Return to 55? That won't even work inside her east coast metro base. Nobody that drives wants to go 55, suburban soccer moms included.

I can't drive 55.

I was debating whether or not to put a Hagar reference in there...

You may want to rename the piece "Hillary Rodham Nixon," for it was Nixon's era that nationalized the 55 mph. Though, it does seem Carteresque.

But still, in the city it wouldn't have nearly the impact of rural areas.

The vast majority of your time in cities is spent going under that speed anyway. If you get on a free-flowing freeway then it probably won't take you very long to get where you're going. The thing that takes the time is at either end, so if you increase the travel time on the freeway by 15% it might only increase total trip-times in metro areas by around 5%. Not to say that it will be popular, but it won't be as bad as rural areas where practically all the roads would be affected by this.

"and the people will accept it".

So basically, that means she can have this policy and not implement it anywhere. Except maybe in Hollywood where everyone commutes in helicopters.

This woman is delusional.

We have a new stretch of highway near our house, the 202. The speed limit is 65 but we all know that no one ever gets pulled over or ticketed unless they're going faster than 75. I'm on that road nearly every day with my kids and I do my best to keep it at or under 75 mph, but when I do, people are just flying past me. On more than one occasion this week I've checked the speedometer and found I was going 85 mph, and I wasn't passing anyone, just going with the flow.

Sadly, I predict camera-backed enforcement of the 75-mph pseudo-speed limit, as we now have on stretches of the 101.

I don't know anyone who has the self-control to drive only 55 mph on a road like the 202. (Even my husband, who is the most traffic-law-abiding person I know, drives 75 mph highway.) It's just not going to happen.

edgar hit the nail on the head. Hillary gets to look like she's really doing something environmental and gas-saving but all the while knowing it will never be implemented. A consumate Politician.

Does going 55 really help fuel efficiency that much, anyway? Since the original national-speed limit was introduced, many cars have gotten a lot more aerodynamic, so their most efficient speed may be different from the average most efficient speed of the past, I'd think.

Maybe someone who's a little more up on these things can tell me -- am I completely off the mark on that?

For all Nixon's real and imaginary wrong doings I hold him in the most contempt for the 55 mph limit.

We drive the I 95 corridor from central Florida to central Connecticut often and unless the traffic is very heavy as around DC, we're all tooling along at 80 and above.

Robin: most cars get their best mileage at the lowest speed that holds top gear. For a modern car with an automatic transmission that's probably 40-45 mph, so yes, 55 does probably save gas. You're on to something about new cars, though: they're much easier to drive fast because they're more aerodynamic (which makes them quieter at speed), engines are a lot quieter too, and handling is better, even for pickups and minivans. A '65 Mustang is a cool car, but it's a handful to drive at 85 miles an hour: it's loud, and the steering is loose, and you have to pay attention to keep it on the road. Your minivan is probably easier to drive fast for any sort of distance.

And what does Hillary drive? I propose that ANYONE who even lectures anyone else about saving gas and petroleum should disclose what car they drive, and publish their heating/cooling bill.

(I'd wager me driving 55 on long trips would save far, far, far less gas/oil than Hillary would save in heating/cooling costs by purchasing a smaller home.)

You'll be travelling a lot slower than 55 soon enough & shovelling shite to boot! Pedal to the medal boys. Whack that manhood to a frenzy.

"Robin: most cars get their best mileage at the lowest speed that holds top gear."

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. For any given engine, there's a point on the curve where you get maximum RPM's (which, in top gear, ultimately determine how fast the wheels are turning) per unit of fuel. At that point, when you're in top gear, is when you'll get peak efficiency.

The EPA, however, still calculates highway gas mileage based on the 55mph speed limit (which, incidentally, is why the rated highway mileage almost never matches with reality, since most highways in the US are 65-75mph speed limits).

For example, I drive a 2002 Subaru Impreza WRX (manual transmission). It's rated at 27mpg on the highway. At 75 (Alabama has 70mph Interstate speed limits), I usually get about 24-25. At 65, I actually get about 30, which is more than it's rated at.

The car will actually run fine in fifth gear (it's highest) at 45. So obviously, going slower (55, as the EPA does) isn't going to give me better gas mileage. You've got to find the sweet spot, and it's different with every car.

"I'm sorry Officer, but my car won't go that slow."

Joan, you and I travel the same roads. North Mesa, in my case.

In regards to my last comment, I have a good friend who used to drive a 280Z that got better gas mileage the faster it was driven.

The same friend now drives a 2000 Corvette, which he drove at one point from Boston to Seattle. It's rated at 18 city/ 27 highway (Dan usually got about 16 driving in Seattle), but cruising through Montana at 140 (back when they had no speed limits), he got 36mpg. My own guess is that the huge 5.7 liter V8 uses so much gas to begin with that running it at high speeds just means your covering a lot more distance for very little more gas.

All of that's just to illustrate that the most efficient speed is totally and completely dependent on the car.

And with that said, for most cars it's much lower than that - in the 55-65 range. Just pointing out that this isn't always the case.

Speed... limit? Does this have something to do with those funny signs with numbers on them beside the road, and those weird cars with the flashing lights that show up in my mirrors from time to time.. for a few seconds, anyway?

Weird.

This sort of "plan" would actually probably get California to vote against her too.

Back following the 1972 oil embargo, my dad (a big union guy and a Democrat) had a bumper sticker that read, "Be thrifty. Drive 50. So Nixon can fly."

When was the last time Hillary drove anywhere? If she really wants to save oil, maybe she should quit riding on those business jets and take ordinary airliners like the rest of us. A single flight on a Gulfstream V over 1000 miles will typically burn more fuel than a family uses for a year. Meanwhile, I've read that a Boeing 737-800 can carry over 100 people from coast to coast using an average of 35 gallons of jet fuel for each passenger. A Prius should do so good.

Try driving anywhere out West (an alien environment to Hillary outside of Hollywood) at 55 MPH. You'll add hours to a trip and probably increase your chances of falling asleep at the wheel. Sorry, but this is yet another reason to never vote for Hillary.

Hiliary won't be President no matter what speed limit she wants. have you seen her recently? She looks exhausted, and thats just from being a senator. She will not make it through the primaries.

Russell, I think you are underestimating the "normal" cars, my 95 galant is listed as 22/28 by the EPA, but in normal driving I get 29-30, and cruising I-25 at 85 gets me 35-36, past that it starts to fall off. I think any recent car that paid any attention at all to aerodynamics and has decent power (over 120hp or so) will react similarly. As a side note, most trucks and SUV's don't seem to consider aerodynamics all that much, my toyota gets best mileage when crawling around in 4 low.

Russell, the SR-71, supersecret spy plane, got its best fuel mileage at maximum speed. It reached a point where it couldn't put fuel through the engines any faster at speeds somewhat below the maximum, published at Mach 3.29 (2,193 mph, 3530 km ph) at 80,000 feet.

Speed limits are just another form of taxation, which is why Hillary "Cankles" Clinton is all for them. In a way I'd like to see her become president, overnight the press would realize our economy is robust and the war in Iraq would suddenly seem won.

is the difference between the amount of gasoline used to drive 500 miles at 55 versus 500 miles at 75 really more than a negligible quantity? hillary says that the 55 limit "really does lower gas usage". and this "fact" is based on... what?

i will definitely vote against hillary if she runs in 08. our government intrudes on our lives in too many ways already, and we can only expect more intrusion from this socialist politico.

Hell, I drive 60 on rural back-roads, and she wants me to do 55 on the Interstate? On a serious note, I currently live 96 miles from where I work. (Stupid hurricanes...) As it is, I spend three hours commuting every day. Yeah, I want to boost that to be more like four hours. (As if I'd have been voting for her regardless... but hey, that doesn't mean I can't be verbally opposed to this idea!)

Tried 55 today. Got rear-ended by a Mini Cooper.

Also, I figured it might help to leave the AC off, so I was dressed in a thong and flip flops in the car. Was ticketed for driving while under the influence of a mind altering political substance.

I am for the 55 mph limit only IF it is a "hate crime" to fire a weapon at drivers in the far left lane who are abiding by it, as would happen routinely in several jurisdictions.

Harkening back to the 2000 election, the speed limit is just a suggestion.

Or, "Officer, can I go back to where you saw me and drive the distance again?"

Coincidentally, I happen to be in Germany. They are very energy conscious - so much so that they turn off the traffic lights (and revert to backup signs) after midnight in rural areas.

The autobahn has no speed limits at all in most areas. My daughter will be driving along at between 80-90 mph and it is routine to be passed by people doing 10-20 mph more.

The Germans are more tolerant of restrictions than Americans. There are quiet hours when, for example, nobody can mow their lawn. Today happens to be a holiday, so ALL the stores are closed. Bakeries closed at 11:00... That's the way it is.

Nobody here is talking seriously about speed limits. It will not happen. Back home, I'd say fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. No sale.

Larry: The SR-71 also leaked fuel on the runway, because it was built with cracks in the fuselage that would expand and close due to friction heat at high mach speeds, so it had to refuel in flight right after takeoff.

With that said, I can't help but wonder how many miles to the gallon you get at Mach 3+ (BTW, the "official" speeds are almost certainly low. Most industry estimates put it's actual top speed at Mach 3.4 or higher).

Puff: I stand corrected.

I remember the 55mph very well. It took all day to go from Wichita to Denver back then. I can't even imagine driving the interstate thru Kansas or Nebraska at those speeds again. I have not had a speeding ticket since the limit went back up, and I racked up a ton of them before that. It wouldnt surprise me if an attempt to raise them happened though. I see the Click-it or Ticket-it campaign is in full force, and just yesterday the Sheriff dept here in my county in Nebraska was running a random traffic stop to make sure everyone was wearing their seat belt and NO ONE complained. It's all for the children, you know. I can see the new commercials for 55, save lives! starting any day now.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this got passed. What an easy way for the Feds to get out of paying states highway funds.

Hagar is a lib, so he'd probably go with the lib establishment on this one. He's one of those who runs around thinking he's a bad ass whilst brown nosing with the left.

btw, Larry Ott- i laughed out loud!!!

sorry- Terry Ott--- LOL

Don't think Sammy's "a lib." Reagan had him over to the White House IIRC, and according to this, he donated the max to Bush in the last election.

"The EPA, however, still calculates highway gas mileage based on the 55mph speed limit"

Actually the highway rated mileage isn't really highway. It's more extra-urban case with 40-55 mph sections and some stop and go. For that matter they aren't running the car on pump gas anyway (they're using a lab grade fuel) so it only has a passing resemblance to reality.

Joe Schropshire is essentially correct, top gear and drive 40-55 for best fuel economy. If you go faster than that, you may get some initial benefit from added engine efficiency until you hit max efficiency at the torque peak. But air resistance increases with the square of velocity, so it will swamp inceases in engine efficiency very quickly.

Is she nuts? This isn't a left vs right issue... this is an everybody issue. The only thing worse than saying such a thing would actually be doing such a thing.

Then, every time you are driving and frustrated by the limit, you'd be able to curse her for the issue. That's a dumb move for a politician to get involved in.

Is this true?

Will, I don't mean to be a complete a-hole (well maybe I do), but if you photoshopped this, next time send me the source and let me do it for you. If somebody sent it to you, send it back and make them do it again.

doug

Hey brad ,it was Carter not Nixon who nationalized the 55mph.I know,Iknow you couldn,t find a way to blame Bush,So It had to be tricky Dick.

Hell, I'd vote for Hillary if she'd guarantee me I COULD drive 55 on the commute on the 405.

On the SR-71-- yes, it leaked fuel on the ground, but at a fairly slow rate. That wasn't the reason they were refueled in the air, but rather it was considered "safer" for them to take off with a light fuel load, then tank up when airborne.

As to fuel consumption, I believe it's in the neighborhood of 7,800 gph at full whack (Mach 3, ramjet mode). So, with a (very) rough approximation of ground speed at Mach 3 being some 2,280 miles per hour, you'd be getting around 3.42 gallons per mile. For the thrust output the J58's offer, that's outstanding economy.

With 80,000 pounds of fuel on board (roughly 12,240 gallons, using the density rating of Jet B / JP4, which is entirely wrong for JP7, but at least in the ballpark), you'd be able to haul the mail for around an hour and a half and cover 3,200 miles or so, at a bargain cost of $26,316.

Not exactly Prius mileage, but it'll certainly get you laid more.

Hillary is relying on voter amnesia -- must be cribbing her husband's notes.

The 55 mph limit was mandated by the feds, of course, years ago to "save gas" (willfully ignoring that oil is a commodity) the last time this issue was a political football. When they actually found the "savings" were negligable or a bad trade-off, they switched the campaign to ... safety! Yes, remember the "55 saves lives" bumper stickers? Our honorable elected reps even withheld federal funds from states that wouldn't cow-tow -- often in conjunction with upping their drinking age to 21.

When enough evidence surfaced showing that driving 55 didn't "save" gas *or* lives -- and the political coast was clear -- they punted ... and we all got to drive like Sammy Hagar.

Hillary (and Sammy for that matter) is old enough to know this tale. Just more worthless political point-scoring and potential waste of taxpayer dollars.

Hagar always carries the water for the lib establishment on Alice Cooper's radio show. He gets into downright shouting matches with The Motor City Madman Ted Nugent.
Didn't realize that he contributed to Bush, that much... doesn't make much sense...

And it has come to my attention that Dana Roerbacher, whom hagar donated wads of cash to, co-authored the "shamnesty bill". The one that provided in-state tuition, etc etc for illegals. So, he donated to a RINO.

I guess that syncronizing traffic signals to enhance traffic flows, rather than stiffle them (to induce red light running: ie, traffic fines) never srossed their wretched little minds.

Since about 3/4ths of road miles are city traffic, it'd make much more sense to push gas mileage towards the "HIGHWAY" side of the EPA window sticker. But of course, that would take away $$$BILLIONS in revenue via traffic fines. It might save a few thousand lives too. Can't have that, though, the money is too important.

Let's start instead by allowing only vehicles that do 40+ mpg into Congressional parking.

Lead by example.

Two of Nixons biggest blunders.... the 55 MPH speed limit and Wage and price controls.

Of course there was that Watergate thing.

All I have to say is 'God Bless Texas, and our 80mph speed limit!'