Great, now old people are all "good for the environment".

That's not asinine, that's true. Unfortunately.

Slowness = Energy Conservation no matter what method of travel you use.

It's true.. if everyone drives really slow, more people will be frustrated and bike/take the train instead. Brilliant!

Here in Indiana, the speed limit's always been 55.

55 is the best efficiency of fuel use in most cars, so it's best to drive around that speed. That, and ue your cruise control. This will really help you if you drive an SUV, it will help you get above the 1mi/gal mark.

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to have everyone drive to wherever they are going as fast as possible thus getting people off the road and their cars turned off sooner? That's my philosphy...

Oh yeah, I have a theory that blinkers are hazardous to the enviroment as well. That is why I refuse to use them.

This is going to SUCK!!! I have to drive about 20 miles everyday to get to work, and with this new asshead speed limit.... I pisses me off just to think about it!!

I'm gonna start a protest!!

who's with me??

but, "I can't drive 55."

It is my understanding that there are no apparent smog laws for automobiles in Texass. Maybe this is the real problem. Here in California, every other time you re-register an automobile that is newer than 1973, you are required by law to have the vehicle pass a smog test. If you don't pass, you don't get your registration renewed until the car passes, and you're labelled as a gross polluter.

-he who stacks pork

What the hell do you have to do that you can't spend an extra 10 minutes in your car without getting pissed off? I mean, really. Grow up. At least you don't have to ride a horse 20 miles to work.

Quick1: "55 is the best efficiency of fuel use in most cars"

I digress, but I think 'off' is the most fuel efficient...

I think it is Montana that has the speed limit of "Drive reasonably"... I think I would like that.

As if people needed any more of an excuse to drive like idiots..... One day, my organization P.A.I.D. will be unveiled.....and all the bad drivers in the world will be exposed.....


P.A.I.D.=People Against Idiot Drivers.....

Try . Driving faster lowers fuel economy, hence more emissions. Not much lower, but lower.

I just hate driving slow!!

Rainewalker So then, I guess you drive a horse to work? You sound bitter......

Eat slower and shiat less?

Where the hell did the horse come from? Who drives a horse to work?

Come on! really!

then why is it that my toyota tacoma seems to get better mpg the faster i go???

They have already started down here. It won't change anything though; I can be goin 90 and still get passed like a I am going the other way.

Actually, I usually walk. It's cheaper, healthier, and environmentally friendly.

Sanders... Rainewalker stated that all of us complaining need to grow up and that at least we don't have to ride a horse 20 miles to work.... So, like you said, where the hell did horses come from....It sounded to me like she was bitter cause SHE has to ride a horse....


I dunno......I was wondering the same thing as you....horses?!

Houston's main auto pollution problem, like the rest of Texas, are caused mainly by Mexican drivers/nafta truckers who can drive a car/truck that belches thick black smoke everywhere. If they would just close that loophole that allows nafta truckers shipping goods out of Mexico to conform to only Mexican auto emission regs, then the problem would be fixed.

Blame Mexico!

Sanders, do you live in the Houston Area? If so, then the new speed limits have "technically" been in effect since mid-January.

Oh well, the really stupid thing about this whole argument is that the majority of the pollution is not caused by cars going fast, but by cars not going anywhere. That is right folks, for a period of about 2 hours in the morning, and 2 hours in the evening, the mass exodus into and out of Downtown Houston leaves cars in bumper to bumper traffic. Add to that the fact that whenever I drive in Houston on the major roads, the traffic is still only doing about 55 anyway, the pollution really won't change.

Plus I love how at the end of the article, they comment on how the real pollution problem vehicles(i.e. big trucks) are outside their jurisdiction to regulate.

My point is he's biatching that he has to drive 20 miles to work at 55. Years ago people had to ride horses (which are slower)... oh, nevermind.

I just think people who biatch about driving ought to try NOT driving and THEN tell me how terrible driving is. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege.

Then why don't they make cars that are more efficient at higher speeds?

Sure, the cars will be more efficient and put out less nastiness, but the wasted time will result millions of dollars of lost money. This money could be given to making cars that don't poullute as much, or reducing other forms of pullution.

It kinda seems like ass-backward logic to me;

"Hrmm. Cars are putting out too much pollution at the speed they go at."
"We could design cars that are better for the environment."
"Yeah, and I could punch you in the mouth! Just make people go slower!"
"Instead of solving a problem, we've just side-stepped it! Hurrah!"

The Dark One: The problem is, even though it would be millions of dollars of lost money due to wasted time.. .it won't be millions of dollars out of the pockets of the CAR companies. They'll still be making money the way they always have so why in the world would they want to change?

I find it interesting that the article freely admits that trucks account for 10 times more pollution than cars. TEN TIMES!!!!!!! But trucks are federally regulated...

Does that make anyone else's brain hurt?

Mytwocents - if your organisation ever gets off the ground, I have a lot of valuable ideas to contribute. Driving used to be fun, like ten years ago, but now it's just a pain in the ass. I've voluntarily taken the bus to and from work for a few weeks just to avoid being stuck in traffic with the assholes out there. My biggest pet peeves are:

+ failure to use turnsignal when turning or changing lanes(most people think that the turn signal lever is just a steering column decoration)
+ driving in the shoulder to cut off 4 or more cars to try to get ahead of traffic and then forcing their way in
+ hogging up the fast lane instead of GETTING THE fark OUT OF THE WAY to let others pass
+ listening to thumping bass sooooo farking loud that the windows are rolled down so that everyone else around can enjoy the ghetto sound
+ flicking cigarette butts out the window (gee, ever wonder how the hillsides near freeways mysteriously catch fire?)

-he who stacks pork

fuel consumption (and the pollution that it causes) is related to the RPM rate that your engine is turning. not the rate that your wheels are turning. they are directly related, but you CAN make a car more efficient at the top end (hence overdrive), or you can just change out the gear box for a taller gear. this is just another scheme to get more ticket revenue.

Am I the only one that thinks that SUV's should be outlawed? I mean I'm in a car and backing out of spaces with an SUV parked next to you is as good as backing out with your eyes closed and praying...... And on the freeway you can't see jack shiat in front of you if you have an SUV or truck there.....It wouldn't be so bad but EVERYBODY has an suv or truck...

Speaking of trucks......I know some idiot who actually traded (an even trade, mind you) a 2001 Mercedes clk 430 for that ulgly a$$ Cadi suT......is it just me or does it sound like someone's smoking crack?

I also am praying that old people don't decide to follow the crowd but remain loyal to Cadi....can you imagine all the old people driving SUT's?? Now THAT would be scary...

my2cents.. umm. that's where discretion comes into play. if you can't see in front of the car in front of you, you should really back off. when it comes to parking, you're just SOL.. all i can say is that you should back out slowly

Mytwocents: Agreed. The government should at least have SUVs re-classified as cars, forcing the same emission standards on them. That, or require a special license to drive trucks, forcing the owners to pay more for their license and using that money to combat emission issues. Or just ban them...people who claim SUVs make them feel safer are exactly the people who shouldn't be driving them, because that false sense of security fosters agressive driving and also displays a lack of confidence in ones own driving ability. I could go on...and on...and on...but in summary, fark SUVs.

Mytwocents: Well, when I was driving a car, I felt that way a bit too. But now I am driving a truck, not an SUV, but a truck. I got it because I needed a new vehicle, and I had found that I was needing a truck more than a car. Plus, at my age, trucks are cheaper insurance than cars.

I'd rather ride the horse. Having a ton of metal and rubber and smelly fumes just seems like a waste to haul my skinny ass around, but the public transportation system around here is dismal and as much as I might like to, walking isn't terribly practicle.

Leopold A few years ago when I was in college, I had my webpage thingy...and one of the pages was PAID.... now I didn't really promote it cause it was more of a way to vent my frustrations..... I'll have to find what I did with the pages at home later....but to your list, let me add.....:

+ failure to pull forward into the intersection when turning left (so that MAYBE 1 car goes per light when 2 are supposed to)
+ someone riding your ass and then when you move lanes, they just follow you and ride your ass in that lane
+ people who should have "I BREAK FOR HALLUCINATIONS" as a bumper sticker
+ (along the same lines as sitting in the fast lane) being on the freeway in 4 or 5 lane traffic and having all 4 or 5 lanes filled with cars who feel the need to keep in line with each other....there by making it impossible to pass

I have more.....got to find the pages when I get home.... perhaps I'll make it a page on my new site that I just registered...... www.thespinzone.com

Can't believe no one had taken that.......

Downcaste: "if you can't see in front of the car in front of you, you should really back off. "

Simple trigonometry would tell you that no matter how far in front of you an SUV is, you're not going to see the next car in front of it.

Leopold

Texas had smog (emmisions) tests requirements for yearly auto inspections as well.

warmbeer: yeah. but if you back off, you can see a much better view of the road surrounding the SUV. you don't need to see directly in front of the car, but to be able to plan a strategy as to where to go if a situation arises is somewhat important.

and if you want to play the semantics game, for the most part, you can't "see in front of the car in front of you", especially if they have tinted windows. does that mean we should ban tinted windows and cargo vans because they don't have back windows? boo hoo. i can't see directly in front of the guy who i'm tailgating. waaaaah.

Actually, the only problem with this study is that it was done 30 years ago. Why not get some new data, before lowering the speed limits. Also, it doesn't even really address the problems of the morning and afternoon drive to/from work where people can't even get up to 30 mph.

I don't enjoy living in Houston, but this lowering of the speed limit is rather short-sighted. We need a train system, much like the one in Dallas that was going into the suburbs.

I used to drive an SUV and I was the driver that I now hate....my mom and sister drive SUV's.....and I can tell you that they really shouldn't be....they shouldn't even be driving....they are a big part of the reason why women drivers have such a bad rep.....

Hey, old people and women are the worst drivers.....sorry.... except for ME... of course......no seriously...... in the words of Dustin Hoffman "I'm an excellent driver"

I remember a few years back I read an article (in Nasa Tech Briefs, maybe?) about a coating that had been developed to be put on radiators and other hot portions of automotive engines.

Essentially it was a coating similar to the materials used inside catalytic converters, and actually cleaned the air that passed over them.

Combining the very low emissions levels of new cars, and the air-cleaning capability of these coatings, would result in a car that actually made the air cleaning by driving through it.

I wonder what ever happened to that....hmmm...

shemp mo-din:

the new honda accord puts out cleaner air than is in LA.. pretty weird, really. newer cars actually have the potential to make the air cleaner. but clean is never clean enough. in a few years, that's probably going to be considered a gross polluter.

I live and Houston and have to agree with Grivas, On Houston freeway's if you drive under 70-75 people pass you left and right. I know by lowering the speed limit it can't make the pollution any worse. But has anyone paid any attention to all of the chemical plants here? From what I understand a majority of them were grandfathered when the new pollution laws went into effect and as long as they don't rebuild and just continue to "maintain" their existing plant they will remain grandfathered. I think that's where a lot of our pollution here comes from, not so much the vehicles.

The article states that vehicles only account for 24% of the problem. The other 76% has got to be the plants. I wonder if they also count the ships coming into the Port in their calculations.

mytwocents, warmbeer: Excuse me? As a driver of an SUV, I have the same emission regulations as any car does. I live in Oregon and if our cars are newer than 1975 we have to have an emission test, if it does not pass, the car does not get registered. If you can't see from behind an SUV, you are probably driving a little to close to begin with. Stop whinning about SUV's, it is not very becoming of you!

Is Montana the state were on some highways you have no limit? Or did they take that away?

Rowdy Rodger, the fuel efficiency of "off" is zero miles per zero gallons = zero efficiency.

This speed limit thing falls into the same category as what they do here in Tulsa. When it's 105 degrees in the summer and there's an ozone alert, they tell people to turn off the air conditioners in their cars to reduce emissions. Uh huh, yeah I'll do that.

Actual benefits trump theoretical benefits. Nobody is going to fry their brain by turning off their air conditioner in order to reduce ozone - nobody is going to voluntarily undergo the Chinese water torture of driving 55 to reduce smog.