The Brilliant Hillary Clinton Pushes for a 55MPH Speed Limit in the US

[Carl.]

How much is garnered in fuel duty/tax? How much is spent on maintaining/upgrading the roads?

I can tell you that just about £1.2 billion was spent on the UK's road network last year. We pay 70p tax per litre, so the money spent on the road equates to the tax from 369 million gallons of petrol sold.

Now the average car in the UK returns about 38mpg, and travels 10,000 miles a year - so it uses 263 gallons of petrol a year. There's 30 million cars in the UK, so that's 7.9 BILLION gallons of petrol used per year.

Less than 5% of revenue garnered from tax on petrol went towards the road network.

Investigate it for your country. I doubt it'll be as bad as that, but it won't be anywhere near even a quarter.

From wikipedia:

The tax on fuel in Canada can vary greatly between provinces. On average, 40 to 50% of the total price of gas at the pump is tax. The federal government receives its share through the excise tax (10 ¢/L) and the Goods and Services Tax (7% of the whole price, taxes included - it is a tax on a tax). Most of the variation comes from the provincial tax. The lowest being the Yukon with 6.2 cents per litre and the highest being Newfoundland and Labrador with 16.5 cents per litre. In addition to this there is sometime provincial sales tax, such as in Quebec (a tax on a tax on a tax), and in larger urban centers there is a transit tax. Taxes collected by the federal government (totaling $10,000,000,000 a year) do not get reserved for any specific program. However, provincial taxes usually go to fund road repair and construction.

Now on the subjec of expenditures on our roads, a quick search revealed this:



Granted, that include railways and air traffic, but as you can see, it's quite marginal. Bear in mind that these numbers are from almost 10 years ago... I think it's pretty safe to say that while the money isn't reserved to be spent on our road system, it does barely cover for it, if at all.

We pay more for our gas than in the US, and most likely spend much less than they do on our roads (there isn't much going on up North), so I'd say that the same applies for them. In the end, I wouldn't mind the recent surge in gas prices at all if it was spent to improve on the quality of our roads, which are for the most part in horrible conditions. A few hours ago I had to stop once again to closely inspect two wheels, as was expecting a bent rim after going through an humongous pothole.

 

[Omnis]

The Clintons are the worst, man. I hate Hilary. What a commy bastard.

 

[vladimir]

what an enlightening post, thanks for that extraordinary contribution to this discussion.👍

 

[McLaren]

I'll just add this 1 comment.

This is probably not going to go well with cars that can hit 60 in 1st gear such as a Diablo, because if I'm not mistaken, isn't running your car at high revs constantly bad, and engine wearing?

Then again, I don't think to many of these owners will actually follow 55 in a car capable of 190. But just putting it out there.

 

[LittleBahamut]

I think the new Jaguar XK allready has something similar to what you are talking about, in which it has a button that will limit the acceleration and top-speed of the car to less than a given speed (I can't remeber if it is 60MPH or 70MPH)...

All of this crap these folks are trying to pull on us isnt going to work. If it all goes like this when the next-gen models come out, I think you will see a lot of enthusiests (sp?) going out and buying older models.

Yea, I hope you are right about this. I can't imagine how useless a new 400+ HP car you can buy and to be limited to drive under 70 MPH in the future. All that power and you can't even use it...it be a waste of money then.

 

[the Interceptor]

This is probably not going to go well with cars that can hit 60 in 1st gear such as a Diablo, because if I'm not mistaken, isn't running your car at high revs constantly bad, and engine wearing?

You're joking, right? The fact that you can reach 60 mph in 1st gear in a Diablo does not mean that you have to drive in 1st all the time. My car will hit almost 40 mph in first as well, but when I do that speed, I usually use 5th. And you definitely can use a higher gear in a Diablo as well.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Gil]

Of all the cars I've owned only one got better mileage at 55 than 70.
My 1982 Nissan pulled down 51 mpg at 55, and a mere 46 at 70, w/o the AC on.
All of my current cars have better economy at higher speeds, to a point.

As for re-instating the 55 MPH limit. I hate to say, but a lot of places STILL have it in force as you are driving thru the "more populated" areas.
The downtown area of Kansas City, MO is 55 MPH from the end of I-670 to out past the Stadiums (about a 10 mile stretch) and it's heavily patrolled and enforced.

As for the "open road" in Kansas and Missouri, the Speed Limit is 70, with most folks running anywhere from 75-90.

The main fact against this is that Americans simply value their time, more than their money. It is also a sad, but true fact that in metropolitan areas a great deal of Americans work at least 30 minutes from home.
Lowering the Speed Limit would take away many precious hours of family time. Hillary's family life may suck, (or since we are talking about "boffing Billy", lick, and everyone but her) but the rest of us don't want to add to the time we have to spend in our cars.
I haven't worked less than 30 miles from home, except for agency work, in the last 7-8 years.
And that's working as a nurse in a Tri-State area that has literally dozens of hospitals, and other facilities that need nurses.
Someone get Hillary a better hobby, or a cranial-rectal extractor. This woman clearly has her head up her ass.

 

[YSSMAN]

Most American tests have shown that peak fuel efficency starts at about 45MPH and ends around 70MPH on MOST cars and trucks these days. With the given EPA testing standards, it would seem most logical that the most efficent speed for your car would be at 60MPH, as that is the fastest rate at which the car is tested to calculate your highway MPG.

 

[Leonidae]

sounds like a great idea. it should be done asap, IMHO

 

[LeadSlead#2]

Now the average car in the UK returns about 38mpg

According to the news about 6 months ago, the average UK car got approx 24mpg. (city and highway combined)
Still much better than America's 17, nonetheless.

EDIT: maybe they meant city, and are just stupid


Why does everybody ignore the obvious fact of air resistance?
And everybody mentions their cars getting better at higher speeds than 55.
How about an '03 Nissan 350Z? that new enough? 32 at 40, in 6th, 30 at 65, and 29 at 75, and 27 at 85. (nice guage, very helpful)

 

[Kent]

I don't like the idea for many reasons but mostly for these reasons...

1) People don't obey the speed limit regardless of what it is.
With that in mind, I take a Nurburgring ideology that slow cars on fast highways are more dangerous than fast cars flowing with traffic.

55mph = Senior Citizens at 40mph on interstates we will all be using at 65mph. 👎

2) Fuel consumption isn't simply an issue of how fast you drive on the interstate.
Everyone here should know that how you drive around town has more impact on MPG than what speed you maintain on the interstate.

Just think about it...
If I was trying to be economical about fuel consumption...
I would rather hold 70mph for 25 miles on the interstate and be a sound minded low to mid range RPM driver in-town than be a 55mph interstate driver with a heavy foot using redline off every light in-town.

Floor it off the light and every bit of fuel economy you thought you were getting on the interstate is negated.
Don't drag race at every light and you will save more fuel than cruising at 55mph ever will.

Of course that's just my opinion after the last 8 years of American highway/ interstate driving (throughout the southeast).

 

[Slicks]

It's true that a drag race off of every stoplight is fun, and gives horrible gas mileage. However, doing the quarter-throttle dance is also bad. It has been proven that brisk acceleration combined with shortshifting where possible will produce the best efficiency (I believe there was a thread on this, or involving this, and a Road and Track article a couple months back).

While this proposed 55-MPH limit does not effect me at all, I am still very opposed to it. It's a waste of technology to build powerful, aerodynamic, ultra-safe vehicles and then do 55 MPH with them.
Not only is it a waste of time, but it is also a waste of money. Think about it. It is often said that time is money. You go on a business trip, for example. It takes you five hours to drive to your destination, versus six with the new limit. Sure, you've mabye saved five or ten bucks gas (The actual gas savings are debatable, as shown earlier), but you've also wasted an hour of company time. What's that cost? Surely more than ten bucks.

Besides which, it's more fun to go fast.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

'

I was under the impression that 55mph was the law most states in most times recent anyway.

But, yes, the top gear of most modern vehicles would require you to be somewhere luggish on the torque curve, that plus the fact that you get someplace a good deal faster at 75/80mph would indicate better fuel economies without this proposed engine health constriction.

It is wrong to abuse modern vehicle technology by making them lag in this fashion.

 

[Kylehnat]

Everyone here should know that how you drive around town has more impact on MPG than what speed you maintain on the interstate.

Exactly. AND, most driving is done in "city" conditions, rather than "highway."

And who is going to care? The speed limit in nearby urban areas is 60. I go 70. Drop it to 55? Okay, now I'll go 67. Nice fix.

 

[red70mach1]

Great, another Clinton pressing the double freakin' issue on the speed limit.

 

[iceburns288]

How about an '03 Nissan 350Z? that new enough? 32 at 40, in 6th, 30 at 65, and 29 at 75, and 27 at 85. (nice guage, very helpful)

Good to know! I'm buying a 350Z today and my job involves driving on the highway I'll have to watch my speed... hehe