Give me a break. Ahem, Autoblog Green is just one click away for you guys...
007baf 3:20PM (3/31/2008)
Wow, short memories by nearly all of the above. There is rock-solid proof that 55 MPH is more dangerous. PLUS, come live out west and you'll instantly understand why we drive between 75 and 80. In fact, in parts of Texas the limit is 80.
Way back in 1991 from the New York Times the following letter appreared:
Finally, a review of speeds on New York roads for the last eight years shows that average speeds on all highways combined have increased from 53 m.p.h. to 58 m.p.h. While speeds have increased, the fatality rate per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled has dropped from 2.68 to the current number -- just under 2 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Speed is not killing, despite dubious statistics generated by certain insurance industry trade groups.
People will drive at the speed at which they feel comfortable. This explains why the driving public can't be coerced into observing the 55 m.p.h. limit, and also why 65 does not mean 75. The current system of allowing "10 over" the speed limit is an adjustment to the absurd system in place, although no one is really sure what the "citation speed" is on any given day.
CASEY W. RASKOB Southern Region Coordinator, National Motorist's Association New York, Sept. 30, 1991
Gregg 8:49PM (3/31/2008)
Well, 007baf, you really think you have the tiger by the tail here, huh? You can't read or see the error in this 1991 study and quote? A really basic idea is that correlation is not causation. Not holding other factors constant, you cannot conclude much about a 5 mph speed increase and a fatality rate decline without looking at the factors of, for example, safer cars, better handling cars, greater use of anti-lock brakes, more miles being driven, and safer roads (better markings, better signs, reflector lane divides and reflector paint).
It is a simple law of physics that the faster you drive, the more likely you are to crunch up more in a crash...except for factors like better engineered body crumple zones. So, all things being equal (which they never are over the course of several years), driving slower (though not so slow as to be a hazard the other way), you are more likely to live.
Now, I give you that you and I ought to be able to drive as fast as we want, given our great skills and good judgment. But how do we control the imbeciles who drive way too fast for conditions, tailgate, do their hair and makeup, cut people off, etc., because they are bad drivers, have little in the way of judgment or skill, and further populate the road in great numbers? I don't want those boobs driving 90 any more than I want an 18 wheeler on my butt doing 90.
Now, on the great open expanses a speed limit of 80 is fine--maybe even for the brain dead--and I pointed that out in the comment above for which you blasted me.
geo.stewart 10:42AM (3/31/2008)
my understadning is that with way the refineries are set up, lowering gas usage will not increase diesel availability.
lowering the speed limit wont change the fact that I will still get pissed off when one truck passes another one uphill going 1 mph faster than the other one, effectively blocking traffic. I get they are swapping places for the draft or the one is slower but dont do it uphill. you both end up going 45 or 50 in a 70.
Reply
Brent 10:53AM (3/31/2008)
The theory behind this is if you drive slower, you use less fuel, the less fuel that is used, the less demand, demand goes down, supply goes up. Prices go down. Simple economics explains this pretty well.
geo.stewart 11:05AM (3/31/2008)
nice theory Brent and one that is well taught in school.
except that in the real world here, with necessary items that have a theoretical supply limit like fuel: if demand goes down, supply will be cut back. Prices are not going to go back down substantially. nobody except the consumer wants that.
And demand is not going to drop enough that suppliers feel the need to drop prices to increase demand. We are not going to see $80/barrel again and I seriously doubt we will see $90/barrel again.
And when the gov't needs more tax money again and economy can take it, they will bump the fed gas tax and say it is in the interest of the public to raise the fuel price to help spur the demand for more fuel efficient vehicles.
Icon149 11:49AM (3/31/2008)
@geo.stewart
Take a look at the price of oil in Euro's, actually oil hasn't gone up all that much, the dollar has just fallen off a cliff. all this talk of oil hitting $100/barrel and then 110, next is 120. this has less to do with oil and more to do with the dollar, talk to your Federal Reserve about that. Europeans aren't paying much more for gas then they were last year.
Yar 11:50AM (3/31/2008)
Agree with stewart except on the price of oil thing. I'm relatively certain the price of oil will back down to sub-$80/barrel prices by this time next year. We will likely get down to $90/barrel later this year as Thunder Horse comes online (Which, by itself, will increase US oil production by 1%).
mk 11:03AM (3/31/2008)
Yep... ask for more and more and more from the government. More restriction, more control.
If truckers want to go 65, they can go 65. the Speed limit is not a minimum, and the minimums are usually around 40mph.
I agree with LIFTING restrictions on drilling in the north american continent. It is rediculous that our own government prohibits the use of our own resources, forcing much more of our dependence on foreign oil than the driving public possibly could.
But the strategic oil reserve is not merely a rainy-day fund. It is a dire-emergency plan. As in keeping food available, and keeping the police, fire, and military mobile under the most dire circumstances, it is not a refuge against a tight economy. If fuel prices go up, shipping clients pay more to ship things. that is the way it goes.
And funding some EPA pet project isn't going to help when the government is the biggest deficit spender in our country. Our government is in more fiscal trouble than the truckers ever could be. Funnelling more taxpayer money into pet projects is not the answer, either.
Reply
zamafir 11:05AM (3/31/2008)
Soo... the 68 MPH limiter would be needed because the Trucker's Association thinks it's members incapable of slowing to conserve fuel, thus artificial restraints would need to be put into place? Didn't we just see an article indicating truckers are already slowing to conserve fuel? Wouldn't your immediate, logical, response to increases in fuel prices be to drive your rig slower to increase fuel economy? This just seems odd.
Reply
bob cobb 10:56AM (3/31/2008)
we're just getting over the old 55mph speed limits from the last gas prices, give me a break
Reply
bob cobb 10:56AM (3/31/2008)
meant to say crisis
Dude 10:56AM (3/31/2008)
The Fed needs to stay out of the speed limit business. The States are doing just fine.
If the Truckers want Federal mandates to help cut costs, why don't they demand more fuel efficient rigs and create new limits on the size and load of trailers.
Or better yet, leave the Government out of it and make it a requirement to be a member of the ATA.
Reply
Blake 10:58AM (3/31/2008)
Wow. I guess that truckers aren't happy enough just to convoy hopped up on 18 wheel meth. Driving 65 mph cross country is as idiotic as passing a law forbidding running faster than anyone with an AARP card.
Reply
Way of the Future 10:59AM (3/31/2008)
How about NO limits for cars, 65 for trucks! American Autobahn please!
Reply
Derek 12:13PM (3/31/2008)
Many Americans are scary enough at 70ish already and you want no speed limits? Maybe if we could have no cell phones, no coffee sipping, no shaving or makeup-applying, etc. Better driver training first please.
Sean 7:02PM (3/31/2008)
Yeah, because there are so many roads and highways in the United States that are the same quality as the Autobahn.
You also need to remember that on the Autobahn, people drive.
They don't read, they don't talk on their cellphones, they don't eat.
They DRIVE.