Can the country pursue a common goal?
 

Having a trip computer in the Astra really makes me aware of things that affect gas mileage. Trying to drive 70mph really takes a toll on fuel efficiency. Accordingly, I have decided that there is no need to drive at the speed limit when the car operates much better at a lower speed. If we as a nation used fuel more efficiently, we would get that much closer to achieving energy independence.

I know that any attempt to impose a new national speed limit would be political suicide. I can just hear the tea baggers now complaining that the government is taking away their freedom to drive the speed they want to drive on the government funded super-highway system.

The President does, however, have the Bully Pulpit. Does anyone think that a nationwide emphasis on a voluntary 55mph speed limit would have any success? I think that if it was sold as a national security issue, it might at least get the attention of some people. I mean if people were OK with the president violating their Fourth Amendment rights in the name of national security, do you think they would be willing to take part in an effort to decrease the flow of our wealth to the middle east?

Green technologies and fuel efficiency mandates on new vehicles will have some effect on fuel consumption, but it will be a slow process getting the existing gas hogs off of the road.

It seems like the American people have not really come together for the common good since 9-11. Perhaps people can come to understand that part of the threat to their security comes from sending our money to the oil barons in the middle east. One can't really doubt that some of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists, and some of it is spent on educational programs that foment hatred of the US. If everyone could realize that if each if them made a small sacrifice, they would be taking part in the fight against terrorism, it might cause at least a flicker of interest in the greater good.

I have always admitted here to being an incurable (and insufferable?) optimist, but there is at least some logic to this flight of fantasy, isn't there?

Regards,

D-Ray

If the "Birkenstock wearing, Latte drinking, Volvo driving, tree hugging liberals" got behind the idea the Teabaggers and Libertarians would run in the opposite direction. We are so divided in this country now that one side will refuse to do a thing simply because it's embraced by the other side. It's absurd.

As to the "bully pulpit", do you remember what the wingnuts did with Obama's suggestion that we could save fuel by making sure our tires were properly inflated?

John

Probably the tea baggers. If their goddess believes that her First Amendment rights are violated by someone disagreeing with her, they might believe that a suggestion of decreasing speed is interference with liberty. On the other hand, the true libertarians might see that announcing a national goal, without a mandate included, is properly restrained government action.

Regards,

D-Ray

It would be better to simply raise gasoline taxes by $2/gallon (in a revenue neutral manner). Things would magically improve overnight with regard to fleet mileage. As for 55 mph and CAFE standards, bah humbug.

55 is an adequate speed to travel in a car

why was the limit ever raised?

I won't wear Birkenstock no matter what. :p

Our Impala LSs have not only the trip computer but it will also estimate MPG in real time. Now the 4th gear does not kick in until 45 MPH so driving below that speed is inefficient. At 55 MPH the engine revs are 1500 RPM and barely 2000 RPM at 65 MPH. On long drives engaging cruise control makes them really efficient. Back when gas was running at $3.00 per gallon here and about $0.80 per liter in Canada we drove from Glenwood, MD to Kanata, Ontario, some 560 miles for less than $55.00 each way.

NFW (coming from an erstwhile Porsche owner and Autobahn driver). Building energy-inefficient boats and then demanding that they be driven 55 mph to compensate for poor energy efficiency is friggin' ridiculous IMHO. If 55 mph is good, why not 45 or 35?

Dude, my point is that it would not be a demand or a command. The question is whether, if something like the 55mph voluntary speed limit is identified as something that will allow people to contribute toward greater national security, would people be willing to voluntarily make a sacrifice for the greater good.

All of the propaganda from the tea partiers states that they love their country; they wave the flag and wear various representations of it on their clothing, to prove that love. Anyone who has been involved in any sort of committed relationship or raised a child knows that love often requires sacrifice. Overcoming dependence on foreign oil requires people to make personal choices about energy consumption just as much as it requires government initiatives. Because reduced consumption does promote national security, such individual action could be encouraged as a matter of common sacrifice for the defense of the country.

BTW, this thought arose as I was driving our little hatchback home from Oklahoma. I had already made the choice to purchase the most fuel efficient car that I could afford.

Regards,

D-Ray

Are you sure you didn't fire up a big, fat doobie before these thoughts came to you?:cool:

Do you remember the ration of sh_t Obama got for simply suggesting that you can get better mileage by ensuring proper tire inflation? If this adminstration did as you suggested, Limbaugh and other members of the GOP braintrust would demand that everybody drive 75 mph just to spite him.

Kidding aside, gasoline at $5 a gallon is the only thing that will work. If reduced oil consumption is truly a public policy objective worth pursuing, this is the only way - period. Anthing else is just pissing in the wind.

Finn is right.

But, I hope I never see the day, because BOTH of my vehicles are gas guzzling V8 hotrods and I'm a leadfooted idiot. I see 55mph as I zip past it on my way to 70........75.........80, er whatever.

Dave

You could trade 'em in on turbo-charged 2.3 liter 4 bangers which might run circles around them (in the twisties, anyway).:D BTW, in all my years in Germany, I never met a gearhead who lusted for Detroit muscle. Never. Ever.

Our roads are just to congested and busy in most areas of the country to safely allow for higher speeds. IMHO
If we had roads dedicated to higher speed travel I would not be as resolute. I have had cars that at 80 easily handled roads better than others at 55 so I understand your point but we don't have separate roads for these cars. Your run of the mill Toyota and trucks lose allot of safety over 55.
Anyway I just feel this form of transportation is best suited to a 55 mph speed limit.

And I have never lusted for anything else but Detroit Muscle...............Never. Ever.

Dave

Another approach is increased emphasis on mass transit, but again that would be interfering with the freedom people have to jump in their car whenever the urge hits them, and to not have to operate according to someone else's schedule. It would again call for sacrifice, the will for which appears to be severely lacking in today's society.

Regards,

D-Ray

Back the OP's common goal question. The only times this country has coalesced around a common goal is when a significant majority perceived an existential threat - WWII after Pearl Harbor, the race to the moon after Sputnik, the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 (and not Iraq, as many didn't buy into the existential nature of the threat, at least post-invasion).

Rightly or wrongly, increasing fleet mileage isn't seen as the answer to an existential crisis.

A look at the major highways during rush hour in DC is quite revealing. Upwards of 80% of cars have one person in them, even though carpoolers are frequently provided free parking in the city by their employers and single riders pay up to $200 a month. It's the whole "freedom thing" at work here methinks.

While what you say is certainly true in NYC or DC (or any other big city), these areas mostly have 55 mph in the built-up areas anyway. Hell, even Germany has fairly low speed limits in its built-up areas. OTOH, 55 mph in New Mexico or Montana would be painfully slow.

And my comment on the OP is as follows;

With the current mentality? Only if the common goal is to destroy ourselves bickering over things that don't really matter.

Dave

Not until we realize that we subsidise airlines with airports, trucking companies with highway and tell the railroads to get stuffed. You can't pay me to fly, but I'll go Amtrak any day. Rail passengers are a different breed than airline passengers.

On this we agree.

I always preferred the more exotic foreign numbers. :p


Sadly when I finally had the money to buy myself a brand new jaguar e type, something I had wanted since the 60's, I didn't fit!

wound up with a very utilitarian Mercedes R class :( (although I would highly recommend it for what it is)

I remember back in the '70s when I was living in Colorado I had a Porsche 911T. One night I was driving north on I-25 heading to Denver when a Boss 302 Mustang came up beside me and started playing around.

With an arm gesture, I invited him to take off first which he promptly did. I gave him a little bit of a lead and then I shifted down and took off after him.

I caught him up in pretty short order and as I went by, at a little over 100 mph, I looked over at him, smiled, upshifted into 5th gear and disappeared. :)

Now, I've had all this stuff. My first car was a 1952 Ford convertible with a "built" flathead. Next was a 1957 Plymouth Fury "Golden Commando". I've had a 1967 Firebird 326 HO (Firebird version of the Z-28) and a 400 hp 1969 Corvette 427. I've also had an MG-B, Triumph TR3, Lotus Elan, A Porsche 912 and a 911, a Mercedes 450 SL, BMW 3.0 CS, a couple other BMWs an Audi GT Coupe and a brace of Hondas.

For me it's no contest. Just as a matter of preference, the American stuff doesn't do it for me. There's just something about getting 7 litre performance out of 2 that I can really relate to.

John

And to think that the 911T was the weaker sister in the 911 family at that time.;)

Ahh, the 911. My favorite car of all time, bar none. It may be a bit crude and unforgiving in its own Teutonic sort of way, but it has been setting the standard for sports cars for nearly 50 years.

BTW, it seems you and I have shared a few cars - the 911 and an Audi Coupe GT. I also had a 924 Turbo. The BMW 3.0 CSi is simply one of the prettiest cars ever manufactured IMHO. I friend of mine still has an ~1986 model with less than 75K original miles, burgundy with gold BBS wheels. Automotive beauty defined.

No offense to anyone on this board, but comparing a Detroit muscle car to a 911 or a BMW 3.0CSi is like comparing Phyllis Diller to Bo Derek. Just sayin'.

Well, yes, but this was a 1972. That was the year Porsche a: increased displacement from 2.2 litres to 2.4 and b: went from Solex carburetors to mechanical direct injection. There was VERY little that year separating the "T" from the "E". The "S" was a different matter.

I loved that car. Mine was an '84 with the 100 hp motor instead of the later 110 hp version but WITHOUT that damned digital instrument cluster. It was faster than it deserved to be because of the torquey long stroke 5 cylinder but it was by no means a rocket. I wish I still had it, really.

Did you ever drive the 944 Turbo? That was a car!

I think you mean 1976, last year of production, as I recall. Mine was a 1974 in "Fjord", the light blue metallic with blue leather. <<sigh>> There was/is a CS in the permanent collection at MOMA in NYC. Also, BMW had artists like Alexander Calder and Roy Lichtenstein design the paint schemes for their factory CS racing cars (in Europe - the ones here in IMSA competition just had the boring old BMW Motorsports colors).

Heh-heh! Now, Finn.

John

Brainfart. I was thinking 635CSi when you mentioned the 3.0CSi (the next generation of the BMW coupe). He has the 635CSi. Both are absolutely dreamy beautiful. Stunning, in fact.

Only problem I ever had with the BMW 300 series was getting in and out of one.

I'm not quite sure what Freud would say about the course this discussion has taken. It does appear that a suggestion about driving 55mph is a threat to the manhood of some.:rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

Yes, the "Six" was pretty freakin' cool, especially the M6. The thing is, though, they didn't sell well at all. Never could figure that one out. I was the sales manager of a BMW agency near Princeton from 1985 to 1989. It should have been a good market for the car - and was for BMWs generally - but the 635s just sat on the lot. :confused:

John

Yeah? Wanna do sumthin' about it?

John

No threat to my manhood but a definite threat to other drivers, I tend to go to sleep at 55 MPH.

Dude, you're just not listening to the right music.:p

I admit, however, that it's hard to listen to Mississippi Queen, Magic Carpet Ride, Won't get fooled again, Whole Lotta Love, or even the 1812 Overture without feeling the urge to step on it a bit.

Back to the OP. Does anyone think that the American People are willing to voluntarily make any sacrifices for the greater good? This might include voting for someone who would come out in favor of higher taxes. I think that there are actually a few who make a (Tax deductible :confused:) donation to the government to apply to the national debt.

Regards,

D-Ray

I won't even listen to Won't get fooled again while I drive anymore. Way to dangerous.:D

You want to try the Ride of the Valkyre for giggles. I do believe that I have my own personal guardian angel. Back in the day I was using the computer at IBM's Montreal office. The only free time was midnight to 8:00 AM. One morning driving home I woke up bearing down on one of the highway's three traffic lights at 60 MPH. After I stopped all I could remember was leaving the previous light some six or seven miles of twisting highway back. After that I stopped for breakfast and coffee before driving the 25 miles to home.

That was my good old 65 Chevy Belair with the 283 V8 and the whiz bang automatic, only two forward gears.:rolleyes:

Would I sacrifice for the good of the country? I do believe I already have contributed, I used to do seminars in Europe, even in Israel that brought money back to the USA. Now flying to Europe and Israel may seem a bonus but after you have logged the first 100,000 miles it gets old fast. was better when I could bring Florence along but I was still locked up in a lecture hall all day. The job did not allow time for sight seeing.

Then when I wanted to defer SS until I retired they would not allow it so it got taxed at the highest rate, as did my minimum withdrawal from the 401k. They talk about encouraging people to work longer but if you do they screw about with you.:confused:

No. As the saying goes, "Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that fellow behind the tree."

I didn't realize Phyllis was so hot.....until now.

Dave