Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
The lower speed limit was imposed to conserve gasoline. But gasoline was rationed to discourage driving and thus conserve RUBBER, not because it was in short supply itself. New tires for civilian use were virtually unavailable during World War II. The Axis powers had cut off the nation's supply of natural rubber. Unused gasoline was actually dumped into rivers (no EPA back then).
Incidentally, the only "whining" I hear is from people who seem to think we are all entitled to $1-a-gallon unleaded in perpetuity.
euphonium: Considering the price of fuel, alleged shortage of same, 50 mph today makes a lot of sense.
There is no "shortage of fuel" anywhere. You can buy as much gas as you want, as long as you are willing to pay the price. Yes, it has become more expensive, but that is the way the free market works. If supplies drop, prices rise, and if people don't like it, then they should adjust their use accordingly. If they don't cut back on their use, then they really aren't all that concerned about high gas prices, no matter they are telling the local paper.
Plus, gas prices aren't even at record levels. Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of unleaded was at $3.20 in March 1981.
A 50-mph speed limit could be described as a solution in search of a nonexistent problem. And that's being charitable. Especially considering that the previous attempts to slow everyone down - the 55- and 65-mph national speed limits - were the most deservedly ignored laws since Prohibition.
euphonium: You do have Obligations, Duties, Responsibilities & Respect for others with whom you associate in every aspect of life.
The biggest obligations we all have are to understand how markets work; stop thinking that the whole world has to stop when the price of gas rises; and ensure that any proposed laws are enforceable, actually address the problem at hand (if there even is one) and aren't unduly meddlesome.
I am not that sure that is the case, using a CPI calculator I imputed $1.30 for 1981 and got $2.70. using $1.25 I got $1.60. Now when I stared driving back in 1977 it was about $0.75 to $0.80 which translates to $2.35 to $2.50. I remember pre gas crises prices under $0.35 which would be at most $1.70 now adjusted for CPI.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Only if you believe deaths on the road due to a 15 mph difference and $3/gallon are both non-existent problems.
I believe the quote has been shown to be a straw man response.
Not too long ago the 55 mph speed limit was the fed and state law of the land. In fact there was much and great debate with anti's predicting increased epidemic carnage. With the speed limits currently at 65-75 mph, the RATE is the safest it has been since they have been recording these statistics. This curiously has occurred with higher speed limits, more drivers, more cars, more trips, more mileage and the almost systematic neglect of our nation's highway systems.
In regards to the 3 dollar per gal, all the taxing agencies would have SERIOUS concerns about limiting both the volume and percentage of the tax TAKE on a gal of fuel.
I see taxing by states and feds to increase if there's not an increase in gallons sold to take car of subsidizing their favorite pork along with needed road-building projects. They'll figure what's another $.25 if gas is $3.50. Nobody'll notice $3.75 instead of $3.50.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
For years, the environmentalists, public opinion, pundits, various parts of the oil producting food chain have been seriously working toward getting the prices to go up. Now that the prices are up those very same advocates are 1. expressing extreme surprise 2. looking for the usual likely suspects to BLAME. 3. and I probably left out a whole litany of other things
Taxation on diesel fuel both fed and in most states is ALREADY more % wise than unleaded products. This is despite the fact that per gal a diesel will use LESS (i.e. CONSERVATION their stated goal and reason.) than unleaded. i.e. 49 mpg vs 32 mpg.
As a taxation precedence, I think one would have had to just fallen onto the USA planet to not have noticed how the real estate sector tax collectors have benefited big time during this so called housing market real estate feeding frenzy. So for example, if I sold my house in today's marke,t the taxation would go up to the buyer 3.92 x's.
We will be TAXED FAR MORE to use FAR LESS.
If we were all driving the same technology vehicles as back in the 55 mph era, then it would sure be a mystery about the RATE. But, think that technology in terms of better handling vehicles, more front wheel drive cars for better traction/safety in wet/icy conditions, abs, stability control, tire construction advancements/reliability, air bags in front/side/curtain, improved crash worthiness of vehicles per prodding from NHTSA and Insurance Institute for Higway Safety, etc. have all contributed to either accident avoidance in the first place or less chance of injury/death if in a crash/accident.
Don't know about seat belt usage now vs 55 mph era. I would guess that it is up because of law enforcement and possibly more intelligent drivers/passengers. And, this helped cut down on instances of death or serious injury in accidents.
I think that highway design has been improved since 55 mph era to help safety. Better lane markings, centerline pavement reflectors, improved reflectivity on signs, on and on.
The point which might have been overlooked it was the NHTSA folks (among others) who did the forcast about the speed limits and the warning of epidemic consequences. The subsequent analysis of the projections and validation indicates the epidemic increase of carnage not only did not occur but is in effect has been a reverse indicator, i.e. higher speed limits has had an over all lowering effect. making it the safest in recorded history.While I do not want to resurrect the SUV discussion, similar claims were made about the 12% of the population- SUV's. Again like higher speed limits, suvs are not the(killer bee suv's) bogey men they are made out to be.
Actually there has been an interesting advancement, but it came over the dead bodies of government mandated and controlled policy. Government has long been advocating so called "smaller" is better cars. It has been amply demonstrated that not only are there more accidents with and in small cars but the fatalities rates far exceed mid to large car and suvs i might add. So the absolute requirement for a "lower weight or smaller car" is now a tad subordinated to making a so called "safer" car. Again the concept was lighter car, higher fuel mileage. So for example a 1800# 1970 VW Beetle will almost be an impossibility. It got close to 30 mpg. So to use a comp, my 2004 Honda Civic weighs 2550 #'s and gets 32/38 EPA.
We are also starting to see that alternative diesel engines can do far better than gasoline engines. The 2950# VW Jetta TDI can get 42/49 mpg.
And it's summer... season of dry grass and hot, dry winds.
During the long dark of winter here I constantly see little red embers embarking on a highway adventure and then get to enjoy looking at them in thriving colonies along the roadsides come spring. :mad:
I grew up in eastern Oregon and we had at least 3 or 4 fires along US395 every summer from smokers untrained in the use of ashtrays.
In other words you cannot show a correlation between the 55 MPH speed limit and lower fatalities. hat has lowered fatalities on the nations highways almost every year in the last 80 years are 1.) safer designed roads and 2.) safer designed cars. none of these have do do with speed limits
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Considering that no one has ever conclusively linked higher speeds on limited access highways to more fatalities, those with at least a modicum of understanding about traffic safety issues can confidently describe the problem as "nonexistent."
As for $3-a-gallon gas - that is the free market at work, combined with other factors. One is a lack of refinery capacity. No new refineries have been built in this country since 1976. Companies have tried to make existing facilities more efficient, but that path has its limitations, and we are hitting them. Another problem is the requirement of different blends of gasoline for different geographic areas. Add increasing demand in China and India, and the free market will send prices upward.
If, however, you can find the citation in the United States Constitution or the United States Code that guarantees drivers shall pay no more than $1-per-gallon for regular unleaded, please share it with us.
The 35 mph limit was intended to conserve both fuel and rubber.
The plywood industry got all the logging truck tires they wanted during the war so as to manufacture such vessels as PT boats & other items of defense.
I was driving in the #2 lane (one being next to the median) and started noticing large white bundles on the Freeway ahead of me that were scattered intermittently across lanes 2, 3 and 4. I was able to dodge the white bundles and realized they were sofa cushions.
Not far ahead of me I see a Ford F-350 with a white sofa in the back with most of back cushions gone (laying on the Freeway). As I'm getting closer to the Ford truck I see that the sofa is not secured. Apparently the lady driving the truck had the sofa put in the back without any ropes or tie-downs. What sane person would think that the cushions on a sofa would not come off driving 70-75 down the Freeway?
Well, guess what, as I'm approaching the Ford truck, the sofa slides out the back and hits the Freeway in lane 4. Traffic is pretty heavy and we are all doing a fairly good job of avoiding the sofa cushions already on the Freeway.
As the sofa slides off (at 70+ miles an hour), luckily, starts sliding towards the emergency lane and flips off a sand embankment rolls and flips and seems to break apart. This all seemed like slow motion. I was so lucky that the semi next to me didn't hit the sofa sending it my way. As all of this was unfolding, for those of us who could see what was going on, started slowing down as we anticipated the sofa might come off as the cushions we watched fly off were a good clue.
The lady driving the truck had no idea she had lost the sofa. As I got up to her, I pointed to the back of her truck and you should have seen the look on her face. She started to brake for a second and then realized that her sofa and cushions were over a half mile back. She continued driving on.
What idiot would put a sofa in the truck without taking the cushions off? Did she think that the cushions were glued on?
Anytime I see someone with a load, I try to stay back. It's amazing what people will lose while driving down the street.
Also, a few years ago, I was on this same Freeway driving in the #2 lane and as I whizzed by, there was a car hood in lane 3. There would have been no way to stop because traffic was very heavy. A little ways up, there was a Volkswagon Rabbit sans hood! They were lucky that the hood didn't hit another car/truck.
We have to keep our eyes open! Mark
There was a good article in July 05, Readers Digest titled, "Danger on the Road", that gave instances of various things falling off trucks and other and how drivers should be more observant.
As you know there is nothing in US law that guarantees anything, except that people should try to pursue life, liberty and happiness. These rising gas prices effect us all, maybe not you however.
Lowering the speed limit would have a dual effect. For one it would contribute to less gas being consumed, thus lowering demand and maybe lower the prices, and make the roads safer by contributing to less loss of life.
Years ago, I was waiting at a light to make a left turn, I was first. As the light turned green a teenager tired of waiting, 2 or three cars behind me, jumped the aisle and forced his way into traffic nearly causing two accidents.
I did not yet move, cause of this idiot teenager. What the teenage didn't see was the cop waiting patiently in line at another part of the intersection. Cop turned on siren, jumped the same aisle. Nailed said teenage. I honked horn as I passed.
You missed the most important right: the right to free speech!
I spent the majority of yesterday trying to load up the cab-over camper onto my truck. Normally, this wouldn't be any big deal, except that this particular camper is 36 years old and has borne a fair bit of weather in its day. We had parked it on our property 4 years ago when we were first clearing the land in preparation for house-building. After all the subsequent dirt work, there was no easy way to back my truck up to the camper site any more. So, I spent 4-5 hours modifying the surrounding area to get the truck up to the camper. Then I found that erosion around the area of the camper itself had created slopes where the ground was once flat and i had to go through and level out under the jack stands as well. I finally got the camper raised up, somehow drove the truck under it without knocking it over, and sat it down..... finished, right?! No, not quite.
The 36-year-old plywood of the camper was finally to the point it had lost 80% or more of its integrity. I ended up having to strap it to the truck using a couple of 10-ton freight straps. It was on well enough that it stayed put while I maneuvered it down to the driveway, but as my wife said, "It would be ludicrous to attempt to drive that down the road." Luckily, I was only planning to move it on the property, but now I am not so sure that it is worth saving because I'll have to rebuild one whole side of it if I want it to ever be roadworthy again.
Anyway, I could just see someone actually driving something like this down the road and watching it disintegrate as it skittered across the roadway.... :surprise:
But he was in a Ferrari Testarossa!
When you drive an exotic slowly, we're not thinking "man I'm jealous", we're thinking "poor car... I wouldn't let it go to waste like that..."
Fortunately this was on a back country dirt road maybe a half mile from his house. We were waiting for him outside his house when we saw him coming down the dirt road and watched that outhouse lift up and start flipping end over end in what looked like a vain attempt to get back into the truck.
Needless to say the outhouse was turned into kindling.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
LOL. Great visual.
We were talking about speed and its effect on fuel consumption. This is an entirely different subject than increased sales of low-mileage SUVs. The effect of SUV sales on gasoline consumption is irrelevant to our original discussion.
Incidentallly, if demand for gasoline is going "up, up, up," then people aren't bothered by higher prices - at least, not enough to change their behavior. They can say whatever they want to cnn.com or the local newspaper, but talk is cheap. So the whole point is moot.
kdshapiro: As you know there is nothing in US law that guarantees anything, except that people should try to pursue life, liberty and happiness. These rising gas prices effect us all, maybe not you however.
If you are bothered by gas prices, there are certainly things you can do to ameliorate their effect on your budget:
a. drive less by walking more or consolidating small trips whenever possible, or;
b. purchase a more fuel-efficient vehicle when it comes time to trade in your current one.
This, however, should be a personal decision made on your part.
kdshapiro: Lowering the speed limit would have a dual effect. For one it would contribute to less gas being consumed, thus lowering demand and maybe lower the prices, and make the roads safer by contributing to less loss of life.
There is no proof that lower speed limits on limited access highways will result in lower fatalities. A lower speed limit on limited access highways would not make the roads safer. To suggest otherwise ignores decades of evidence collected from the highways of the U.S. and Europe.
We are talking about increased use of gasoline. SUVs and trucks are unnecessary for many people driving them. They could use an automobile and get much better mileage. SUVs and trucks often are driven at a higher rate of speed and in a much more aggressive manner which consumes much more gasoline. I watched it on the interstate last weekend and in traffic. Some of the drivers of SUVs and trucks waste gas. I guess they feel if I'm only getting 12 mpg I may as well have fun and get 10 mpg.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I believe a cogent response was already given.
"If you are bothered by gas prices, there are certainly things you can do to ameliorate their effect on your budget:"
Am I bothered? Damn straight I am. Is it an issue for me? I don't need to answer that. But I'm glad you gave such a glib reply to such a serious issue.
"There is no proof that lower speed limits on limited access highways will result in lower fatalities."
There is proof that lower speed limits, in general, reduce fatalities.
The problem is the enthusiast press refuses to believe the studies, done by respected organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, NHTSA, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and an academic group in Australia (which studied US roads). Some of these studies have been published in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals like Accident Analysis and Prevention and in SAE papers.
So "experts" like Brock Yates, Pat Bedard, the National Motorists Association, and in the 70s Jon Tomerlin (R&T) try with all their might to debunk such studies. One technique they use is the "Big Lie." That is, they repeat an untruth over and over to the point that the average reader will believe it's true. And unfortunately, the average enthusiast WANTS to believe it's true -- after all, fast driving is fun, and why spoil the fun with facts?
One of the worst of the Big Lies goes like this: The IIHS is supported by insurance companies. Insurance companies want lower speed limits so more drivers can be ticketed and therefore can be surcharged on their insurance policies. Thus, the insurance companies can earn more profits.
Well, the IIHS has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with setting insurance rates. This is handled by each company using actuarial statistics. Proposed rate increases or decreases must be approved by state insurance regulators. Even IIHS's crash tests don't directly affect rates. Why not? Because the severe tests the IIHS conducts are relatively rare events, and the bulk of insurance payouts goes to repair cars in fender benders and medical payments for minor injuries like whiplash.
Also, the crash tests don't reveal anything about how or where or by whom the cars are driven, which obviously also affect crash rates in the real world. The purpose of the tests is to raise the bar on crashworthiness so all cars do a better job of protecting their occupants in severe crashes. The end result, hopefully, will be more lives saved and injuries reduced.
And in fact, studies conducted thus far have indicated that cars with better frontal crashworthiness do protect their own occupants better in real-world frontal crashes. Even more interesting, people in OTHER vehicles hit by these better-performing cars fare somewhat better as well.
It's too early yet to tell if the same is true for side-impact crashes, since the IIHS just started conducting these in 2003.
PS: To my knowledge, nothing written by Yates, Bedard, Tomerlin, or the National Motorists Association has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
What about physics? Think that basic physics class experiment would offer proof that increase in velocity results in increase in force. Understand that increased force also increases amount of damage that the force is applied to. Its been awhile since I have had a physics course, but don't think that any of Newton's laws have changed since he first postulated and proved.
Lesser forces on human body parts when accidents/collisions occur will result in less deaths and injuries. Lesser forces on body parts could also mean less severe injuries. I think that surgeons (esp ortho) and hospital ER people would agree.
It's just that those in denial claim that higher speed limits on interstate highways (where most of the changes have taken place) don't lead to more deaths or injuries on those same roads.
It's like those anti-helmet-law motorcyclists who say the studies are bogus that show nonuse of helmets increases the rate of fatal or disabling head injuries. Ok, you don't want to wear a helmet, but don't try to say it's no more dangerous!
6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET. Drop by for live chat with other members. Hope you can join us!
kirstie_h
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Again, lowering the speed limit is useless if you don't do anything about the vehicles that consume the most gas. My Honda Odyssey minivan gets mid-20's fuel economy even cruising at 85 never mind out daily dirver Civic and Accord. Why should I slow down when there are SUV's out there that couldn't get out of the teens no matter what speed they are going. Especially when they are driven by people that insist on riding alone.
Actually, while most crashes may occur where speed limits are lower, the greatest proportion of deaths occur on high-speed rural non-interstate roads (mostly 2-lane roads).
Agreed. It's not more dangerous if you don't get into a situation. But what if you do?
Let's keep this discussion about the stories we have about the inconsiderate loonies that we're running into (hopefully not literally) on the highways and byways out there.
Maybe we should dedicate this day as "Stubborn Thursday" to keep the thread rolling. :P
Just FYI, Fairbanks, Alaska, finally emerged from its shroud of smoke for the first time in nearly 2 weeks, so that's good news! I finally drove into work this morning without feeling like all the oncoming drivers who did not have their headlights on were being inconsiderate to those of us who, for the past 2 weeks, could not see them until they were about 30 yards away..... :surprise:
I love a little jolt of adrenelin like that!
*shrugs* In AK, I believe the "lights on" law is if visibility is <1000 feet and dusk/dawn. The dusk/dawn part is somewhat of a grey area (very little pun intended!) though because those can last a LONG time up here! During winter solstice, the whole daylight hours (all 5 or so of them!) are pretty much dusk at the 45th parallel (ORish across to PAish for reference), yet a MAJORITY of drivers do not keep lights on. Combine that with Ice Fog when the temps are -30 or more, and collisions happen. This time of year is dangerous too because we are getting darkness now after 3 months of light and people forget that they even have lights on the car.... but they still turn on their parking lights! A fashion statement? "I'm an idiot, but LOOK AT ME!!!!" :shades:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It was pretty much the single most tense time I have ever spent behind the wheel of a car!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I was driving on some rural highways a couple of days ago just before and following sunset and encountered a handful of inconsiderates driving with parking lights only on. There were also the usual amount of drivers with no lights on.
There are probably two categories of inconsiderates operating here: 1 - fashion statement ones with parking lights on only, 2 - "I will put on my headlights when it becomes dark enough that I can't see the road ahead, and no sooner". Both of these are totally oblivious to the law and common sense.