[Snow-i]

What if...

As I was cruising down the highway coming back from visiting some friends at a different school I was nearly run off the road by a large SUV driver who lost control momentarily weaving in and out of traffic. I then had this thought.

Fuel efficient cars are generally smaller and therefore generally handle better and are easier to control at higher speeds.

Why not give drivers of cars of a certain MPG or better an incentive on the road such as a higher speed limit? Perhaps just on highways, like the HOV lane, better fuel efficiency would be rewarded with something that everyone would like. Smaller cars are typically easier to stop, easier to handle, and do not flip as much as less fuel efficient cars.



Note: I myself would be excluded from this group at this moment, as I own and operate a mid-sized SUV.

[Buckaroo]

Out here in California, they allow the Prisus (or however you spell it) drive in the carpool lane even if you're driving by yourself.

[Brien]

All hybrids get the carpool lane. Oh yeah.

[OldManMac]

It's an interesting idead, but there are a few variables that would preclude it from working. One is the assumption that, because your car has a higher MPG rating, it is easier to handle. That's vague, and not necessarily true, as it depends on the car design, suspension design, how well the owner maintains it as it ages, and any number of other variables, which would be too numerous to control. A great example of that is something as simple as maintaining tire pressure; not only does maintaining tire pressure affect gas mileage, but it also affects the way cars handle. I've got considerably over a million miles behind the wheel of a car, and a semi for a brief period, and on any given day, it's easy to spot cars with a tire that is obviously low on pressure, as most Americans don't check their tires regularly. This has a direct correlation with how the car handles, especially when it comes to making evasive maneuvers. A smaller car, at higher speeds, with one or more soft tires basically becomes a potential bowling ball at high speed, as a driver reacts to a sudden change in traffic around him, and the next thing he knows, he's doing rollovers, either in traffic or in the median.

Another reason it won't work is perhaps the most important of all; the driver. The vast majority of drivers think that driving a car is getting in it, starting the engine, and pointing it in the direction they want to go. Not too many years before I was born, turn signals were optional on cars; too many drivers today must think they still are, as they don't use them. Not that many years ago, the right side mirror was an option, and I'm not sure that it mattered putting it on as standard on most cars today, as it's quite obvious that most drivers only think they're on the car to be used at the last second before making a lane change, instead of being checked on a regular basis so one knows what's going on around him at all times. People running red lights is becoming a common thing today (some locales even have cameras that snap a picture and send you a ticket), as more and more people seem to be in such a hurry to kill themselves. Most drivers don't have a clue as to what safe driving is, and that's why tens of thousands are killed on the roads annually, and allowing people to drive faster yet, just because they have a high mpg car isn't going to change that.

Another reason it won't work is because the faster you go, the less fuel efficient your vehicle is, because your engine has to work harder to keep the momentum up. If I drive to Ohio to see my brother (I live in Michigan), and I drive at a cruise regulated 75 mph, my car gets 27 mpg. If I drive at a steady 65 mph, my mileage increases to the low 30 mpg range, which is an increase of around 15%. What's the point of allowing someone to drive a fuel efficient car faster, only to see their mpg decline?

Another reason it won't work is that we would need effective monitoring, which we already don't have. People don't want to pay taxes, so, as an example, here in Michigan, we're going to start laying off state troopers, and many cities are laying off police officers, as they face budget crises. The system you're proposing would self policing, which quite obviously doesn't currently work. I set my cruise at 70 on the freeway, and I get passed regularly, because people are driving 10 mph, or more, over the limit, because they don't care, and they apparently don't mind sending their dollars to the Middle East, but that's another discussion, isn't it?

There's a reason for the current speed limits, and they exist because safety engineers have done some studies and concluded that, for the "average" driver, the posted speeds are reasonably safe to drive at. Allowing a more fuel efficient car to go faster goes against all the logic of highway safety and fuel efficiency.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Fuel efficient cars are generally smaller and therefore generally handle better and are easier to control at higher speeds.

This statement is flawed. Unless, of course, Ferraris have really good fuel economy over there in the US.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This statement is flawed. Unless, of course, Ferraris have really good fuel economy over there in the US.

He said fuel efficient cars are generally smaller, and because of the lower weight, can often handle better than huge vehicles.

He did not say that cars that can handle better are more efficient.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

He said fuel efficient cars are generally smaller, and because of the lower weight, can often handle better than huge vehicles.

He did not say that cars that can handle better are more efficient.

His point (relating to the OP "incentive") was "fuel efficient cars are easier to control at high speeds". That's just not the case.

Now, if you want a real incentive... ...anyone who spends less than $50 a week on gas gets to beat an environazi up without fear of prosecution. If that ever happens, see you down at the Prius dealership.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

His point (relating to the OP "incentive") was "fuel efficient cars are easier to control at high speeds". That's just not the case.

Now, if you want a real incentive... ...anyone who spends less than $50 a week on gas gets to beat an environazi up without fear of prosecution. If that ever happens, see you down at the Prius dealership.

If I had to swerve down the interstate I'd much rather be in my car than a Navigator.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

If I had to swerve down the interstate I'd much rather be in my car than a Navigator.

And if I had to swerve down the interstate I'd much rather be in a Lamborghini than in your car.

Weight and fuel economy doesn't equal handling safety.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And if I had to swerve down the interstate I'd much rather be in a Lamborghini than in your car.

Weight and fuel economy doesn't equal handling safety.

In general, it does.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

In general, it does.

Nope.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

This statement is flawed. Unless, of course, Ferraris have really good fuel economy over there in the US.

RIght, because ferraris represent the the norms of the population.

Of course there would need to be more qualifyers then just fuel economy. Suspension and safety tests too. But If a certain model of car meets those requirements (MPG, handling, safety) then why not allow them?

There are also effective ways of policing this.

Maybe even just make the speed limits higher in HOV lanes, and allow certain cars to be in those lanes like they do in california. I'm sure I've seen that in some areas.

[tie]

I think California has stopped its hybrid/HOV program. It's Schwarznegger's fault.*

*Gotta blame a Republican somewhere in every post.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think California has stopped its hybrid/HOV program. It's Schwarznegger's fault.*

*Gotta blame a Republican somewhere in every post.

Keep looking then. Schwarzenegger is about as RINO as it gets.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Keep looking then. Schwarzenegger is about as RINO as it gets.

You'll notice his post started with; "I think". This is usually the issue with tie. What "he thinks" and 'what is' are generally two different things, but the facts have never stopped him before.

After all, he's proven not as much concerned with any thread topic or cause as he is "blaming a Republican in every post."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I took his post as a joke.

But even so, if someone's even gonna joke about blaming a Republican, they should actually FIND one to joke about! Schwarzenegger sure isn't one.

[peeb]

Oh, oh oh. Turn signals. As a Brit, living in the US, I wish that Americans would use their turn signals. It is infuriating.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You'll notice his post started with; "I think". This is usually the issue with tie. What "he thinks" and 'what is' are generally two different things, but the facts have never stopped him before.

After all, he's proven not as much concerned with any thread topic or cause as he is "blaming a Republican in every post."

Excuse me, but my post was on topic and a joke. Your post was off topic as were both of Crash's posts. Here's the Wikipedia article on CFCs, if you need some reading.

Anyway, my post was correct. California limited the number of hybrid HOV stickers it gave out, and it recently hit those limits. Is it Schwarznegger's fault? Probably not, but that was a joke.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Excuse me, but my post was on topic and a joke.

It wouldn't be the first time I've taken your posts seriously in error. Was this recent on topic joke more funny or less funny than the off topic Global Warming joke in the Iraq thread? I think you're a lot funnier when you're trying to be serious.

Here's the Wikipedia article on CFCs, if you need some reading.

I'll read it when you do. Fair enough?

[tie]

ebuddy, you come into a random thread in which I posted on topic only to accuse me of posting off-topic posts. I don't get it. My point in the Iraq thread is that you had some fundamental facts wrong about global warming. I've read the CFC article; why don't you now catch up?

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It's an interesting idead, but there are a few variables that would preclude it from working. One is the assumption that, because your car has a higher MPG rating, it is easier to handle. That's vague, and not necessarily true, as it depends on the car design, suspension design, how well the owner maintains it as it ages, and any number of other variables, which would be too numerous to control. A great example of that is something as simple as maintaining tire pressure; not only does maintaining tire pressure affect gas mileage, but it also affects the way cars handle. I've got considerably over a million miles behind the wheel of a car, and a semi for a brief period, and on any given day, it's easy to spot cars with a tire that is obviously low on pressure, as most Americans don't check their tires regularly. This has a direct correlation with how the car handles, especially when it comes to making evasive maneuvers. A smaller car, at higher speeds, with one or more soft tires basically becomes a potential bowling ball at high speed, as a driver reacts to a sudden change in traffic around him, and the next thing he knows, he's doing rollovers, either in traffic or in the median.

Another reason it won't work is perhaps the most important of all; the driver. The vast majority of drivers think that driving a car is getting in it, starting the engine, and pointing it in the direction they want to go. Not too many years before I was born, turn signals were optional on cars; too many drivers today must think they still are, as they don't use them. Not that many years ago, the right side mirror was an option, and I'm not sure that it mattered putting it on as standard on most cars today, as it's quite obvious that most drivers only think they're on the car to be used at the last second before making a lane change, instead of being checked on a regular basis so one knows what's going on around him at all times. People running red lights is becoming a common thing today (some locales even have cameras that snap a picture and send you a ticket), as more and more people seem to be in such a hurry to kill themselves. Most drivers don't have a clue as to what safe driving is, and that's why tens of thousands are killed on the roads annually, and allowing people to drive faster yet, just because they have a high mpg car isn't going to change that.

Another reason it won't work is because the faster you go, the less fuel efficient your vehicle is, because your engine has to work harder to keep the momentum up. If I drive to Ohio to see my brother (I live in Michigan), and I drive at a cruise regulated 75 mph, my car gets 27 mpg. If I drive at a steady 65 mph, my mileage increases to the low 30 mpg range, which is an increase of around 15%. What's the point of allowing someone to drive a fuel efficient car faster, only to see their mpg decline?

Another reason it won't work is that we would need effective monitoring, which we already don't have. People don't want to pay taxes, so, as an example, here in Michigan, we're going to start laying off state troopers, and many cities are laying off police officers, as they face budget crises. The system you're proposing would self policing, which quite obviously doesn't currently work. I set my cruise at 70 on the freeway, and I get passed regularly, because people are driving 10 mph, or more, over the limit, because they don't care, and they apparently don't mind sending their dollars to the Middle East, but that's another discussion, isn't it?

There's a reason for the current speed limits, and they exist because safety engineers have done some studies and concluded that, for the "average" driver, the posted speeds are reasonably safe to drive at. Allowing a more fuel efficient car to go faster goes against all the logic of highway safety and fuel efficiency.

While I agree that handling depends on the vehicle, it should go without saying that any modern compact , regardless of brand, will be generally more nimble and easier to handle than any modern SUV.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, you come into a random thread in which I posted on topic only to accuse me of posting off-topic posts. I don't get it. My point in the Iraq thread is that you had some fundamental facts wrong about global warming. I've read the CFC article; why don't you now catch up?

A) I didn't accuse you of posting off topic, you brought "on/off topic" up in the first place. Re-read this thread.

B) You weren't correcting me on CFC's because I didn't bring up Global Warming in the Iraq thread, you did. Re-read that thread.

C) With the apparent issue you're having with reading comp, re-read the article on CFC's.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by greenamp 

While I agree that handling depends on the vehicle, it should go without saying that any modern compact , regardless of brand, will be generally more nimble and easier to handle than any modern SUV.

I didn't say anything about SUVs. I pointed out why the OP's idea of of letting more fuel efficient cars go faster wouldn't work, which is true, but which he didn't seem to get. The faster you drive, the more fuel you use per gallon. That hasn't changed since I've been driving, which is going on 44 years, and, unless they figure out how to move a relatively large object at higher speeds, while reducing the inertia needed to keep it going at higher speeds, that isn't going to change as long as I'm on this planet. Cars have a certain point at which they achieve optimum fuel efficiency, and once you pass that point, your mileage decreases, often significantly. Some of the newer cars, with six speed (and more) transmissions will allow you to go faster before you get to that point, but then the issue of driver capability arises, which is already a problem at 70mph, let alone 90, and the issue of keeping the car maintained so it's safe at that speed also arises, as well as dealing with driving in an environment where all vehicles are not equally safe, nor are all drivers equally competent, especially in emergency situations.

As to your assertion that any modern compact will handle better than any modern SUV, that's too general a statement. In the context in which the OP was talking about, driving at high speeds on a freeway, you may have a point, if all things were equal. Unfortunately, all things are not equal.

As I've pointed out, and which most people know, the average driver thinks that getting into a car and pointing in the general direction they want to is good enough (and if you ask anybody, they'll tell you they're a good driver to boot), and as a result, tens of thousands are killed on our roadways annually, along with many more tens of thousands injured, often seriously. I don't want some bozo thinking that, just because he has a fuel efficient car, he can point it in my direction at 90 mph, while doing any number of things other than paying attention to what's going on around him.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

The faster you drive, the more fuel you use per gallon. That hasn't changed since I've been driving, which is going on 44 years, and, unless they figure out how to move a relatively large object at higher speeds, while reducing the inertia needed to keep it going at higher speeds, that isn't going to change as long as I'm on this planet.

Minor point(s), it's not inertia causing this, it's friction. Inertia hurts during acceleration and deceleration, but at high (constant) speeds it can only help.

Also of course you meant more fuel per mile, not per gallon

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I didn't say anything about SUVs. I pointed out why the OP's idea of of letting more fuel efficient cars go faster wouldn't work, which is true, but which he didn't seem to get. The faster you drive, the more fuel you use per gallon. That hasn't changed since I've been driving, which is going on 44 years, and, unless they figure out how to move a relatively large object at higher speeds, while reducing the inertia needed to keep it going at higher speeds, that isn't going to change as long as I'm on this planet. Cars have a certain point at which they achieve optimum fuel efficiency, and once you pass that point, your mileage decreases, often significantly. Some of the newer cars, with six speed (and more) transmissions will allow you to go faster before you get to that point, but then the issue of driver capability arises, which is already a problem at 70mph, let alone 90, and the issue of keeping the car maintained so it's safe at that speed also arises, as well as dealing with driving in an environment where all vehicles are not equally safe, nor are all drivers equally competent, especially in emergency situations.

As to your assertion that any modern compact will handle better than any modern SUV, that's too general a statement. In the context in which the OP was talking about, driving at high speeds on a freeway, you may have a point, if all things were equal. Unfortunately, all things are not equal.

As I've pointed out, and which most people know, the average driver thinks that getting into a car and pointing in the general direction they want to is good enough (and if you ask anybody, they'll tell you they're a good driver to boot), and as a result, tens of thousands are killed on our roadways annually, along with many more tens of thousands injured, often seriously. I don't want some bozo thinking that, just because he has a fuel efficient car, he can point it in my direction at 90 mph, while doing any number of things other than paying attention to what's going on around him.

So lets say a car's optimum speed is 65 mph, and on a given highway the limit is 55mph with an HOV lane. Your saying that my idea wouldn't work?

And when the crap did I say anything about 90 mph? My idea would entail a 5 to 10 mph speed limit increase on a given road.

Many places already have higher speed limits for their HOV lanes.

already. In an attempt to get people to carpool and therfore reduce traffic. So why then can't we use that same premise for fuel efficiency to promote a healthy environment?



I'm trying to take a step in the right direction. I'm trying to compromise to everyone saying that global warming would kill us all. You should check my stances in my other threads to see how I really feel about the whole thing...and as soon as I put forth a step in the right direction like you've been nagging us all to do for the last 50 GW threads, you respond with a condescending tone and reference me as unintelligent.

It makes it that much harder to believe you aren't supporting the global warming movement for your own philosophical agenda to be fulfilled.

[OldManMac]

[QUOTE]So lets say a car's optimum speed is 65 mph, and on a given highway the limit is 55mph with an HOV lane. Your saying that my idea wouldn't work?[/QOUTE]

The problem with that idea is that it's too broad. A car's optimum speed is determined by the point at which the engine works within a very narrow rpm range, so that it's either not working too hard to maintain a speed, or lugging too hard to maintain too low of a speed for the gear it's in. Most cars on the road today have either a three-speed auto (usually older cars) or a four-speed auto, with fourth being a slight overdrive. As an example, my Pontiac POS has a 3.1L V6, with a four-speed OD automatic. At 55mph, the engine is turning at approximately 1300 rpms, and the car will easily get 32+ mpg (I've seen 33mpg on long freeway drives); at 70mph, the engine is turning just over 2100rpm, which means the engine is turning roughly 50% faster, and my mileage drops to 29mpg, which is a decrease of a little over 10%. If I drive it at 80mph, my mileage drops again another 15+ percent. That isn't a lot, on an individual basis, but it's enormous when you consider the amount of vehicles on the road. The purpose of driving an economical car is to get more economy out of it, and, I would hope, help decrease our dependence of foreign oil, which is one of the reasons we're in this mess overseas right now. If your car's optimum speed is 65 mph, then of course driving at that speed is appropriate.

And when the crap did I say anything about 90 mph? My idea would entail a 5 to 10 mph speed limit increase on a given road.

According to this, most speed limits max out at 70mph, with eight states going to 75. Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let's suppose we increase the speed 10mph. That takes the max out to 80/85. Seeing as how very few people actually follow speed laws on freeways, it is entirely conceivable that people will realistically be driving 90mph, or more. That brings up a number of issues; safety, fuel economy, and wear on the vehicle. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (or any oil for that matter), this certainly isn't go to help. If we're buying an economy car, and then we drive it faster, what's the point? If we don't have an economy car, which most don't, then we're making the problem even worse. Another issue with this is that HOV are typically supposed to be for vehicles carrying more than one person, so now, not only have you upped the speed limit to decrease your fuel economy, you've also upped the weight the car must carry, which also has a negative effect on fuel usage.

Many places already have higher speed limits for their HOV lanes.

already. In an attempt to get people to carpool and therfore reduce traffic. So why then can't we use that same premise for fuel efficiency to promote a healthy environment?

That's a great idea, but in reality, only 7% of traffic in the U. S. qualifies for HOV lane usage, according to the Wiki article linked to above. So the real effect is minimal. The real issue, IMO, is that we're a highly mobile society, and we want to get in our car and go wherever we feel like, whenever we feel like, and we've never understood, or even cared, that there are consequences for that mobility. We simply can't go on forever drinking at the trough of global oil, especially without realizing that we're going to have to pay more and more to do so. Last summer, when gas was $3/gallon or more, people started panicking and buying small cars and dumping their SUVs. Then gas came back down. Now it's jumping back up again (at the same station where I paid $1.89 in January, I paid $2.69 yesterday), so there's no doubt going to be another panic this summer. Eventually, however, the gas isn't going to go back down in the winter, and then we'll see $4 or $5/gallon gas in the summer. To the 10% of people who make over $100K/annually, that's not going to be much of a problem; it's more like a mosquito bite, annoying but you live with it. To the other 90% (especially to those who make under $50K, with kids and mortgages, etc., it's going to be more like a snake bite, that needs to be addressed, and something will have to be given up. That's where the problem of our dependence on oil really shows up, and it might not happen this year, or next year, but it's going to happen, and we won't be ready for it, so things are going to get ugly.

I'm trying to take a step in the right direction. I'm trying to compromise to everyone saying that global warming would kill us all. You should check my stances in my other threads to see how I really feel about the whole thing...and as soon as I put forth a step in the right direction like you've been nagging us all to do for the last 50 GW threads, you respond with a condescending tone and reference me as unintelligent.

It makes it that much harder to believe you aren't supporting the global warming movement for your own philosophical agenda to be fulfilled.

I'm sorry if you think that i was condescending, and that I was referencing you as unintelligent. That wasn't my intent. What I was saying, and I stand behind this, is that there are a number of other things that we can do, right now, to help ourselves out and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, like making sure our tires are properly inflated (5% increase in mileage), making sure our engines are tuned (5%), increasing our mpg by 8 as an average (which would almost eliminate our dependence on ME oil), and driving at the speed limit. Unfortunately, we seem not to have hit the spot yet where we get hit by the economic consequences of our actions. Most of us don't even care when our children are being killed in some foreign country, so we can drive our Dodge RamMonster, or our Chevrolet SubHuman, or our Ford Explosion, just to pick up a gallon of milk at the local 7/11. Just because "we can" doesn't mean we should.

What I was also referencing, when I made my statement about bozos behind the wheel, was the simple fact that the vast majority of Americans (and for that matter in every country I've been in), are horrible drivers; I wasn't singling you out personally, yet most of them no doubt think they're good drivers. I'm certainly not perfect, but, in 44 years of driving, I've had two tickets (one for speeding 42 years ago, and one for forgetting to renew my license, 25 years ago), and the last accident I was involved in, with my car, was also 42 years ago. I spent six weeks learning to drive a semi a couple of years ago, at 6 days/week, 10 hours/day, and I had a thankfully short career as a an over the road semi driver, delivering in 23 states. and I was not the best semi driver, as I did have a couple of very minor accidents, not involving other vehicles, and, happily, my semi driving career came to an end. I wasn't focused enough, as I hated the over the road life, where you're on the road two weeks and then home for two days, repeatedly. Had I had a dedicated route where I could have been home more often, I'm sure I would have put more effort into remaining focused. Having said that, I'm one of those weird people who actually use their mirrors regularly, and use their turn signals every time I change lanes or turn, and drive the speed limit (even though I occasionally get the finger, which I ignore), and generally know what's going on around me, and that's probably why I haven't had an accident in 42 years. That's also probably why I do have a slight disdain for a lot of bozos behind the wheel, who think they're a race car driver, in a family sedan, blissfully unaware of what they're doing.

[Snow-i]

The problem with that idea is that it's too broad. A car's optimum speed is determined by the point at which the engine works within a very narrow rpm range, so that it's either not working too hard to maintain a speed, or lugging too hard to maintain too low of a speed for the gear it's in. Most cars on the road today have either a three-speed auto (usually older cars) or a four-speed auto, with fourth being a slight overdrive. As an example, my Pontiac POS has a 3.1L V6, with a four-speed OD automatic. At 55mph, the engine is turning at approximately 1300 rpms, and the car will easily get 32+ mpg (I've seen 33mpg on long freeway drives); at 70mph, the engine is turning just over 2100rpm, which means the engine is turning roughly 50% faster, and my mileage drops to 29mpg, which is a decrease of a little over 10%. If I drive it at 80mph, my mileage drops again another 15+ percent. That isn't a lot, on an individual basis, but it's enormous when you consider the amount of vehicles on the road. The purpose of driving an economical car is to get more economy out of it, and, I would hope, help decrease our dependence of foreign oil, which is one of the reasons we're in this mess overseas right now. If your car's optimum speed is 65 mph, then of course driving at that speed is appropriate.

I think this is where your logic is flawed. Would you not agree that it would be much better to have more cars at 29 mpg then less at 32 (whereas the alternative is 15-22 mpg)? The idea is to encourage the purchase of fuel friendly cars. I think alot of people that have long commutes would like this idea.

According to this, most speed limits max out at 70mph, with eight states going to 75. Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let's suppose we increase the speed 10mph. That takes the max out to 80/85. Seeing as how very few people actually follow speed laws on freeways, it is entirely conceivable that people will realistically be driving 90mph, or more. That brings up a number of issues; safety, fuel economy, and wear on the vehicle. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (or any oil for that matter), this certainly isn't go to help. If we're buying an economy car, and then we drive it faster, what's the point? If we don't have an economy car, which most don't, then we're making the problem even worse. Another issue with this is that HOV are typically supposed to be for vehicles carrying more than one person, so now, not only have you upped the speed limit to decrease your fuel economy, you've also upped the weight the car must carry, which also has a negative effect on fuel usage.

70 mph limits are reserved for long Interstates like I-95, which don't use HOV lanes anyways.

And also, the idea behind HOV is that instead of 2 people in two cars, you get 2 people in one car... I'm proposing we allow fuel friendly cars into that lane with one passenger, and give more incentive to be allowed in that lane.

That's a great idea, but in reality, only 7% of traffic in the U. S. qualifies for HOV lane usage, according to the Wiki article linked to above. So the real effect is minimal. The real issue, IMO, is that we're a highly mobile society, and we want to get in our car and go wherever we feel like, whenever we feel like, and we've never understood, or even cared, that there are consequences for that mobility. We simply can't go on forever drinking at the trough of global oil, especially without realizing that we're going to have to pay more and more to do so. Last summer, when gas was $3/gallon or more, people started panicking and buying small cars and dumping their SUVs. Then gas came back down. Now it's jumping back up again (at the same station where I paid $1.89 in January, I paid $2.69 yesterday), so there's no doubt going to be another panic this summer. Eventually, however, the gas isn't going to go back down in the winter, and then we'll see $4 or $5/gallon gas in the summer. To the 10% of people who make over $100K/annually, that's not going to be much of a problem; it's more like a mosquito bite, annoying but you live with it. To the other 90% (especially to those who make under $50K, with kids and mortgages, etc., it's going to be more like a snake bite, that needs to be addressed, and something will have to be given up. That's where the problem of our dependence on oil really shows up, and it might not happen this year, or next year, but it's going to happen, and we won't be ready for it, so things are going to get ugly.

Its irrelevant how many qualify for HOV usage now. The idea is to allow more people to use it and encourage it with an incentive that everyday humans would take.

I'm sorry if you think that i was condescending, and that I was referencing you as unintelligent. That wasn't my intent. What I was saying, and I stand behind this, is that there are a number of other things that we can do, right now, to help ourselves out and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, like making sure our tires are properly inflated (5% increase in mileage), making sure our engines are tuned (5%), increasing our mpg by 8 as an average (which would almost eliminate our dependence on ME oil), and driving at the speed limit. Unfortunately, we seem not to have hit the spot yet where we get hit by the economic consequences of our actions. Most of us don't even care when our children are being killed in some foreign country, so we can drive our Dodge RamMonster, or our Chevrolet SubHuman, or our Ford Explosion, just to pick up a gallon of milk at the local 7/11. Just because "we can" doesn't mean we should.

But don't you see? You can't change everyone's philosophy. Its a free country and these people are going to continue to buy whatever car they think suits their needs. You can't control that. You can however encourage people to buy cars that help work towards a goal by using incentives that they might actually care about.

[Uncle Skeleton]

How about this for an emissions incentive: raise the cost of gas

Sorry, I'm just upset that it's the 21st century and we don't have personal jet packs that run on Mr. Fusion. I have a whole pile of banana peels and empty beer cans I've been saving for the day it's released, so, like, I've done my part.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think this is where your logic is flawed. Would you not agree that it would be much better to have more cars at 29 mpg then less at 32 (whereas the alternative is 15-22 mpg)? The idea is to encourage the purchase of fuel friendly cars. I think alot of people that have long commutes would like this idea.




70 mph limits are reserved for long Interstates like I-95, which don't use HOV lanes anyways.

And also, the idea behind HOV is that instead of 2 people in two cars, you get 2 people in one car... I'm proposing we allow fuel friendly cars into that lane with one passenger, and give more incentive to be allowed in that lane.



Its irrelevant how many qualify for HOV usage now. The idea is to allow more people to use it and encourage it with an incentive that everyday humans would take.



But don't you see? You can't change everyone's philosophy. Its a free country and these people are going to continue to buy whatever car they think suits their needs. You can't control that. You can however encourage people to buy cars that help work towards a goal by using incentives that they might actually care about.

I guess I didn't make clear that I think your ideas do, in theory, have some merit, but people already have plenty of incentives to buy fuel efficient cars, and they don't. There are plenty of fuel efficient cars on the road, but people who could easily buy them don't, because they feel that they can afford to spend extra for more gas, because they want a larger car, or a truck, or whatever. They just don't care, until the economics hits them in the wallet. Simply offering someone the ability to drive in an HOV lane and go faster in that lane because they have a fuel efficient car isn't enough of an incentive to make enough of a difference. You're making the assumption that your idea is going to appeal to their social conscience, and if they had one in the first place, they'd already be driving an economical car, and wouldn't be speeding. The government gives incentives to people who buy hybrids and their sales are growing, but the sales of luxury cars are also growing, because some people just don't care and they'd rather drive a bigger car, because those hybrid incentives aren't enough to get them into a hybrid. I'm reasonably sure that most people who buy an economical car do so because that's what they can afford, although I'm also sure there are a few who buy them because they have a social concscience, and some buy them because they're frugal, even though they have money, but those numbers are small compared to those who "need" to buy a frugal car.

70mph interstates are quite common in many cities. I've seen them in most states I've driven in. As far as getting two people in one car, as opposed to one car driving in an HOV lane, that's not going to happen either. There's one thing that Americans are addicted to and that's driving themselves to work, alone, and there's lots of reasons for that as well. If two people carpool (I did that for three years, when I had a 65 mile commute to work), and one of them needs to leave early, or needs to stop at a store, or whatever, it becomes a problem. The percentage of people who carpool is also quite small, because we want the individual ability to go where we want to go, when we want to go there.

There's nothing wrong with offering the incentives you wish to; the problem is quite simply that they're obviously not enough to make a dent in the problem. Many large cities, including congested ones, have mass transit systems, yet their roads are still very congested. There have been several studies in the last few years, which show that people think that widening existing freeways and extending existing ones will alleviate congestion, and in fact nothing like that happens. Name any large metropolitan area in America, and in the last twenty or so years, they've added untold miles of freeways, hoping to alleviate congestion, and it hasn't helped. As a matter of fact, more Americans spend more time in their cars than ever today, and they complain about it, but they do it anyway. There's been talk of putting commuter trains between Brighton, MI, and Ann Arbor, MI, because US-23 along that stretch is always creep and crawl during morning and evening commutes, but they can't get the project going, because the number of people who would use the trains aren't enough to make them profitable. That's a great incentive, but it isn't enough. The metro Detroit area has a bus system, and the buses are always near empty, and they're used primarily by poorer Detroit residents, who can't afford cars, to get to their jobs in the suburbs.

In sum, there's inherently nothing wrong with what you're proposing. Unfortunately, you're not the first to propose anything like this. There are studies done regularly and traffic engineers are constantly trying to figure out how to cut down on congestion and they haven't been succesful yet. A way I often put it is this; it really is a matter of supply and demand, in that the supply of fuel is plentiful enough to those who are willing to pay for it, and the demand to lift their foot off the pedal isn't.