The Drive For 55!?! It's All About Money

Back in July of 2007, Republican Senator John Warner of Virgina asked then Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to calculate what speed would provide optimum gasoline efficiency under the technology of the day. In his request to Bodman, Warner cited studies that showed that (after it was imposed by Congress in 1974 because of the Arab oil embargo) the 55 MPH national speed limit saved 167-thousand barrels of oil a day. That speed limit was repealed in 1995. The letter read "one could assume that the amount of fuel that could be conserved today is far greater."

An Energy Department spokeswoman responded that Warner's letter would be reviewed but that "if Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production." Obviously, that was not the answer Congress wanted, so that was the end of that.

Then came last summer and $4+ per gallon gasoline. Immediately, Congress started again rumbling about lowering the speed limit to save fuel. Their foil this time was the American public who took the sensible initiative and simply drove less—so much so that demand, and prices, dropped drastically is relatively short period of time. Predictions of "$10 a gallon by Christmas" vaporized as once again the electorate showed the electorees that we're far smarter than they give us credit for being.

"Well curses!" said congress, "If we can't push through the 55 limit on fuel savings, let's try the safety issue." So now the scuttlebutt is that all those sub-sub-sub-compacts, like the Smart 4 Two, Honda Fit, and Toyota Yaris are unsafe in a collision with a larger car. Well, Duh! What kind of stupid, twisted logic is that. Of course a vehicle half the size of another is going to take a beating in a one-on-one street fight. A Ford Expedition is unsafe in a collision with an 18-wheeler and and an 18-Wheeler is unsafe in a collision with a locomotive. First, they convince us that driving smaller vehicles saves fuel, then they say the smaller vehicles we're driving, to save fuel, are unsafe. Micro-vehicles, like the ones mentioned, are not intended for freeways and super-highways. Anyone who buys one thinking they are is nothing more than a poorly informed shopper who fails to understand the basic laws of physics. On the other hand, for around town driving, those little vehicles can be handy tools. If you need to save fuel AND do some time on some time on serious asphalt, then you need think Hybrid (caution: not so great in areas with lots of hills). If you just want to save fuel, keep your current buggy and watch your speed best you can. See, we don't need the government to tell us how to do these things. The caveat in this way of thinking, is that, for the government, there's no profit in it.

Congress knows full well that the problem is not the cars or the speed, it's the drivers, all drivers. I'll include myself in this as well. Regardless of how competent we are behind the wheel, there are times we shouldn't be there, either because we're tired, distracted or just not focused (umm... that Big Mac Wuzzz good!). We take phone calls when we shouldn't and DWTM (Text Messaging While Driving) has been suspect in numerous fatal accidents. And what about unexpected hazards caused by weather? If government really wants to make the roads safer, then they need to take the same strategy that they want to use to make the streets safer. Congress seems convinced that confiscating firearms is the only way to keep people from killing each other. Then the logic only follows that if they want to keep us from crashing into each other on the road, they should confiscate our vehicles. But that won't happen, will it? And we all know why—the state and federal government needs us to own cars so that they can collect sales tax, licensing fees and registration fees. And, they need that speed limit back down at 55 so that they can put robot cameras along every stretch of highway and reap gazillions of cashmoneybux in fines from unsuspecting drivers.

The government knows that most people occasionally drive over the limit (whether it's intentional or not). Their job is to figure out how to make it pay—to find ways to catch as many people as possible, as often as possible so they can collect as much money as possible, to spend on more silly socialistic programs. These new traffic cameras are already showing along major travelways in many big cities—and they are causing quite a controversy. You flash by a few ticks over the limit, they take your photo and send you a bill. No cop needed. How convenient. In some areas, motorists are fighting back by spraying their lenses with paint, silly string or covering them with tape (See "Sticking It To The Man"). Elsewhere, sharp shooters have found them fair game for target practice (Ah, so that's why they want to take our guns). So, when you hear talk about a 55MPH speed limit, don't think for a minute that it has anything to do with saving you money, or saving the planet or even saving your life—it's just about getting more of your money.