Can the country pursue a common goal?

[d-ray657]

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

[Boreas]

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

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Boreas

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

[finnbow]

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.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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.

55 is an adequate speed to travel in a car

why was the limit ever raised?

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

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.

I won't wear Birkenstock no matter what.

[merrylander]

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.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by noonereal

55 is an adequate speed to travel in a car

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?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

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

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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.

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

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.