# Driving at 55 MPH



## craftemp (Jun 27, 2008)

A friend of mine recently took a road trip from New Jersey to mid-Pennsylvania.
This is a route that she drives frequently..
She saw a report saying that if you drive at 55MPH versus 65/70/75 etc - you will save fuel
She tried it and said that she cut her fuel use in HALF...   
Anyone tried this.
I do mostly local trafic and have no driving trips scheduled in the near future - would love to hear input on this
Judy


----------



## craftemp (Jun 27, 2008)

*OOPS*

I just realized that I posted this in the wrong place.. I'm guessing it should be in the Tug Lounge
This is the first time that I have started a "thread"..  sorry
Judy


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 27, 2008)

I remember during the Carter era when speed limits were lowered to 55 for the purpose of saving fuel.  Then, after that crisis was over, the powers that be decided to keep it at 55 because of the lower crash fatality stats.  Remember the motto "stay alive, drive 55?"  Gradually, the limits increased and we all shouted, "hurray!" because we hated it and few people drove that slow anyway.  It seems the average driver drives 5 to 10  miles over the limit no matter what the limit is.  I am speaking of drivers out west where we have long stretches of highway.  If I can shave 30 minutes off of drive time, I do it.  However, with the cost of gasoline, we may be rethinking the time vs dollar issue.  DH and I are driving down to Phoenix, so we'll have to see.  BIS for 10 hours or 14 hours?  Hmmm.... What's it worth?


----------



## geekette (Jun 27, 2008)

I believe that it's the wind resistance that increases exponentially once you're over a certain speed.  While many say that speed is 55, that seems a bit too convenient.  

Regardless, higher speeds use more gas.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jun 27, 2008)

As Sammy Hagar says in his song..."I can't drive 55"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfNATuw1DRs


----------



## Htoo0 (Jun 27, 2008)

I believe the speed for optimal gas mileage depends on factors such as body design and gear ratios for each model of car. It may be as low as 40-45 or up to 60 MPH. Of course, you could just buy a horse. Either way, I certainly hope I never find you in front of me.


----------



## Santina (Jun 27, 2008)

My husband drives to Philadelphia frequently and said he traveled at 55 and it actually did make a big difference. He usually drives at the speed limit which is 65 or above.


----------



## stevedmatt (Jun 27, 2008)

I find it extremely hard to believe that she used half of what she would have if she was doing 65-70. Maybe 10-15% less, but not half. That would mean in a normal vehicle with a highway MPG of 20, then got 40 MPG by going a mere 10-15 MPH slower.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jun 27, 2008)

Back when I was driving the Ames, IA to Milwaukee road trip every two weeks, I was generally averaging 65 MPH and got around 26MPG.  During one of the ice storm trips I couldn't go much more than 40 MPG for the entire 360 mile trip.  On that day, I got 38 MPG!  I'm convinced that going slower does save gasoline.  Unfortunately, like most Americans, time is money for me so to make the 5 1/2 hour drive a 10 hour drive just isn't worth the few bucks saved in gas.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 27, 2008)

stevedmatt said:


> I find it extremely hard to believe that she used half of what she would have if she was doing 65-70. Maybe 10-15% less, but not half. That would mean in a normal vehicle with a highway MPG of 20, then got 40 MPG by going a mere 10-15 MPH slower.



I wouldn't be so sure, there are hypermilers out there getting close to and above 90mpg with their vihicles (usually hybrid). There was recently a news story on this on one of the major networks. Just Google hypermiler to find out more.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 27, 2008)

We drive to Colorado Springs once a week, about 158 miles RT, and our car is a Toyota Avalon.  Rick is one of those who keeps track of mileage every fill, so he decided to do a MPG test with various speeds.  Wind makes a difference, of course.  A head wind, or a wind that blows the car from the side really affects our MPG, as we found out last week.  

Two of the last 3 weeks, he drove 65 MPH (speed limit most of the way is 75 MPH) and kept that speed most of the way down, except in Denver, where the speed is 55 MPH for about the first ten miles.  Anyway, we got 42.4 MPG when he went that speed, and we used EXACTLY the same number of gallons for both trips (3.7)!  A third trip, we got 36.7 MPG, but there was a lot of wind.  Our car usually gets 30 MPG on the highway when we go almost 80 MPH, so this is a huge increase in gas mileage.  

My step-dad is somewhat of an expert, well more "expert-ish" (mechanical engineer) at engines, and he said you have to experiment to figure out what speed is the most efficient for your particular engine.


----------



## Kal (Jun 27, 2008)

The first time you hear an "energy program" which includes 55 MPH should you even begin to listen.  So far none of them are more than sound bites directed toward the mentally challenged listeners.


----------



## Liz Wolf-Spada (Jun 27, 2008)

I've tried to slow down to 65 and here in Southern California I've got cars swerving all around me, even if I try to stay in the slow lane, which isn't always possible either.
Liz


----------



## Pit (Jun 27, 2008)

At highway speeds, the force required to overcome drag (wind resistance) is proportional to the square of the velocity. So, double your velocity, and wind resistance increases by a factor of 4. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

Driving slower (on the highway) absolutely saves fuel, but it doesn't save lives (as we were all led to believe in the Carter years). Recent studies have debunked that claim ...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080623ManneringSpeed.html


----------



## Pit (Jun 28, 2008)

_quote of deleted post deleted, too
_


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 28, 2008)

By now, the majority of major trucking companies have reduced maximum governed speed. I work for the world's largest refrigerated carrier. We have set all company trucks at 62mph. I am told it will bring our corporate mileage up over 15%. 

At highway speed the majority of energy is used overcoming aerodynamic drag. As linked earlier in the thread, this increases exponentially as speed increases, thus small differences in speed can make large differences in consumption. Some airlines are slowing down as little as 3 mph. Now, you wouldn't think that little reduction would make much difference when we're starting from some 500 mph, but they say cutting 3mph on a 6 hour flight saves 300 gallons, or about $1500 yet only adds 10-15 minutes to the flight.

It will be interesting to see if any politicians have the cojones to promote another national speed limit reduction. It worked in the '70's when gas cost $.60 a gallon and the problem was availability instead of price. 

Jim Ricks


----------



## Icarus (Jun 28, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> It will be interesting to see if any politicians have the cojones to promote another national speed limit reduction. It worked in the '70's when gas cost $.60 a gallon and the problem was availability instead of price.
> 
> Jim Ricks



I certainly hope not. You can drive whatever legal speed you want to drive. If that's 62 for you, that's ok by me, but on those long straight roads in the West where the speed limit is 75, I won't be driving 62.

That would be the same politicians that didn't have the guts to raise CAFE standards for years, right? 

-David


----------



## w879jr1 (Jun 28, 2008)

My cars, like many, have a dashboard display option to indicate the fuel consumption as you drive. It will show the rate of fuel usage (mpg) at a given time or give a value of the average mpg as the journey progresses. I use this on trips when I am not in a hurry to try to minimise my fuel usage.

On roads in the UK, this doesn't mean driving at a constant speed. Acceleration to quite high speeds is achievable when travelling downhill, and slowing down is necessary when travelling uphill. (I know that this will not be of much use when driving the freeway in western US states  )

Other things to be done are that braking and accelerating must be done gently, hence anticipation of the road conditions ahead is needed. 

I remember that in my youth there was a car rally around Britain held annually in which the aim was to use the least amount of fuel. Manufacturers of the winning car, and its fuel and oil suppliers used a success in the rally in their advertising.
I remember that winning drivers would give fuel-saving tips, some of them being a little unsafe (particularly if tried with automatic gearboxes, or in cars with power steering, for example) if they involved turning off the engine for periods of deceleration.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 28, 2008)

[Quote of personal attack deleted. - DeniseM Moderator]

What?


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 28, 2008)

Kal said:


> The first time you hear an "energy program" which includes 55 MPH should you even begin to listen.  So far none of them are more than sound bites directed toward the mentally challenged listeners.



I gave mathematical proof that we saved gas.  Slowing down does save gas.  Experiment yourself and see.  

Why are people being so abrasive in this thread?


----------



## Icarus (Jun 28, 2008)

rickandcindy23 said:


> I gave mathematical proof that we saved gas.  Slowing down does save gas.  Experiment yourself and see.



I agree.

You can save a lot of gas by slowing down (lower RPMs), keeping a steady speed, not doing jack-rabbit starts, anticipating traffic signals, etc.

-David


----------



## suenmike32 (Jun 28, 2008)

We're leaving for Orlando (by Chevy Tahoe) in about two weeks. I have every intention of using our cruise control at about 62.  I'd like to save gas....but I'm also hoping to survive the 80-90 mph yahoos that drive at breakneck speed regardless of what the limit is!
The last time we drove down, we were in the 70-75 MPH range and we were getting passed on both sides like we were standing still.
Its unfortunate that it seems to be the American way of life to always be in a hurry.
"Lord, please give me patience....and hurry up about it"!


----------



## Icarus (Jun 28, 2008)

suenmike32 said:


> The last time we drove down, we were in the 70-75 MPH range and we were getting passed on both sides like we were standing still.



You should be in the right-most lane if you are driving below the prevailing speed, regardless of the posted speed limits.

Drive safely, even if that means driving above 62.

-David


----------



## Kal (Jun 28, 2008)

rickandcindy23 said:


> ...Why are people being so abrasive in this thread?


 
It has something to do with visits to the ga$ pump.  Next up will be visits to the home thermo$tat.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 28, 2008)

Saving energy is in all of our best interests.  We all need to do what we can.  If the people who profit from oil see a drastic drop, I would think a drop in price would follow, but that is not the only reason to save on gas.  Saving on gas is less emissions, therefore it helps the environment.  I don't get the points of Kal and Eric in McClean.


----------



## Kal (Jun 28, 2008)

rickandcindy23 said:


> ...I don't get the points of Kal and Eric in McClean.


 
I'm making two points:

Point 1: Currently, we don't have an energy policy in the US (other than just poke holes everywhere).  The proposed policies for the prospective candidates can't be taken seriously until the policy includes a return to 55 MPH limits (and meaningful fuel economy standards).  Right now it's just sound bites and photo ops.

Point 2:  The whole issue on automobile travel AND 55 MPH is centerfront in everyone's minds everytime we visit a ga$oline $tation.  It's a nasty issue and there's little we can do about the price.  All we can change is the level of gasoline consumption, one of which is highway speed reduction.  But that gets into lifestyle change, which is probably even more difficult to change.


----------



## Htoo0 (Jun 28, 2008)

I don't live in a crowded city. I often have long distances to travel. If you want to drive in the right lane at a slow enough speed to save gas, feel free. Or as I suggested earlier, get a horse. But please, don't try to limit me to 55 just because you don't mind driving that slow. 
(I'm NOT directing this at anyone in particular, please don't take it that way. I just have never cared for others attempting to make rules for my own good. Don't care for mandatory seatbelt laws either but that's another story. Might as well outlaw mountain-climbing, sky-diving, skiing, scuba-diving and all the other things we do because we want to even though it isn't really necessary and carries some risk of injury.)


----------



## Kal (Jun 28, 2008)

Htoo0 said:


> I don't live in a crowded city. I often have long distances to travel. If you want to drive in the right lane at a slow enough speed to save gas, feel free. Or as I suggested earlier, get a horse. But please, don't try to limit me to 55 just because you don't mind driving that slow.
> (I'm NOT directing this at anyone in particular, please don't take it that way. I just have never cared for others attempting to make rules for my own good. Don't care for mandatory seatbelt laws either but that's another story. Might as well outlaw mountain-climbing, sky-diving, skiing, scuba-diving and all the other things we do because we want to even though it isn't really necessary and carries some risk of injury.)


 
The 55 MPH limit is strictly a function of conserving petroleum to benefit the US. If there is a water shortage and someone is watering their lawn 24-hours a day, sometimes the local government has to establish rules before they can impose restrictions on the 24-hour a day individual.

The goal is conservation of a resource that could cause severe damage to everyone if it is depleted.


----------



## Icarus (Jun 28, 2008)

The only problem with your point of view is that the supply problem is a global one not a local one. We can drive 55 all we want, and if demand goes down, the oil producing countries can simply cut supply again.

Personally, I don't think creating a national speed limit will do anything. If the government wants to do anything they need to invest in alternative energy, and not fake alternative energy (ethanol from corn, for example). They need to invest in solar, wind, battery technology, etc. The one positive thing about high oil prices is that it makes the green technologies more cost effective.

What we really need to be able to do is make hydrogen from water at home, using solar technology, store it at home, and use it to power the home and the car. We're really not that far off from being able to do that.

Remember, this is the same government that did nothing to increase CAFE standards for years, and the US auto companies are the same ones that did nothing about it on their own, except to offer bigger SUVs every model year. Now that gas is really hi-priced compared to a year ago, the SUVs finally stopped selling, so the US auto companies are being forced to do something about it.

-David


----------



## Kal (Jun 28, 2008)

Without doubt we need a comprehensive energy policy, but unfortunately the gasoline automotive engine is here for a very long time.  The speed limit is something we could do immediately to impact consumption.  Other alternatives will take time, money and most importantly leadership.

The whole concept of ethanol from corn is extremely unwise.  Look carefully at the energy balance from planting corn to fuel delivery at a gas station.  It takes more petroleum BTU value just to manufacture ethanol than the BTU value in the ethanol product. So the whole corn business increases consumption of petroleum.  Clearly a subsidy program for somebody other than the energy stake-holders.

My own ideas probably run counter to the mainstream; however, here it is -

Start with a Manhattan type project used in 1943 to develop the atom bomb.  Then establish precise siting, safety and environmental standards for the construction of at least 20 LARGE nuclear energy facilities.  If all those standards are met, facility construction can start.  (Not-in-my-backyard is not an issue).  Use a fast tract approach with heavy government funding.  No EIS is required nor litigation against the site or any other criteria providing all the standards are met.

High level waste disposal is of course an issue.  Yuca Mountain is the solution....period.  Make that part of the law.  The fact that a radioactive constituent may daylight in 10,000 or 100,000 years is moot.  Global warming suggests we don't even have 300 years much less 10,000.  Frankly, some would say we don't even have 300 years of petroleum in the ground, especially since were adding major users (China, India to name a few).

Obviously this approach runs counter to just about everyone's favorite issue, but I have yet to see anything of proven technology that is available today and can deliver in a meaningful timeframe.


----------



## Icarus (Jun 28, 2008)

John McCain's proposal is to built 30 nuclear power plants ...

... by the year 2030. And that included pooling resources and coming up with a common design.

They can't even build them in a decade, Kal.

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree about government imposed speed limits as energy policy.

At least we agree about how useless ethanol from corn is.

-David


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jun 28, 2008)

We need to get off the non-renewable oil dependent machines.

We all should drive electric cars and Nuclear plants really do deliver the best, cleanest, and cheapest form of energy. 

I also like solar, wind, geothermal, etc. but Nuks still are the best current option.

Also, a change back to 55mph will FAIL as everyone will abuse it or be ticketed to death (insert smile here)


----------



## swift (Jun 28, 2008)

Icarus said:


> John McCain's proposal is to built 30 nuclear power plants ...
> 
> ... by the year 2030. And that included pooling resources and coming up with a common design.
> 
> ...




Please be careful. --Posts discussing politics, religion, and controversial social issues that are not directly related to timesharing are not permitted.


----------



## Icarus (Jun 28, 2008)

swift said:


> Please be careful. --Posts discussing politics, religion, and controversial social issues that are not directly related to timesharing are not permitted.



What political, religious or social issue are you referring to?

Just so I'm clear about where I went afoul of the rules in the post that you quoted.

-David


----------



## Kal (Jun 28, 2008)

If we can't afford or don't have gasoline we can't get to our TIMESHARES. Hence, this is very much a timeshare story. Also, the utility costs related to energy (heating, A/C, pools, etc) will impact timeshare maintenance fees.

Need more??

Oh, and please do not consider my thoughts on nuclear energy as having ANYTHING to do with a presidential hopeful from Arizona.  Nada, zip.


----------



## dmharris (Jun 28, 2008)

Just to lighten this thread a bit . . . one summer during college days, I coded traffic violations for the State of Ohio. What an eye opener. Most fun was seeing some of the weirdest names people have. But I was most surprised at the number of traffic violations that were given for going TOO SLOW! It caused accidents, often. 

And my 2 cents is that discussions about our energy issues, are political because the worthless Congress has done nothing and it does affect people's ability to travel. But even though it is political, it is relevant to this forum. Let it be. Please.


----------



## swift (Jun 28, 2008)

Icarus said:


> What political, religious or social issue are you referring to?
> 
> Just so I'm clear about where I went afoul of the rules in the post that you quoted.
> 
> -David



David, I don't think you were in conflict of the rules. However, since you stated John McCain's proposal I mearly posted a reminder of the rules _before_ a political conversation began.


----------



## Pit (Jun 28, 2008)

Time to bring back the Flux Capacitor.


----------



## Kal (Jun 28, 2008)

Didn't the Flux Capacitor only get about 8 kiloclicks/gallon?


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jun 29, 2008)

Kal said:


> If we can't afford or don't have gasoline we can't get to our TIMESHARES. Hence, this is very much a timeshare story. Also, the utility costs related to energy (heating, A/C, pools, etc) will impact timeshare maintenance fees.



Excellent point...I noticed Hawaii was dramatically LESS busy last week in Maui and all the locals stated business was down....but that means lots of upgrade ttrades during flex, if you can grab a flight there.



Pit said:


> Time to bring back the Flux Capacitor.



Yes, that would solve a lot of issues.

Question - Where were you in th 70's during the oil embargo...too bad we did not learn any lessons then or we all would be driving cars that get 50 MPG


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 29, 2008)

We were newlyweds back then, and I can tell you that we couldn't believe it when gas went up to 50 cents per gallon.  Unbelievable to think about it, but everything else was just as cheap.  Candy bars were 10 cents, too.  I measure inflation by candy bars.   

How much is a candy bar now?  About 50 cents, so gas should be $2.50.


----------



## Icarus (Jun 29, 2008)

Pit said:


> Time to bring back the Flux Capacitor.



The flux capacitor used 1.21 gigawatts of electricity.

What you meant, maybe, is the Mr. Fusion he added when he came back from the future. Remember?

Good ole Doc.

-David


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 29, 2008)

Icarus said:


> The flux capacitor used 1.21 gigawatts of electricity.
> 
> What you meant, maybe, is the Mr. Fusion he added when he came back from the future. Remember?
> 
> ...



Our middle child graduated in 1997, and his class's motto was, "Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads."  It was appropriate for Josh's class because they grew up on the Back to the Future movies, and our son had the entire first movie's dialogue memorized.  What a waste of a perfectly good memory.


----------



## Jbart74 (Jun 29, 2008)

Ouch!  Glad I'm not your son Josh.  And why is this thread still going on in the Timeshare User's Group?


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 29, 2008)

Jbart74 said:


> And why is this thread still going on in the Timeshare User's Group?



Posted at the top of the forum:  *TUG Lounge The place for all discussions that don't fit into the other defined forum areas. *

It looks like it's in the right place to me!


----------



## Jbart74 (Jun 29, 2008)

DeniseM said:


> Posted at the top of the forum:  *TUG Lounge The place for all discussions that don't fit into the other defined forum areas. *
> 
> It looks like it's in the right place to me!



But you left out the rest:

"Posts discussing politics, religion, and controversial social issues that are not directly related to timesharing are not permitted."

I know I'm just a guest here, but is this really DIRECTLY related to timesharing?  

OK, I'm sorry... I'll go back to lurking and keeping my mouth shut.  As a TS owner, I do appreciate many of the other threads here on the forum, so thank you to all who contribute.

My apologies to the moderators and/or administrators if I have spoken out of place.

Peace!
jb


----------



## Pit (Jun 29, 2008)

Jbart74 said:


> But you left out the rest:
> 
> "Posts discussing politics, religion, and controversial social issues that are not directly related to timesharing are not permitted."
> 
> I know I'm just a guest here, but is this really DIRECTLY related to timesharing?



Ref: posts #33-37


----------



## Jbart74 (Jun 29, 2008)

Pit said:


> Ref: posts #33-37




I read them long before I posted.  There's a wide spread of content there.  I understand the sentiment that, and I will loosely quote, 'If we can't afford to get to our timeshare, then this is relevant.'

I generally fly to my timeshares, which, all in all, may cost more or less than driving as far as increases in the price of oil go.  I really don't pretend to know how that equation works out.  I do know that I am paying about 150% more this year to fly than what I was paying three years ago for the same flights.

I am also paying about 150% more at the gasoline pumps to drive my car this year than I was three years ago.  I would imagine that the rest of the country is in a similar boat. (which would cost a lot less if it had sails!)

It's a tricky world we live in.  Some on the forum have blamed us for using the oil, some in the world may be taking advantage of us and our dependence on the oil, but most of all, I think that most of us just want to get back to that week in whatever paradise we call our happy place.

That's what I want.  And although it's harder and harder to afford the plane tickets, I plan on continuing to make sure that I can, at least once a year, if not twice.

Peace...

jb


----------



## DeniseM (Jun 29, 2008)

Jbart74 said:


> I know I'm just a guest here, but is this really DIRECTLY related to timesharing?



Posts in the TUG Lounge do NOT have to be related to timesharing, and a moderator has already posted a warning in the thread reminding posters to stay away from controversy.

Here is a link to the posting rules for more Info. - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/tug_rules.php

If you feel like a post is not in compliance, please click on the red triangle and report it, rather than pointing it out in the thread.

Thanks for your input and I hope you will consider becoming a member.


----------



## Kal (Jun 29, 2008)

Although the topic here deals with energy conservation, the larger theme is the cost of energy.  Take that one step further and we're worried about the US economy and how it impacts us personally.  So the issue is discretionary spending and timeshares are very near the top of the list.

We all have rationalized the initial purchase, and then every year why the maintenance fees are a "good value for the buck".  I suggest many of us did not spend much time considering the travel costs.  In January 2001, the price of gas was $1.46 and today it's about 300% higher.  Airline ticket pricing is just starting to escalate and it won't be long before that too is outrageous (and unaffordable).  Travel costs are now a huge issue.

So all this is a real paradim shift from economical vacations to serious questions about affording those vacations and *"what to do with these timeshares"*. If it were not for the fact that other costs such as food, healthcare, etc are still very cheap, it might start to be like real money.  Maybe I need to go out and fertilize my forest of money trees!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jun 29, 2008)

Jbart74 said:


> Ouch!  Glad I'm not your son Josh.  And why is this thread still going on in the Timeshare User's Group?



I am glad you aren't my son, too.  I love my son and his terrific memory.


----------



## dmharris (Jun 29, 2008)

*well put!*



Kal said:


> Although the topic here deals with energy conservation, the larger theme is the cost of energy. Take that one step further and we're worried about the US economy and how it impacts us personally. So the issue is discretionary spending and timeshares are very near the top of the list.
> 
> We all have rationalized the initial purchase, and then every year why the maintenance fees are a "good value for the buck". I suggest many of us did not spend much time considering the travel costs. In January 2001, the price of gas was $1.46 and today it's about 300% higher. Airline ticket pricing is just starting to escalate and it won't be long before that too is outrageous (and unaffordable). Travel costs are now a huge issue.
> 
> So all this is a real paradim shift from economical vacations to serious questions about affording those vacations and *"what to do with these timeshares"*. If it were not for the fact that other costs such as food, healthcare, etc are still very cheap, it might start to be like real money.  Maybe I need to go out and fertilize my forest of money trees!


 
Kal,

Good summary.  And to our guest, check the Tug Lounge topics, you can find everything from dishwasher recommendations to help with health issues, non of which are timeshare related.  We love each other on Tug like brothers and sisters and try to help each other out when we can.  We even let people vent when they need to, like on a recent thread about a Tugger's decision whether or not to retire.

Thanks and do sign up to get the member benefits of reading reviews, etc.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 29, 2008)

I put a larger garden in this year, add 15 more fruit trees to my 8 survivors from the '70's,  10KW of solar on my roof, my sister is going with a 4.2KW of solar on her roof, and another sister is doing a geothermal heat, HW and A/C system.  I also have 2 pellet stoves sashed in my garage.

Looking at large fish tanks for tilapia raising.  

This is part of my answer for growing "money trees".


----------



## Kal (Jun 29, 2008)

vacationhopeful said:


> I put a larger garden in this year, add 15 more fruit trees to my 8 survivors from the '70's, 10KW of solar on my roof, my sister is going with a 4.2KW of solar on her roof, and another sister is doing a geothermal heat, HW and A/C system. I also have 2 pellet stoves sashed in my garage.
> 
> Looking at large fish tanks for tilapia raising.
> 
> This is part of my answer for growing "money trees".


 
Sounds good so far, but how fast do you drive that sweet Continental?


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 29, 2008)

Vehicles==>
Ranger 3L 1999 used work truck 135,000 miles
Ranger 4L 2007 new work truck  9,000 miles and 
Olds 1989 Royale 88 101,000 miles 6 cylinder, inherited

No RVs, boats, planes, jetskis, quads (or other toys).

And I drive 62 MPG, using my speed control on the open highway and my office is 2.5 miles from my house and all job sites are within 10 miles of office.

Oh, I could move the office to my house, but still like to keep business in at separate site.

et vous?


----------



## Kal (Jun 29, 2008)

We've been able to keep it to two vehicles where each one gets about 25-30 MPG.  Am waiting for the hybrid situation to flatten out and will go that route soon.  With regard to highways, I like to get there quick, but have been keeping it at 55 with no jack-rabbit actions.  The few minutes I save by driving faster just makes no $ense.  Like many others we combine errands into a single trip rather than multiple pops.


----------



## Htoo0 (Jun 30, 2008)

For me, driving slow is actually painful (mentally). If I had to drive between OKC and Tulsa at 55, I simply wouldn't go unless it was an emergency. Same with driving to Corpus or Topeka to see family. In fact, it should come as no surprise that I find driving fast enjoyable. I do get ticketed once in a great while but, like I tell my wife, her extended weekend dive trips 2-3 times a year each exceed the cost of one of my tickets and I get to speed every day! (I also just pay the ticket- in case anyone is wondering. )
Guess if we want to get serious about cutting fuel consumption we could pass laws prohibiting the use of fossil fuels for any recreational activities. No more ATV's, 4-wheeling, boating, flying just because, Sunday drives, NASCAR, (you see where I'm going). Think of the fuel savings we could have with such a policy. Or maybe we could be allowed a certain amount of extra fuel (beyond the needs for business and required shopping, etc.) to do with as we please. We could further reduce use through laws requiring thermostats which automatically set the temp at 68 for winter and 78 for the summer months. I sure there are other brilliant ways of reducing fossil fuel use but this would make a great start. Just depends on whose ox is getting gored.


----------



## Kal (Jun 30, 2008)

Htoo0 said:


> For me, driving slow is actually painful (mentally)....
> 
> In fact, it should come as no surprise that I find driving fast enjoyable...


 
[comment deleted by poster]


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 30, 2008)

Driving a little slower is an easy-to-get-used-to habit. A small price to pay for safety, fuel economy, reduced emissions, and less stress. Using HtooO's examples: From OKC to Tulsa according to Mapquest is 106 miles. About 7-10 minutes difference in driving time 60 vs 70 mph. And for the longest trip mentioned, the roughly 600 miles OKC to Corpus, the difference is less than a half hour. Big deal! Less time than a coffee stop. Or the time it takes a cop to write the ticket. Based on 25 mpg at 60 and 20mpg at 70, that's about 5 gallons of fuel, nearly $20. 

Sure, all of us have from time-to-time had Walter Mitty notions of being a NASCAR driver, or felt that where we were going was more important than anyone else has a right to say how late we can start getting there, but folks, we are in this together, and together we will find ways through it, but for now, conservation is the way to buy time for the technological fixes.

Of course, we'd all like to return to the way the world was some time ago. with the Chinese on bicycles, the Indians quietly herding their sacred cows, and Detroit happily putting 7-liter motors in mid-size cars. It isn't going to happen. Get used to it.

It is easy to say someone else should sacrifice. Ban putting gas in ATV's recreational boats, RV's, small airplanes, as long as it doesn't affect us personally. As long as there's no line to buy the $4+ gas and no one watches my thermostat at a comfortable 70, hey, life is good. 

'Scuse me, I will be leaving now. It takes me extra 15 minutes each way for my daily trip to Salt Lake. 

Just my $.02

Jim Ricks


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jun 30, 2008)

Unfortunately, as long as 80% of the other drivers drive faster than the speed limit (not me) and drive much larger cars (i.e. SUVs), then you are at a competitive and dangerous disadvantage if you are driving slow in a tiny mini-cooper and one of those gas guzzling SUVs that is being driven by someone who is speeding and putting on make-up at the same time does not notice your slow and tiny car...you will get crushed.

Thus, until we start buying smaller and more fuel efficient cars that go slower than a Z-06 corvette, then nothing will change. Sure, it takes people to lead by example, but are you willing to risk your family doing that?


----------



## Pit (Jun 30, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> And for the longest trip mentioned, the roughly 600 miles OKC to Corpus, the difference is less than a half hour. Big deal! Less time than a coffee stop. Or the time it takes a cop to write the ticket. Based on 25 mpg at 60 and 20mpg at 70, that's about 5 gallons of fuel, nearly $20.



Some people are happy to buy time at the rate of $40/hour.


----------



## Kal (Jun 30, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> Unfortunately, as long as 80% of the other drivers drive faster than the speed limit (not me) and drive much larger cars (i.e. SUVs), then you are at a competitive and dangerous disadvantage if you are driving slow in a tiny mini-cooper and one of those gas guzzling SUVs that is being driven by someone who is speeding and putting on make-up at the same time does not notice your slow and tiny car...you will get crushed.
> 
> Thus, until we start buying smaller and more fuel efficient cars that go slower than a Z-06 corvette, then nothing will change. Sure, it takes people to lead by example, but are you willing to risk your family doing that?


 
But who will be the first person to lead us in an effort of petroleum conservation?  I can add another 35 reasons why we need to drive large vehicles that get 9 MPG.  However, in order to reduce the consumption of gasoline at ever increasing prices, it has to be a change in the mindset.


----------



## teachingmyown (Jun 30, 2008)

Htoo0 said:


> <snip>
> Guess if we want to get serious about cutting fuel consumption we could pass laws prohibiting the use of fossil fuels for any recreational activities. No more ATV's, 4-wheeling, boating, flying just because, Sunday drives, NASCAR, (you see where I'm going). Think of the fuel savings we could have with such a policy. Or maybe we could be allowed a certain amount of extra fuel (beyond the needs for business and required shopping, etc.) to do with as we please. We could further reduce use through laws requiring thermostats which automatically set the temp at 68 for winter and 78 for the summer months<snip>.



Passing laws to govern every aspect of our lives is not necessary.  If _everyone_ would do _something_...slow down, drive smaller vehicles, drive less frequently, adjust thermostats, etc...not even everything, just _something_, then that would be a start.  For that matter, it would be a start if just _someone_ would do something.  I guess in that sense, it starts with me.  And you.

I hate the thought of slowing down and I'm only one of the "10-milies over" group.  But I'm going to work on it.   I have no plans to give up my vacation which means a 10 hour road trip.  Ok, we can stretch it out a little longer, save a bit of fuel, and a bit of money.  All the way down to 55?  Probably not--especially not with everyone else driving 80 around us, but we can drop it a bit for at least part of the trip.  Meanwhile, on my daily drives I can certainly drop my speed a bit.  I'll begin doing my _something_...so what about you?


----------



## "Roger" (Jun 30, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> Unfortunately, as long as 80% of the other drivers drive faster than the speed limit (not me) and drive much larger cars (i.e. SUVs), then you are at a competitive and dangerous disadvantage if you are driving slow in a tiny mini-cooper and one of those gas guzzling SUVs that is being driven by someone who is speeding and putting on make-up at the same time does not notice your slow and tiny car...you will get crushed.
> ...


My own personal experience has been, as long as I am driving between cities on the Interstate -- small car, at the speed limit, and, yes, 80% of the cars do pass me -- I have never come close to having anyone rear end me.  

With the cruise on, not having to constantly pull in and out of lanes (the more dangerous activity as far as I am concerned), I arrive much more rested and relaxed. (Is that worth something?  Or is it more important to arrive fifteen minutes early but frazled?)

Things change on an expressway through a city.  Then, it does become more dangerous (or certainly appears to become more dangerous) to be considerably slower than the bulk of the traffic.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 30, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> ....
> 'Scuse me, I will be leaving now. It takes me extra 15 minutes each way for my daily trip to Salt Lake.
> 
> Jim Ricks


 
Whoa! The location on your sidebar states you are in Twin Falls, Idaho, and you drive to SLC "daily?" Maybe you could save by getting a home closer to your destination--even if it is just during the week and then weekends in Idaho. I used to commute between SLC and Layton and that just about killed me. Can't even imagine commuting between Twin Falls and SLC! (Maybe you meant you commute to the northern reaches of the Great Salt Lake and not to the city?)


----------



## Kal (Jun 30, 2008)

"Roger" said:


> ...With the cruise on, not having to constantly pull in and out of lanes (the more dangerous activity as far as I am concerned), I arrive much more rested and relaxed. (Is that worth something? Or is it more important to arrive fifteen minutes early but frazled?)....


 
I don't know about your corner of the universe, but I have noticed a considerable reduction in the quantity of traffic on major Interstates.  This probably is a direct effect of the cost of fuel rather than an effort to reduce overall fuel consumption.

I also noticed a large number of SUVs in the local mall parking garage.  Those folks probably dread the thought of visiting a gas station, but what do you do with a dinosaur??


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 30, 2008)

Just saw a news report on a local Phoenix television station comparing the costs of buying a hybrid vs keeping the old SUV.  Even with higher gas costs, it is still more economical to keep and drive the SUV if you are only looking at out-of-pocket expenses.  Many people just cannot afford the costs of purchasing a more efficient vehicle much as they'd like to.  (Then there is my DH who says the hybrids are so ugly he wouldn't buy one, so I don't bring the subject up anymore.)  Does it really cost that much more to manufacture them?  

Our little Mazda got 32-34 mpg driving down to Phoenix yesterday.  While DH was pretty mellow at the start of the trip (we've got all day so relax and enjoy the scenery), about 5 hours into it he became highly annoyed at the RVs and other vehicles going 10 mph below the posted limit with no way to get around them.  ("If you can't drive it, park it!")  Sitting in a car for 10 plus hours makes you just want to get it over with.  Even 30 minutes to an hour cut from that time seems worth it.


----------



## Rose Pink (Jun 30, 2008)

teachingmyown said:


> .... I'll begin doing my _something_...so what about you?


 
Some days I don't drive at all--I usually drive less than 75 miles a week.  DH, OTOH, must commute to wherever the customer is.  Last week that was Houston, this week it is Phoenix, next week it is Virginia.  So, the energy costs of getting him to work far outweigh the benefits of my walking to the grocery store or to church.  Still, I try to do what I can: combine errands when I must drive, keep the thermastat at a reasonable level, let the lawn be a tad brown, sometimes showering every other day.  We've talked about moving but where?  No matter where we live, DH would have to commute to the customer site.  

BTW, Jim PM'd me about my comment re his commute.  It is not a commute but rather the drive is part of his employment so he is in a similar situation as my DH.  Some people must commute as part of their jobs, or as the job itself.  Still, for others, moving closer to where you work or closer to public transportation hubs might be a viable alternative to driving so much.  This, of course, takes some effort on the part of local government to bring public transportation hubs to areas where people live and to make the areas around existing hubs safe, secure and attractive places to be.  That costs loads of money (taxes) and that makes you and me cringe.  

I agree with what has been said about the collective need to take responsibility for our own choices even when it seems no one else does.  It's just so hard to sit for that long in a car going only 55 mph!  Oh, the pain in the derriere!


----------



## RDB (Jun 30, 2008)

Want to do something about fuel consumption? Try this on for size.

Stop going to timeshares. 

Think of what all that would change. :whoopie: 

It is great that people can kick ideas around.  
-----------

Robert


----------



## "Roger" (Jun 30, 2008)

Rose Pink said:


> J... ("If you can't drive it, park it!")  ...


Not what your husband hand in mind but...

I drive up a winding road to home. (Eight minutes to work in case you are curious.) Hardly a day goes by where I don't have to pull over to the right because an SUV, an oversized pickup, etc. is coming at me with its tire on or over the center line.  I am convinced that if they made the owners of the larger SUV's, etc. pass an extensive driving test, half of them would be off the road because the drivers would lose their license.  (By the way, I watch and about 90% to 95% of the time these vehicles have a single person in them.)

As long as we are trading stories, overheard in a Maine cafe last week...

"People aren't really serious about saving gas.  I just passed the Dunkin Donut store.  There were ten cars lined up at the drive thru with their cars idling and not a single parking place in front of the store was taken." 

(Somehow, I think that the drivers would not only have saved on gas, but benefitted from a little exercise before they gobbled down their glazed doughnut. -- I say this without bitterness, but bemusement.)


----------



## Icarus (Jun 30, 2008)

Rose Pink said:


> (Then there is my DH who says the hybrids are so ugly he wouldn't buy one, so I don't bring the subject up anymore.)



Hybrids don't look any different than their non-hybrid counterparts.

The only one that he may be referring to is the Prius, which is a hybrid-only model. There was also a pretty odd looking Honda model at one point, but I don't think they make it any more. The Prius and that Honda look different because they were designed to be very aero-dynamic, and have long sloping lines. They also happened to get the best overall mileage of almost any vehicle because of that.

-David


----------



## Kal (Jun 30, 2008)

This thread probably presents a good cross-section of public attitudes toward automobile transportation.  It really shows how far we, as a country, need to go to even begin to think about energy conservation.  Habits have been established over our lifetime and they're not going to change easily.  It's always easy to find 35 reasons why we can't conserve petroleum rather than 1 reason why we should.  Then moving from "should" to "accomplishment" is another major hill to climb.  So far, the only reason to change is one of cost rather than conservation.  

Can you imagine what will happen with $10/gallon of gas (like in Europe)!    We'll be crawling with born-again conservationists who only want to preserve a depleting natural resource.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jun 30, 2008)

RDB said:


> Want to do something about fuel consumption? Try this on for size.
> 
> Stop going to timeshares.



Let me add, stop going to "nice" timeshares in Hawaii, Utah, Colorado, etc so we can trade into them.


----------



## Pit (Jun 30, 2008)

Kal said:


> So far, the only reason to change is one of cost rather than conservation.



You're right about that. If the price were still $1.30/gal there would be no talk of conservation. However, many people are chosing to economize in other ways, rather than conserve fuel. Instead of driving less or driving slower, they will eat out less, take shorter/fewer vacations, save less money, delay a big purchase, or ...


----------



## Kal (Jun 30, 2008)

Pit said:


> ...save less money, delay a big purchase, or ...


 
How about delaying purchase of a nice big diamond ring for my sweetie?  That ought to equate to a BIG petroleum conservation credit!


----------



## MelBay (Jun 30, 2008)

Hubby rides a Harley on road trips, and says 55 MPH saves him about 40% on consumption.  He has a small tank obviously, so he doesn't have to stop as often either, other than if his bladder squaks first.  :ignore:


----------



## MelBay (Jun 30, 2008)

Just got this month's Body & Soul magazine.  Thought this was appropriate to share:

"Slow down.   One second of speeding can produce the same amount of CO2 emissions as a half hour of normal driving, accordint to greencars.org.  It's not good for your wallet, either.  If you go 70 mph instead of 60 mph, it's as if you're paying 40 cents more per gallon of gas."

So, 55 has to be even better.


----------



## Passepartout (Jun 30, 2008)

MelBay said:


> .... according to greencars.org.  It's not good for your wallet, either.  If you go 70 mph instead of 60 mph, it's as if you're paying 40 cents more per gallon of gas."



That's a really great graphic way to describe the savings. Somehow when you reduce it to miles per gallon, it doesn't sink in, but everybody understands what a gallon costs.

Here's another: Prius: $.09 per mile- Hummer: $.50/mi.- Peterbilt: $.95/mi

Jim Ricks


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jun 30, 2008)

As for TS vacationing, when I travel to my Ft Lauderdale TS, I don't rent a car.  I take BCT or a rare taxi.  I have replied to many threads here about the CHEAP and convienent bus network in Broward County.  TriRail has free shuttles from its nearby stations to the Miami, Ft Lauderdale and West Palm Airports ... you have a pay for a TriRail ticket.  

Last week at FLL, my 13 yo nephew pickup his luggage and started for the escalator ... when I asked where he was headed his reply was "to the rental car (a directional sign)".  I stated we weren't getting a rental car, we were taking a taxi to the resort.  His next question was "we are getting the rental car tomorrow?".  No rental car, we will be using the bus.

After a week, he told me that we had spent only $15 on bus tickets and $20.50 on our 1 and only taxi ride.  He also learned to read a bus schedule, flag a bus down, located bus stops, some bus riding protocal, and budget a little extra time to wait for the bus. We ate out every night (and most lunches), went to two malls, visited friends at their home, and had food/water in the unit. And the furthest he walked,  4-5 blocks.

He learned an important lesson, didn't he?


----------



## stevedmatt (Jun 30, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> And for the longest trip mentioned, the roughly 600 miles OKC to Corpus, the difference is less than a half hour. Big deal! Less time than a coffee stop. Or the time it takes a cop to write the ticket. Based on 25 mpg at 60 and 20mpg at 70, that's about 5 gallons of fuel, nearly $20.





Pit said:


> Some people are happy to buy time at the rate of $40/hour.



I have to correct you. 

600 miles at 60 MPH is 10 hours.
600 miles at 70 MPH is 8 hours 34 minutes

So if you feel your time is worth less than $14 an hour, drive slower because your making money, but if you feel your time is worth more than $14 an hour, go ahead a drive 70, as long as that is not above the posted limit.

Your also assuming that you will increase 5 MPG by slowing down just 10 MPH. A lot of that is determined by the engine and gear ratios of your transmission and axle.

The car I use for most of my longer trips had a sticker on the window when we bought it that said 18 city and 26 highway. I drive these longer trips all on highway and average 25 MPG at 70-75 MPH. I'm not slowing down to gain 1 MPG unless the laws change.


----------



## Htoo0 (Jun 30, 2008)

I enjoy cruising down an open road at a speed I choose and don't care if there's another car in sight. It's not about wanting to be a racecar driver. It's not even usually about time. I just enjoy it like some enjoy blasting around on their jet-skis or in their speedboats, or others beating up their sometimes brand-new trucks four-wheeling. If some don't get that, I can't explain it to them. Lots of people don't get time-sharing either. I certainy don't think we should pass laws to regulate fuel usage but when people start talking about bringing back the double-nickel law, I like to point out there are other laws we could pass which would probably save even more fuel (and lives). We all have our points of view and I'm simply stating mine. It's ok if you don't agree, I'm not attempting to convince everyone I'm right and you're wrong. I'm just saying that if you want to talk about restricting one person's choice of fuel usage (driving faster than the optimal fuel usage for your vehicle), keep in mind someone else might think it's a great idea to limit something which it just so happens you enjoy.


----------



## Kal (Jul 1, 2008)

Another way to look at it would be this comparison:

* A person with 3 overflowing plates at a banquet (when there is limited food and lots of people)

* A person sitting at a banquet lighting his $100 bills on fire

In one case it appears to be a foolish person   while in the other case it's a person who directly affects others by their action.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 1, 2008)

stevedmatt said:


> I have to correct you.
> 
> 600 miles at 60 MPH is 10 hours.
> 600 miles at 70 MPH is 8 hours 34 minutes
> ...



The sticker on my Toyota Avalon says 29 MPG highway, yet we are getting 42.4 MPG going 65 MPH instead of 79 MPH.  The sticker in the window isn't maximum fuel savings, or mine would say 42.4 MPG.  Those numbers on the sticker are supposed to be average, not optimum.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 1, 2008)

stevedmatt said:


> I have to correct you.
> 
> 600 miles at 60 MPH is 10 hours.
> 600 miles at 70 MPH is 8 hours 34 minutes
> ...



I stand corrected, I will certainly concede that my math was faulty in computing trip times, but the basic result is the same: you save fuel, money, wear-and-tear, tickets by slowing down. 

While there may be differences between vehicles, owing more to aerodynamics than gearing, the reality is that it takes more fuel to go faster. Real world tests will show that above 60mph, the fuel economy will drop off pretty close to 1 mile per gallon per mile per hour of speed. Try it. 

In the end, what we are discussing here is like arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic. There is a finite quantity of a natural resource and when it's gone, it's gone. Some say it's half gone now and we've only been using petroleum for about 150 years. We can keep using it as fast as possible so that we get our share before all those people in the former third world get it, and hope for hydrogen (or some other) alternatives to fall like manna from heaven. Or we can work on alternatives while we conserve what we have to make it last longer. After all, it may not be our own kids who come up with the solutions, but their kids or grandkids. You can bet it will be within the next very few generations.

OK, soap box mode: off. 

Jim Ricks


----------



## laura1957 (Jul 1, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> I stand corrected, I will certainly concede that my math was faulty in computing trip times, but the basic result is the same: you save fuel, money, wear-and-tear, tickets by slowing down.
> 
> While there may be differences between vehicles, owing more to aerodynamics than gearing, the reality is that it takes more fuel to go faster. Real world tests will show that above 60mph, the fuel economy will drop off pretty close to 1 mile per gallon per mile per hour of speed. Try it.
> 
> Jim Ricks



Without any actual numbers to back it up I do agree.  I can see the difference with my Honda minivan - if I drive it to our closest "big" town to go shopping the gas gauge barely moves off full, when my  husband uses it for the same trip - he uses over 1/8 tank.  I set my cruise control to 55, he tends to drive 65 or a little over. (and is heavier on the brakes/gas at lights)


----------



## Transit (Jul 1, 2008)

My commute to work ride 80-90 miles per gal


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jul 1, 2008)

Transit said:


> My commute to work ride 80-90 miles per gal



Yes it is economical....but what about the Florida RAIN and let's not forget about all the BAD Florida drivers and a motorcycle/scooter is much more dangerous than a car. What about groceries?


----------



## easyrider (Jul 1, 2008)

We get 10mpg with our extended cab 4x4 silverado and 12mpg with our suv. Both of these can pull our cruiser and other toys at the legal speed limit. Lets see you do that with a Prius. 

We did witness a motorcycle accident resulting in the death of an eye doctor caused by some older guy not going the speed limit to probably save gas. Not keeping up with the flow of traffic or driving below posted limits can be very dangerous and should be considered reckless driving if an accident results.


----------



## Dave M (Jul 1, 2008)

easyrider said:


> Not keeping up with the flow of traffic ... can be very dangerous and should be considered reckless driving if an accident results.


Are you serious? You believe I should be arrested for reckless driving unless I break the law by speeding, perhaps significantly over the speed limit, to keep up with others on the highway? Interesting thought, but I hope it wouldn't happen!


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 1, 2008)

easyrider said:


> We get 10mpg with our extended cab 4x4 silverado and 12mpg with our suv. Both of these can pull our cruiser and other toys at the legal speed limit. Lets see you do that with a Prius.



It seems we've wandered a bit from the point of the thread, but if you wanna play 'mine's bigger'n yours', my Freightliner gets 7mpg and can pull 105,500 (gvw) at posted speed limit. Lets see you do that with both or yours!

Jim Ricks


----------



## easyrider (Jul 1, 2008)

Dave M said:


> Are you serious? You believe I should be arrested for reckless driving unless I break the law by speeding, perhaps significantly over the speed limit, to keep up with others on the highway? Interesting thought, but I hope it wouldn't happen!



Yes, very serious. I pulled the guy off a barbed wire fence and he died right in front of us. This was a direct result of the slower speed of the vehicle in front of the rest of us impeding the flow of traffic. 

Should the flow of traffic exceed the speed limit a person should do the speed limit at the very least. Driving 10 miles below the speed limit on a two lane highway to save gas is fine if no one is behind you but very inconsiderate if there is. Should your slow driving make my legal driving hazardous and cause an accident that results in death, you should be charged with manslaughter or at least reckless driving.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 1, 2008)

Passepartout said:


> It seems we've wandered a bit from the point of the thread, but if you wanna play 'mine's bigger'n yours', my Freightliner gets 7mpg and can pull 105,500 (gvw) at posted speed limit. Lets see you do that with both or yours!
> 
> Jim Ricks



Sorry for spouting off about mpg and pulling power, but can you park your truck in the garage like I can ? lol .


----------



## swift (Jul 1, 2008)

Sometimes this is true. For instance merging on HWY 101 at 45-50 miles per hour like some older people do is very dangerous!

California law regarding reckless driving -
(a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

(c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104. Amended Sec. 19, Ch. 739, Stats. 2001. Effective January 1, 2002.

Reckless Driving: Bodily Injury Vehicle Code 23104

(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), whenever reckless driving of a vehicle proximately causes bodily injury to any person other than the driver, the person driving the vehicle shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 30 days nor more than six months or by a fine of not less than two hundred twenty dollars ($220) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment.


----------



## Dave M (Jul 1, 2008)

I absolutely agree that driving well below the speed limit can be dangerous. At least in Massachusetts, it's well documented that drivers have been pulled over and ticketed for going significantly below the speed limit. But _easyrider_'s language suggested that I should be charged with reckless driving or manslaughter if, for example, there is a bad accident and the general flow of traffic is going 75mph and I'm going exactly the posted speed limit of 55mph. 

I find it hard to believe that any jurisdiction would charge me with reckless driving (or worse, manslaughter as he suggested) for obeying the law at the posted speed limit! It seems to me that the lawbreakers should be the ones that are held accountable.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 1, 2008)

easyrider said:


> .......Should your slow driving make my legal driving hazardous and cause an accident that results in death, you should be charged with manslaughter or at least reckless driving.



You are certainly welcome to your opinion, and I don't condone obstructing traffic, and happily move out of the way when I am the offender (generally because of load and grade). If a rear-end collision occurs, 99 times out of a hundred, if a citation is issued,  it's to the hitter, not the hitee. The faster, overtaking vehicle has the responsibility to see and avoid slower traffic. 

You may also notice that speed limits are generally the upper limit, while the lower limit is controlled by statute- 45mpg on interstates and 35 mph on secondary roads in most places.

Jim Ricks


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 1, 2008)

easyrider said:


> We get 10mpg with our extended cab 4x4 silverado and 12mpg with our suv. Both of these can pull our cruiser and other toys at the legal speed limit. Lets see you do that with a Prius....


Wow!!  

Let me see.  I drive 12,000 miles per year in the Prius.  If I had your Silverado, that would be 1200 gallons of gas.  At $4 per gallon, that would cost me $4800.  I am averaging 50 mpg with my Prius, so I would be using 240 gallons instead at a total cost of $960.

I haven't even started to factor in lower insurance costs, particularly if you insure your toys, lower depreciation, etc., but I can already say that $3800 will buy me a lot of nights in a luxury hotel room (or finance a trip to Europe).  

I do appreciate that you seen to enjoy lugging your toys, but the Prius is a fun car to drive, whips into smaller parking places with ease, etc.  I am not suffering.

To each his own, but your post made me feel really good about Prius ownership.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 1, 2008)

Where did I post for you to become an outlaw driver ? Its too bad if your both offended by my statements because they were not meant to be abrasive. 

I did not realize that there was a slow limit as it is not posted on any roadway I have traveled and I think most of the general public uses the speed limit signage as the rule of the road.


----------



## Transit (Jul 1, 2008)

Steamboat Bill said:


> Yes it is economical....but what about the Florida RAIN and let's not forget about all the BAD Florida drivers and a motorcycle/scooter is much more dangerous than a car. What about groceries?



I only use the scooter for work 5 miles a day round trip and quick trips to the store. On the weekends I run up to A1A and cruise the beaches sometimes. When it rains heavy I leave it at work and get a ride home from a co-worker that lives nearby and pick it up later.I usually plan for rain and in 2 years only got caught one time. I don't fell unsafe driving it I usually stick to secondary roads.The scariest thing is those Parkland moms with their 5 ton Hummers flyng past me, cell phone to ear, putting on makeup..Under the seat is a storage space that fits a full face helmet .There is a storage rack on the back and bag hooks by the front seat you can carry alot of stuff if you choose to do so.I agree that South florida is a dangerous place to drive but in other areas scooters can provide real economical transportation. Motorcycles are fun but are to costly maintanance wise unless your a doityourselfer.


----------



## Kal (Jul 1, 2008)

"Roger" said:


> ...I drive 12,000 miles per year in the Prius. If I had your Silverado, that would be 1200 gallons of gas. At $4 per gallon, that would cost me $4800. I am averaging 50 mpg with my Prius, so I would be using 240 gallons instead at a total cost of $960...


 
BINGO, 240 gallons of gas versus 1200 gallons of gas!  When we're talking about energy conservation and the related effect of driving up gas prices, BIG is definitely NOT BETTER.


----------



## "Roger" (Jul 1, 2008)

Only remotely relavant, but I just saw this on Yahoo (cut down immensely - hopefully this passage is short enough to be fair use) ...

_The truth is more CEOs surveyed drive ordinary passenger cars and SUVs than luxury cars; in fact, those who drive Chevys outnumber those in Mercedes. And while most respondents think CEOs spend more than $70,000 on their cars, the average price CEOs in this study payed for their primary vehicle is under $25,000. One-in-four (26 percent) CEOs surveyed reported they spent less than $20,000 on their primary vehicle. _


----------



## Kal (Jul 1, 2008)

"Roger" said:


> Only remotely relavant, but I just saw this on Yahoo (cut down immensely - hopefully this passage is short enough to be fair use) ...
> 
> _The truth is more CEOs surveyed drive ordinary passenger cars and SUVs than luxury cars; in fact, those who drive Chevys outnumber those in Mercedes. And while most respondents think CEOs spend more than $70,000 on their cars, the average price CEOs in this study payed for their primary vehicle is under $25,000. One-in-four (26 percent) CEOs surveyed reported they spent less than $20,000 on their primary vehicle. _


 
Do you think there is a car allowance driving the purchase selection.  CEOs paying for a car out of personal cash are few in number.


----------



## DebBrown (Jul 1, 2008)

Hmmm... you've all given me alot to think about.  I would not have guessed that the difference in gas consumption at different speeds was so significant.

I'm driving from Chicago to Hilton Head at the end of the month with my 9 year old granddaughter and dog.  My car has alot of horsepower and is very happy at a high speed.  It will be very hard for me to slow down.  Believe me, if you are the only driver on a 1000 mile trip, 4 hours in the car is a BIG difference!

Deb


----------



## stevedmatt (Jul 1, 2008)

If you trust the government, click here.

Looks like gas mileage (according to our government) peeks between 55 and 60 MPH. It also looks that mileage decrease about 16 percent by increasing your speed to 70 MPH.

I stand somewhat corrected.

I would however love to know what additional steps people are doing to increase their mileage by 50% besides driving 55. If that is the only thing your doing, you must have driven about 90 MPH before. 

According to the same website, maintaining your vehicle is also a big difference. This I do religiously. I just don't see myself slowing down to 55.


----------



## swift (Jul 1, 2008)

Ok everyone. This thread has gotten very argumentative. I think as TUGers we are here to help each other, make suggestions, even through in a few opinions. BUT, when in turns into just a bunch of heated bickering I don't think it is helpful to anyone. Lets see if we can agree to disagree on a few points and calm this down.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 1, 2008)

stevedmatt said:


> If you trust the government, click here.
> 
> 
> I would however love to know what additional steps people are doing to increase their mileage by 50% besides driving 55.



We are seriously considering adding hydrogen generators to all of our vehicles. The tax incentive ( $2000.00 per vehicle) and lower insurance rates given to turn a vehicle into a hybrid makes this appealing. The added 20 - 30 % increase in fuel mileage would be a nice perk if it works.   
www.fuelfromh2o.com

The technology and development behind hydrogen versus electricity in the transportation sector reminds me of the Beta max versus the VHS tape players of the late 70`s. Its going to be interesting.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 1, 2008)

Kal said:


> BINGO, 240 gallons of gas versus 1200 gallons of gas!  When we're talking about energy conservation and the related effect of driving up gas prices, BIG is definitely NOT BETTER.



I have been in a Prius and they are very nice. Lots of leg room. It would be hard for me to do most of the things that I need to do with out a truck or suv.


----------



## Pit (Jul 1, 2008)

stevedmatt said:


> I would however love to know what additional steps people are doing to increase their mileage by 50% besides driving 55. If that is the only thing your doing, you must have driven about 90 MPH before.



Google the term "hypermiler"


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jul 1, 2008)

My brother bought a Prius and at first I laughed as it seemed like a toy...then I drove it and I was incredibly impressed.

To be honest, the USA would be a much better off if EVERYONE was driving a Prius.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jul 2, 2008)

thread probably should have been closed back on page one....

please everyone take a deep breath...have a glass of water/etc...and calm down before replying again.


----------



## Icarus (Jul 2, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> thread probably should have been closed back on page one....
> 
> please everyone take a deep breath...have a glass of water/etc...and calm down before replying again.



I don't really see anything that bad going on in this thread, Brian.

People have different opinions and strong opinions about this topic, and except in a few minor cases, the replies have all been respectful. Out of 109 replies, only a few were not so nice, and they really weren't that bad.

-David


----------



## Htoo0 (Jul 2, 2008)

If I'm one of those out-of-line, P.M. me and I'll stop. It just that it amazes me that some people seem to think it's terrible to waste fuel by driving over 55 and we should go back to the 55 speed limit when I just completed a 550+ mile trip in my Camry which averaged 29.78 on one tank and 30.18 at 75-85MPH. (Speed limits on the Oklahoma turnpikes I normally drive is 75 BTW.) This when there are plenty of others burning fuel in recreational pursuits just for their fun and enjoyment or because they want to drive a vehicle which happens to get horrible mileage. I believe that if anyone really thinks they can solve this fuel cost crisis with laws to conserve gas then they need to come up with a better/fairer plan than reducing speed limits.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 2, 2008)

Htoo0 said:


> If I'm one of those out-of-line, P.M. me and I'll stop. ..... if anyone really thinks they can solve this fuel cost crisis with laws to conserve gas then they need to come up with a better/fairer plan than reducing speed limits.



Me too.  This is an emotionally charged issue that we are reminded of every day. It won't go away, and frankly, there have not been any personal, political, or religious attacks, but I feel like I've about worn it out.

Looking back to post #1, To paraphrase: Does slowing down save gas? I think the answer is a resounding YES.  Is 55 the right speed? probably not for everyone. 

To HtooO, quoted above, in view of the overwhelming evidence that slowing down conserves fuel, what '_better/fairer_' plan should _they_ (who's 'they?) come up with?

Jim Ricks


----------



## TUGBrian (Jul 2, 2008)

if any posts were deemed out of line they would be removed and the OP would have recieved a note.

we try our best to let things go as much as possible to avoid thread closure...its warnings like these that hopefully serve their purpose to continue the thread on track vs spiraling into "closedness" as happens with alarming frequency when "spirited debate" begins.

=)


----------



## dmharris (Jul 2, 2008)

Dave M said:


> Are you serious? You believe I should be arrested for reckless driving unless I break the law by speeding, perhaps significantly over the speed limit, to keep up with others on the highway? Interesting thought, but I hope it wouldn't happen!


 

Way back in this thread I posted that I coded traffic violations for the State of Ohio while in college, and to my surprise, people were ticketed for going too slow and this was often the cause of an accident. This was back in the 70's, but I'm sure it still happens today.


----------



## Dave M (Jul 2, 2008)

When you say "too slow", are you referring to slower than the speed limit? I don't question ticketing (or stronger action when there is an accident) when someone is going much slower than the limit. My question was related to whether someone would get ticketed for going _at the speed limit_ if others are going faster.


----------



## laura1957 (Jul 2, 2008)

Dave M said:


> When you say "too slow", are you referring to slower than the speed limit? I don't question ticketing (or stronger action when there is an accident) when someone is going much slower than the limit. My question was related to whether someone would get ticketed for going _at the speed limit_ if others are going faster.




they must (I hope) mean SLOWER than the posted limit - can you imagine going to court to fight a ticket for going the speed limit??  How could you NOT win in that instance.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 2, 2008)

Some drivers would say that "Im going the speed limit" while 6 or more other drivers stacked up behind their slower vehicle. If the flow of traffic is faster than the posted speed limit the slower vehicle should let the other vehicles pass by safely in a timely fashion. This should begin with the slower vehicle signaling and then pulling off the road to let others pass if posible.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jul 2, 2008)

Dave M said:


> When you say "too slow", are you referring to slower than the speed limit? I don't question ticketing (or stronger action when there is an accident) when someone is going much slower than the limit. My question was related to whether someone would get ticketed for going _at the speed limit_ if others are going faster.



Washington State patrol just said they would start ticketing person driving in the far left lane *"at the speed limit" * for going too slow, if significant numbers of people have to pass them on the right. 

So yes, in Washington you can get a ticket for going too slow, even if you're going the speed limit.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jul 2, 2008)

same here in florida actually...I believe the law is "impeding the flow of traffic" or something like that.


----------



## Pit (Jul 2, 2008)

Bill4728 said:


> Washington State patrol just said they would start ticketing person driving in the far left lane *"at the speed limit" * for going too slow, if significant numbers of people have to pass them on the right.
> 
> So yes, in Washington you can get a ticket for going too slow, even if you're going the speed limit.



What will they be cited for? Isn't it illegal to drive faster than the speed limit in the left lane?


----------



## Pit (Jul 2, 2008)

TUGBrian said:


> same here in florida actually...I believe the law is "impeding the flow of traffic" or something like that.



Makes me wonder if the real motivation is impeding the flow of speeding tickets. Hard to see how a judge could uphold one law that forces people to violate another law.


----------



## swift (Jul 2, 2008)

Here is what the California Drivers Handbook has to say about the Basic Speed Law, Maximum Speed Limit and Reduced Speed Limits. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs19thru22.htm and Vehicle Codes http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/lov/lovd11.htm

Everyone should refer to their own state drivers book for information that may differ.
Regardless of what peoples opinions are of whether or not driving faster or slower will save gas, save time or just plain for the pleasure and enjoyment of it ultimately the law has the final say.


----------



## Dave M (Jul 2, 2008)

From your link:





> You may never legally drive faster than the posted speed limit, even if you think it is safe to do so.


 ...and... 





> ...if you block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic by driving too slowly, you may be given a ticket. If you choose to drive slower than other traffic, do not drive in the "No. 1" (fast) lane. (more information on lane choice ) Always move to the right when another driver is close behind you and wishes to drive faster.


Taken together, those two quotes seem clear that, at least in California, if I am driving _at the speed limit_ in the right-hand lane, I'm not going to get a ticket for going too slowly, even if everyone else on the highway wants to go 20mph faster. 

That makes me feel better. I'll bet that other state rules are similar.


----------



## laura1957 (Jul 2, 2008)

Pit said:


> Makes me wonder if the real motivation is impeding the flow of speeding tickets. Hard to see how a judge could uphold one law that forces people to violate another law.



Right - I see a long line of cars being pulled over sometimes.  So in that case - then couldn't they ALL just say "we were going with the flow of traffic" ??  

In the left hand lane (in some places that is only the "passing lane") maybe the impeding the flow of traffic is because noone can use the passing lane with them there??

If I ever get a speeding ticket while speeding - I wouldnt fight it.  But if I got a ticket for going the speed limit I certainly would.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 2, 2008)

Dave M said:


> From your link: ...and... Taken together, those two quotes seem clear that, at least in California, if I am driving _at the speed limit_ in the right-hand lane, I'm not going to get a ticket for going too slowly, even if everyone else on the highway wants to go 20mph faster.
> 
> That makes me feel better. I'll bet that other state rules are similar.



That's right Dave.  If you drive the speed limit in the right lanes or the center lane, you shouldn't have any problems at all.  

It's when people drive at limit or lower in the left lane that it can become a problem.


----------



## stevedmatt (Jul 2, 2008)

I remember years ago seeing speed limit signs that read

Speed
Limit 55
Minimum 40

Do these no longer exist? I haven't seen them in quite some time.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 2, 2008)

With multiple lanes such as a freeway a person wishing to drive slow should stay in the right hand lane. On a two lane hwy that slower vehicle should pull off the road to let other drivers pass. Often times, on a two lane hwy, a driver could be doing the speed limit and cause traffic to build up behind them. Its very considerate to pull over and let these vehicles pass and sometimes dangerous to cop an attitude of "Im doing the speed limit" and impede the flow of traffic.

So, when you let me pass you, I will wave to you as my way of saying 
 " Thanks for paying attention buddy ".

And should you make me follow you below the speed limit for twenty minutes, when I pass you, my wave may not use as many fingers. That means "Your number one, pal".


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jul 2, 2008)

easyrider said:


> And should you make me follow you below the speed limit for twenty minutes, when I pass you, my wave may not use as many fingers. That means "Your number one, pal".



very funny and creative at the same time


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 2, 2008)

Yes, those minimum speed signs are still being installed here in New Jersey.  You just have to go slow enough to read them.:hysterical:


----------



## Icarus (Jul 2, 2008)

Interesting article ...

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/01/electric-car-inventor-drives


----------



## Htoo0 (Jul 3, 2008)

Oklahoma and some other states not only have minimum speed limit signs on some highways but also signs which read, "slower vehicles keep right". Oklahoma even passed a law which states, "Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane when available for traffic..." . So technically it would seem you may be ticketed if you're in the left-lane even driving the speed limit if the normal speed of traffic is being impeded by your refusal to move to the right. They have claimed to recently stepped up enforcement because of emergency vehicles getting caught behind a back-up of traffic. (It's not easy for all the cars in the left lane to quickly move to the right when there are cars already there.)


----------



## swift (Jul 3, 2008)

When I look at the Oklahoma drivers handbook I noticed a couple of things. http://www.dps.state.ok.us/dls/pub/ODM.pdf

a) You have Proper Lane Driving laws which is different than California. It seems that in your state you are required to drive on the right *unless* passing another vehicle. In California we don't have "Proper Lane Driving" although it is stated that slower traffic should drive in the far right hand lane.

b)The Basic Speed Law seems to be more of a guideline rather than a rule which is different than driving in California. The wording for Oaklahoma reads :

THE LAW SAYS
No motor vehicle shall be driven at a speed greater than is careful and prudent
and not greater than or less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard
to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of any other conditions then
existing. No person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater
than will permit him to stop within the assured clear distance ahead.
The Basic Speed Rule does not set an exact speed limit but means that the speed
you may drive is limited by the current conditions. For example, the posted speed
limit is 65 mph, but if you’re driving at night on a two-lane state highway, it’s
raining, or it’s very foggy, 65 mph is too fast for those conditions.


The difference in driving regulations is what makes people crazy when tourist drive in their state. What one has been taught is the correct and safe way does not always apply to the other.

And then there is Florida!! Those people are nuts!!   When we were down there I saw 5 accidents with in a few minutes down in Fort Lauderdale. I won't even go into the scary ride with our driver from the airport to the car rental place, and kids running from the front of the school bus to the back while the bus was in motion!!


----------



## Pit (Jul 3, 2008)

From WA state:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.100



> (4) It is a traffic infraction to drive *continuously* in the left lane of a multilane roadway when it impedes the flow of other traffic.





> Legislative intent -- 1986 c 93: "It is the intent of the legislature, in this 1985 [1986] amendment of RCW 46.61.100, that the left-hand lane on any state highway with two or more lanes in the same direction be used primarily as a passing lane." [1986 c 93 § 1.]



I believe the intent of increased enforcement is to go after drivers that camp out in the left lane, mile after mile, not passing anyone. If so, I'm all for it.

On a two-lane highway, if you're behind me and feel the need to speed, just pass me. I won't be offended. I don't pull over for people in a hurry though, because that would make me late. If you're in that big a hurry, you should have left earlier. Then you would already be ahead of me.


----------



## Steamboat Bill (Jul 3, 2008)

swift said:


> And then there is Florida!! Those people are nuts!!   When we were down there I saw 5 accidents with in a few minutes down in Fort Lauderdale. I won't even go into the scary ride with our driver from the airport to the car rental place, and kids running from the front of the school bus to the back while the bus was in motion!!



I grew up in Fort Lauderdale so perhaps I can use this excuse in court.


----------



## Charlie D. (Jul 3, 2008)

Not interested in hearing about ‘the court’- that thread was shut down days ago.

Generally, if I’m going the maximum speed limit in the right hand lane, someone will just have to get mighty frustrated until they get a chance to pass on the left.

Two scariest exceptions to the above generality were going south into Orlando and coming back east out of Seattle.  In both cases the flow in the right lane was about 10 over and the flow in the left lane about 15 over – bumper-to-bumper.  In fact coming back from Seattle we were pretty close to the semi in front of us but had time to dodge a large piece of retread in the middle of the right lane.  Guy 2-3 car lengths behind us didn’t – was doing donuts in the center median the last time I saw him.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 3, 2008)

Don't you just love I-5 from Everett to Olympia ? Doing a whole mile in 15 minutes on the freeway takes plenty of patience. Then when it opens up it seems like a race for the next mile and then its back to the 15 minute mile.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Jul 3, 2008)

Speaking of Driving....

Does anyone know how many states allow a LEFT TURN on red when you enter an intersection involving TWO ONE WAY Streets?

I know it's allowed in Massachusetts, however 99% of the drivers are not even aware of it.

Would like to hear from some other states out there.


----------



## talkamotta (Jul 4, 2008)

Ok, I confess, Im one of those that drive at least 80 on the freeway, especially long hauls.  

Last year when we drove from SLC to Bryce, we had packs on top of the car.  I normally get 25+ mpg that trip I got 17.  We are driving up to Canada and of course in Canada we will be going alot slower (dont want to miss anything).  We are planning on slowing down, giving us extra time to reach our destination.


----------

