The imminent gas crunch of the new millenia

[RD]

 

ok i know, but wouldnt you think that lowering the speed limits in all states would lower the demand for gas, hence lower the price?  they did it in the 70's why not again?

your thoughts about this, whether you are for or against and why.

[Troy]

Lowering the speed limits will only increase revenues... for the police!

Why should the government be in charge of saving us a few bucks on gas? People are free to slow down on their own without it being mandated. Heck, if most people just drove the current speed limits they'd use less gas. I'd rather telecommute.

Troy

[Brock Samson]

    I Read an article in Car and Driver by their enginering editor about three or four years ago which stated that the real gas crisis will hit about 2020, as i recall he did a fair amount of research to arrive at that conclusion.
Patrick Bedard now works for DCX last I heard

[RD]

I'd rather telecommute.

you techies have great opportunities to work in your PJ's, eating cap'n crunch, and doing server maintenance all at the comfort of your big ol' couch, while watching scooby doo on boomerang dont ya? 

[Lowprofile]

Well, here's my    worth....

I Totally agree with Troy. If people would drive the posted speed limits now, we would save millions of gallons of gas & diesel. I drive for a living, and my fuel costs have more than doubled in the past year. It costs me on average $550 dollars to fuel my truck roughly every thousand miles. Now thats twice & sometimes 3 times a wk depending on how many miles I've driven and how much I've idled my truck. I am seriously looking into buying a APU [aux. power unit, aka a generator] to save fuel, and wear & tear on my engine. [not to mention, its good for mother earth]

I wish the govt would have mandated alt. fuels for govt vehicles. Why don't more cities,counties & states mandate that all non emergency vehicles in their fleets run on Natural gas or Propane/LPG??? This should have been done years ago. City and school buses, heavy construction vehicles,some of the worst polluters, Cabs, local delievery trucks and vans, US Postal service, UPS, FedEx, etc.......

We as a nation, dropped the ball a long time ago when it comes to energy, And now all those third world countries ain't so third world anymore......

Will we ever Learn

[RD]

its fine saying "if people would just travel the speed limit now" but do you not think that a lower speed limit would lower the fuel consumption even moreso then doing 70 on an interstate, when the interstate could be 60mph?  granted there will be speeders then too, but those speeders at a 60 mph speed limit will go 65 or 70 whereas at a 70 mph speed limit they will be doing 75 and 80.  overall, gas consumption would not be as large as it is now.  you cannot argue with that point.

[Lowprofile]

No, you can't argue with that.  But, on average, people drive between 68 & 77 miles per hr on the open interstate system. If everyone just slowed down to 65, and set the cruse, the gallons of fuel saved would be tremendous.

[RD]

Why should the government be in charge of saving us a few bucks on gas?

because they did it in the past, and if left up to the capitalist economy, it will not take care of itself, it will only get worse.   government is there to protect its citizens from unjust situations, they do it with monopolies, trusts, labor injustices, homeland security, etc. etc.   why should they not intervene now to protect joe schmoe who makes $5.25 an hour, just to see half of his hourly wage go to a gallon of gas.

5.25 x 8 = 42 - 5 (taxes of all sorts) = 37 - 30 (a tank of gas a week) = 7 + 148 (other 4 days of work in the week) = 155.   $155 dollars per week. heaven forbid he has to fill up twice a week. $125 then (125 x 4 = 500 per month).   Hope he has 3 jobs that are walking distance from each other.

i know its a stretch, but you can see how it will dig into his pockets.   my 98 neon costs $31 to fill up now, and its a 12 gallon tank.

[Troy]

Can't argue that going slower would save fuel (that's scientific). However, I can question the right of the government to force it upon us. I'd be willing to bet that the government would raise gas taxes before lowering the speed limit. Higher costs would slow consumption and pad their pockets at the same time. Lowering the speed limit has it's drawbacks: changing all those signs would cost money, the tax revenues would fall due to lower fuel consumption, and the revenues from speeding tickets would mostly stay in the local economy. There's no incentive for the government to do anything (except play on the fears of the people to get elected). I can drive 85 mph in my Celica and still burn 1/3rd as much fuel as driving 50 mph my Suburban. Maybe the government should mandate that we all drive economy cars? Maybe they should force everyone to carpool on drives more than 10 miles? Maybe "recreational vehicles" (boats, off-road vehicles, collector cars, motor homes, etc.) and driving for any purpose other than necessary trips should be banned? Where should it stop? For the most part, people have a right to be as responsible (or irresponsible) as they see fit. When the price of gas gets too prohibitive for most people then they'll find a way to decrease consumption on their own.

I was always under the impression that speed limits were enforced as a safety measure - not as a way to save money. On the flip side, wouldn't sitting in traffic jams for 2 hours to go three miles consume more fuel than driving 70 mph for 15 miles? Let's ban traffic jams!

Troy

[Troy]

Why should the government be in charge of saving us a few bucks on gas?

because they did it in the past, and if left up to the capitalist economy, it will not take care of itself, it will only get worse.  government is there to protect its citizens from unjust situations, they do it with monopolies, trusts, labor injustices, homeland security, etc. etc.  why should they not intervene now to protect joe schmoe who makes $5.25 an hour, just to see half of his hourly wage go to a gallon of gas.

5.25 x 8 = 42 - 5 (taxes of all sorts) = 37 - 30 (a tank of gas a week) = 7 + 148 (other 4 days of work in the week) = 155.  $155 dollars per week. heaven forbid he has to fill up twice a week. $125 then (125 x 4 = 500 per month).  Hope he has 3 jobs that are walking distance from each other.

i know its a stretch, but you can see how it will dig into his pockets.  my 98 neon costs $31 to fill up now, and its a 12 gallon tank.

Joe Shmoe needs to take out Federal Student Loans and go to a college where he can walk...

Seriously, if you are making minimum wage then there's no point in driving a long way to work. Get a job closer to home or work longer hours on fewer days per week. How many miles can you go on a tank of gas in that Neon? I can easily make it 420 miles on a 13 gallon tank with gas to spare. That's 40 miles each way to work for Joe Schmoe.

Troy

[70charginglizard]

Let's ban traffic jams!

Troy

[KMPX2]

They say these prices are here to stay. Funny thing is I can remember thinking that if prices leveled off at $1 I would be happy. Now $2 would make me happy. Sad thing is I remember when it was like 75 cents a gallon

[RD]

Can't argue that going slower would save fuel (that's scientific). However, I can question the right of the government to force it upon us.

But Troy, the federally and state mandated speed limits are, in the literal sense, a means for the government to force its citizens to not exceed a certain level of speed.   There is already questions on the validity of the higher speed limits when it comes to accidents and deaths at higher speeds.   If the government is to "force" us to go at a certain level of speed, why not "force" us to go at a lower level of speed?   What is it really going to hurt?

The advantages:
(1) better gas mileage.
(2) typically better reaction times to incidents based upon the closing rate of vehicles upon accidents or obstructions in the road with a lower speed rather than a higher one.
(3) less emissions being pushed into the atmosphere.

I am sure there are more, but I have not done the proper research other than the common sense issue.

I'd be willing to bet that the government would raise gas taxes before lowering the speed limit. Higher costs would slow consumption and pad their pockets at the same time.

This has some validity, but let us hope it does not happen.

Lowering the speed limit has it's drawbacks: changing all those signs would cost money,

many of those road signs are made in the prison systems, and the transportation departments in each state usually has the largest budget to begin with

the tax revenues would fall due to lower fuel consumption

If the individuals spend less money on gas, that means they will have more money to spend in retail stores and such, hence, the tax revenues from other establishments will still be prevalent within each government's income, thus causing hardly any effect.   (Wal-Mart is already noticing a loss in profits due to people not wanting to drive their cars and pay for gas to even go to their stores.   What about the sales tax revenues that they provide to a states revenue?).

and the revenues from speeding tickets would mostly stay in the local economy.

people will still speed no matter what the speed limit states, so this will not be a factor.

There's no incentive for the government to do anything (except play on the fears of the people to get elected). I can drive 85 mph in my Celica and still burn 1/3rd as much fuel as driving 50 mph my Suburban. Maybe the government should mandate that we all drive economy cars? Maybe they should force everyone to carpool on drives more than 10 miles? Maybe "recreational vehicles" (boats, off-road vehicles, collector cars, motor homes, etc.) and driving for any purpose other than necessary trips should be banned? Where should it stop? For the most part, people have a right to be as responsible (or irresponsible) as they see fit. When the price of gas gets too prohibitive for most people then they'll find a way to decrease consumption on their own.

That is a lot of maybe's ya think?   I mean "maybe this" and "maybe that" is a good way to promote subjective thinking, but in this case I do not think it is completely relevant.   There are so many maybe's in this world, but I believe you are taking this a little too far towards the paranoid section of the "path of freedom" is getting smaller and smaller each day and not focusing on the true issue.

I was always under the impression that speed limits were enforced as a safety measure - not as a way to save money. On the flip side, wouldn't sitting in traffic jams for 2 hours to go three miles consume more fuel than driving 70 mph for 15 miles? Let's ban traffic jams!

Troy

Prior to the 70's, the speed limits were around the 70 mph slots.   It was not until after the gas crunch that you see the speed limits being restricted by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.   They took away the rights to manage the states highways and roadways unders the interstate commerce act I believe.   This legislation was brought forth by the Carter administration to help alleviate the oil shortage.   It was a political maneuver that only showed its true rewards in the long term.   With the lower speed limits came lower rates of accidents, which in turn allowed the insurance companies to lower their rates to reasonable levels.   But this was only realized in the early 90's how the lower speed limits actually affected the nation as a whole.

awaiting your rebuttal mon ami, RD. 

[Brock Samson]

here in calif the speed limit was 55 MPH, and lemmie tell ya' people that's frickin  s l o w . . . 
seems me and my cars (even my old vans) were most comfortable at approx 80 - 82 MPH...  and that's more like it... 
   driving smoothly is how i save gas... 

[Plum Crazy 71]

I have heard that there was a study on driving.  It was "proven", from what I was told, that people pay more attention at 70MPH than they do at 60.  (Hmmm, what are the keystrokes for "stirring the pot"...lol.)

[Steve P.]

I have heard that there was a study on driving.   It was "proven", from what I was told, that people pay more attention at 70MPH than they do at 60.   (Hmmm, what are the keystrokes for "stirring the pot"...lol.)

I read that too. I believe it was a study done FOR State Farm ins.  They didn't want to hear it but it made the papers anyway.. I can tell you that when I have to go to Tampa in the morning I am first unwilling, then scarred and then I am pissed off. I see people on phones, reading news papers, books, maps and the ever so popular PUTTING ON WAR PAINT......  It kills me.. Some day I am sure it reallllly will!!

[Shakey]

All of this will be solved when Silver RT chimes in and offers a solution.

Be patient folks! 

[bull]

[LahTera]

Seems to me that if they made the stop lights run smoother, we could do a lot less stopping and going, and THAT'S what sucks up the gas!

My car tends to overheat on hot days, so when I'm at a long light, I literally shut if off and watch the lights until it's time to start again. 

I can't stand doing the speed limit, only to hit another stop light.  I figure I'm SAVING gas by going 5 over to make all the lights.  If the city wants to rig it that way, I'll drive it that way.  If they rigged 'em so the lights changed appropriately at doing the speed limit, I'd do the speed limit.  What ticks me off are the jokers who do 5-10 under the speed limit in the left lane and make sure I catch those stop lights!

There, that was my rant for the day.   

LahTera

[Troy]

But Troy, the federally and state mandated speed limits are, in the literal sense, a means for the government to force its citizens to not exceed a certain level of speed.  There is already questions on the validity of the higher speed limits when it comes to accidents and deaths at higher speeds.  If the government is to "force" us to go at a certain level of speed, why not "force" us to go at a lower level of speed?  What is it really going to hurt?

The advantages:
(1) better gas mileage.
(2) typically better reaction times to incidents based upon the closing rate of vehicles upon accidents or obstructions in the road with a lower speed rather than a higher one.
(3) less emissions being pushed into the atmosphere.

I am sure there are more, but I have not done the proper research other than the common sense issue.

You originally asked:

ok i know, but wouldnt you think that lowering the speed limits in all states would lower the demand for gas, hence lower the price?

You never mentioned safety or emissions. I question the right of the government to babysit my fuel consumption. They already have laws in place that are supposed to lower emissions via vehicle checks and CAFE standards. Do we need more legislation? The speed limits are now set according to the what is deemed safe for the particular roadway so it shouldn't make a huge difference if the limits are lowered. Those topics are basically irrelevant to the original question though.

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

I'd be willing to bet that the government would raise gas taxes before lowering the speed limit. Higher costs would slow consumption and pad their pockets at the same time.

This has some validity, but let us hope it does not happen.

Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

If the individuals spend less money on gas, that means they will have more money to spend in retail stores and such, hence, the tax revenues from other establishments will still be prevalent within each government's income, thus causing hardly any effect.  (Wal-Mart is already noticing a loss in profits due to people not wanting to drive their cars and pay for gas to even go to their stores.  What about the sales tax revenues that they provide to a states revenue?).

The federal gas taxes are supposed to be earmarked for the highway system I believe. Shifting the tax revenue to another department creates a larger budget deficit there. I'd say the manager in charge would see it as considerably more than "hardly any effect". Besides, there is no Federal sales tax so the only benefit to the government here is income tax from the retailers. Federal gas taxes are at $0.18 per gallon and I believe most states are about the same. Some states have no sales tax so shifting gas sales to retail sales will hurt them. Other states have sales taxes in the 5-7% range so it's a wash with gas at $3.00 per gallon ($3 in retail sales x 6% = $0.18). You're also assuming that people will spend the money that they save on gas.

There's no incentive for the government to do anything (except play on the fears of the people to get elected). I can drive 85 mph in my Celica and still burn 1/3rd as much fuel as driving 50 mph my Suburban. Maybe the government should mandate that we all drive economy cars? Maybe they should force everyone to carpool on drives more than 10 miles? Maybe "recreational vehicles" (boats, off-road vehicles, collector cars, motor homes, etc.) and driving for any purpose other than necessary trips should be banned? Where should it stop? For the most part, people have a right to be as responsible (or irresponsible) as they see fit. When the price of gas gets too prohibitive for most people then they'll find a way to decrease consumption on their own.

That is a lot of maybe's ya think?  I mean "maybe this" and "maybe that" is a good way to promote subjective thinking, but in this case I do not think it is completely relevant.  There are so many maybe's in this world, but I believe you are taking this a little too far towards the paranoid section of the "path of freedom" is getting smaller and smaller each day and not focusing on the true issue.

Your original post was mostly hypothetical so I can use all the "maybe"s that I want. My question was: "Where should it stop?" You are advocating that the government should control our actions. I'm saying that we don't need any more babysitting legislation. People will only buy as much gas as they can afford to use and they'll find ways to decrease that consumption when necessary. People need to be accountable for their own actions and not have the government taking care of them.

I was always under the impression that speed limits were enforced as a safety measure - not as a way to save money. On the flip side, wouldn't sitting in traffic jams for 2 hours to go three miles consume more fuel than driving 70 mph for 15 miles? Let's ban traffic jams!

Prior to the 70's, the speed limits were around the 70 mph slots.  It was not until after the gas crunch that you see the speed limits being restricted by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  They took away the rights to manage the states highways and roadways unders the interstate commerce act I believe.  This legislation was brought forth by the Carter administration to help alleviate the oil shortage.  It was a political maneuver that only showed its true rewards in the long term.  With the lower speed limits came lower rates of accidents, which in turn allowed the insurance companies to lower their rates to reasonable levels.  But this was only realized in the early 90's how the lower speed limits actually affected the nation as a whole.

The speed limits were originally the work of Nixon in 1974. They were supposed to be a temporary solution. Later on, the states were blackmailed to support the measures. The limits were raised to 65 mph in 1987 and then completely repealed in 1995. If all these benefits were so good then why would the laws have changed? Why did it take 21 years to revert to what we had and why would it happen once these benefits were realized? The whole safety issue came about after the fact and cars themselves have become safer since then. Modern tires and suspension allows cars to handle better and you can actually stop from 80 mph more than once. My insurance rates still aren't reasonable - which may explain the huge profits that insurance companies brag about in their financials.

Troy

[2fast4u]

  My cousin has a 79 Chevy PU that now has a 396 in it....when he purchased the PU it was set up with propane by the farmer he bought it from and it is still used today!  He can run it on the propane or Gasoline.....propane for mileage and gas for horsepower!  The last he told me, propane cost was below a dollar per pound!  His long bed holds the 80 gallon tank at the front.  He tells me that he can drive 1500 miles before refueling! 

   I wonder if it would be smart for more of us to use propane on older carburated vehichles....not necessarily Mopars, but pick-ups and vans!

Terry

[Troy]

Reminds me of Hank on "King of the Hill".

Troy

[RD]

You never mentioned safety or emissions.

[they are correlated plus', nothing more, nothing less]

I question the right of the government to babysit my fuel consumption. They already have laws in place that are supposed to lower emissions via vehicle checks and CAFE standards. Do we need more legislation?

[the legislation would be to establish speed limits that will help with the lowering of fuel consumption, though they will affect emissions, that is just a byproduct, then again the emission standpoint was not my key element, i mentioned that only has a residual side effect.]

The speed limits are now set according to the what is deemed safe for the particular roadway so it shouldn't make a huge difference if the limits are lowered. Those topics are basically irrelevant to the original question though.

[whether they are set at what is "deemed" safe is irrelevant to the fact that lowering the speed limit will lower the demand on fuel and thus lower the profits of the oil companies, hence lower the price of the fuel (if the ol' economic class phrase is correct with the theories of supply vs. demand)]

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

[do you honestly think that that would happen?   They could do that, but if they do, do you not think that an uproar would happen?   The truth would come out at that time, and some way shape or form, something will have to happen to remedy it.   If not, then we should all become complacent little plebians who desire to become automatons.]

Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

[Taxes?   That wouldn't fly here in the United States because (1) we are not a democratic socialist or socialist country whose citizens are used to getting the holy living crap taxed out of them (2) If Europe does something, when have you seen the U.S. copy it?   (3) who cares about Europe, we are talking about us.   no offense to the european population, two cocky americans are debating ]

The federal gas taxes are supposed to be earmarked for the highway system I believe. Shifting the tax revenue to another department creates a larger budget deficit there. I'd say the manager in charge would see it as considerably more than "hardly any effect". Besides, there is no Federal sales tax so the only benefit to the government here is income tax from the retailers. Federal gas taxes are at $0.18 per gallon and I believe most states are about the same. Some states have no sales tax so shifting gas sales to retail sales will hurt them.

[those states also have the highest population per capita then the other states. Kansas, yes I could see a possible problem, but in Texas where the population of Houston is larger then the entire state of Kansas, I could see them finding other means to produce revenue]   

Other states have sales taxes in the 5-7% range so it's a wash with gas at $3.00 per gallon ($3 in retail sales x 6% = $0.18). You're also assuming that people will spend the money that they save on gas.

[I am not assuming that, what I am saying is that individuals will not visit retail stores because the gas is too expensive, i.e. they do not want to drive to the store to spend money.   So if they do not want to drive, then they will not be spending more money on gas, nor will they be spending money in the stores.   Its a double whammy on the state revenues.]


Your original post was mostly hypothetical so I can use all the "maybe"s that I want.

[not trying to state what you can or cannot say, just stating what I viewed as a stretch of the imagination]

My question was: "Where should it stop?" You are advocating that the government should control our actions. I'm saying that we don't need any more babysitting legislation.

[So has it dawned on you that they do that already?   Are you one of the "the path of freedom is thinner and thinner" alarmists?   If we could control our own actions, do you think that we would need a government in the first place?   Come on man, this is not babysitting legislation, this would be legislation that would be implemented to affect the economy as a whole to include the average citizens pocketbook.   What is so dreadfully wrong with that legislation?   What will it hurt you to go 10 mph slower?   Nothing at all, that is how much it will hurt you.]   

People will only buy as much gas as they can afford to use and they'll find ways to decrease that consumption when necessary. People need to be accountable for their own actions and not have the government taking care of them.

[again, the government is there to take care of its citizens, or it would never have been emplaced to begin with]

The speed limits were originally the work of Nixon in 1974. They were supposed to be a temporary solution. Later on, the states were blackmailed to support the measures. The limits were raised to 65 mph in 1987 and then completely repealed in 1995. If all these benefits were so good then why would the laws have changed? Why did it take 21 years to revert to what we had and why would it happen once these benefits were realized?

[i cannot answer that, because i do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist and its irrelevant to what the facts state.   lower speed limits increase fuel economy and decrease the demand on fuel.]


RD

[Rocky]

Also, what happens when demand slows? OPEC lowers output which artificially raises prices.

[do you honestly think that that would happen?   They could do that, but if they do, do you not think that an uproar would happen?   The truth would come out at that time, and some way shape or form, something will have to happen to remedy it.   If not, then we should all become complacent little plebians who desire to become automatons.]



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...............................................





Europe solved their consumption issues by mandating more diesel fuel vehicles (which create more pollution) and by raising gasoline taxes. In most countries over there the tax rates are around 80% of the cost of fuel. Examples in the US include cigarettes and alcohol. Instead making these illegal in order to protect us from ourselves the government attempts to limit consumption by imposing rediculously high taxes. In some places the taxes are three times higher than the actual product. When the government doesn't want us to buy/import products from certain countries, how do they do it? Taxes - it's their easiest solution.

[Taxes?   That wouldn't fly here in the United States because (1) we are not a democratic socialist or socialist country whose citizens are used to getting the holy living crap taxed out of them (2) If Europe does something, when have you seen the U.S. copy it?   (3) who cares about Europe, we are talking about us.   no offense to the european population, two cocky americans are debating ]



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH..............................#2





[again, the government is there to take care of its citizens, or it would never have been emplaced to begin with]


OMFG.....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOCOPTER,LOLOCOSTER




WOW, nothing but WOW................

[Ghoste]

Wow, cool.   If the spped limit was lowered back to 55, I'd be able to keep up in traffic with my 67 and all you guys that bought overdrives would be turning, what, 1000 rpm?
If you slow the general driver, one thing I think you will see is an outcry from the anti cars to get rid of high polluting gas hogs (insert your favorite year of classic Charger here) and force the nation to drive Prius's and carpool.  The world is different than the first time 55 was implemented and it already hates your car.  More ammo is all they need.