Community Forums

cb5300 · 12-28-2008, 09:25 AM

robert, may be you're just a better driver than the average person out there, or just luckier. The fact is that there are people out there that SHOULD NOT be driving period, doesn't matter if it's a class A, C, or even a B, and for that matter, even a auto period. While driving my class A I have passed people who were reading a BOOK (for God sake how stupid can you be), putting on make-up, and numerous other activities that would better done parked some where. It's idiots like this who causes major problems on the highways.

As far as 55 mph speed limits, that just turns into a money maker for localities. As far as saving fuel, it'll only do so if your auto (or RV) is geared toward that limit, otherwise you will use as much or more fuel than running 65 or 70 mph.

Timetraveler · 12-28-2008, 01:36 PM

If'n they didn want me to use all them nummers they shudna put em on the speedo-meter. Du yall eat just haffa yur pieca pie?

jspande · 12-28-2008, 02:01 PM

There's a big difference in the problems caused by some cars driving in the left lane 10-15 mph under average speed, and a vehicle pulling a trailer in the right lane at 55 mph. I seem to recall that California has studies that indicate it's safer to have the 55 mph for trailers even with other vehicles going 70 mph, because the extra dangers of high speed trailering outweighs the speed differential factor.

Of course the best of all worlds, safety-wise (and fuel economy-wise), is that everyone drive 55!

After all, when we had the national 55 limit, whether you liked it or not, fuel consumption was significantly reduced as were highway fatalities. That would mean lower gas prices for everyone, and lower insurance premiums for everyone.

melvonnar · 12-28-2008, 02:33 PM

Quote:

After all, when we had the national 55 limit, whether you liked it or not, fuel consumption was significantly reduced as were highway fatalities. That would mean lower gas prices for everyone, and lower insurance premiums for everyone

You said it all: and you are correct.
You can"t argue with facts.

Rick & Hope · 12-28-2008, 02:42 PM

OK let's all drive 55 and save all kinds of fuel. Then what are the states going to do to our taxes? They will no longer be getting as much revenue from fuel taxes so they will find some other way to take their money from you. States like Calif (with toad), Ohio (any MH 55mph), Illinois(55 mph over 8000 lbs gross) will have to find some other way of getting money other than writing tickets.

Johnny · 12-28-2008, 02:54 PM

It's not like anyone actually drove 55 even when it WAS the law. I never did. Nobody I know did. The only thing that law accomplished was to make Mike Valentine a millionaire.

Backwaters · 12-28-2008, 04:41 PM

WHY, don't we make it 45, max. We could save EVEN more fuel. Ya, think the Insurance Company will lower their rates???

55 was established many years ago. Vehicles are much safer now by far, compared to years back. Its ironic how a FEW want to effect MANY. Not everyone is retired and yes, time is a factor for many people.

IMO if you feel unsafe on the road, then make a decision to take up another means to travel.

historyljc · 12-28-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Du yall eat just haffa yur pieca pie?

Unfortunately, yes.

Quote:

After all, when we had the national 55 limit, whether you liked it or not, fuel consumption was significantly reduced as were highway fatalities. That would mean lower gas prices for everyone, and lower insurance premiums for everyone

Now let's just all hook-up those teams of mules to drag these big wagons. Look how we can cut the pollution rate, drop insurance cost, cut injuries to the bone (pun intended) and save money on not having to build all those high speed complicated roadways.

Rick & Hope · 12-28-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Now let's just all hook-up those teams of mules to drag these big wagons. Look how we can cut the pollution rate, drop insurance cost, cut injuries to the bone (pun intended) and save money on not having to build all those high speed complicated roadways.

Now I think your on to something!!!

NeilV · 12-29-2008, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Johnny:
It's not like anyone actually drove 55 even when it WAS the law. I never did. Nobody I know did. The only thing that law accomplished was to make Mike Valentine a millionaire.

Johnny,

I and most of my aquaintances obey the law and have observed all posted speed limts. The only accidents I have been involved in are when inattentive drivers rear ended me while I was waiting in line at stop lights.

I encourage everyone to obey the laws of the land and do not incite any other form of conduct.

Rebellion against authority leads to all sorts of problems and is not promoting the general good of ones fellow man.

jspande · 12-29-2008, 07:42 AM

For those of you who think that mules do not pollute, I'm afraid you're sadly misinformed. They definitely have emissions issues!

Reducing to 45 would not further save fuel - as I pointed out, the "rolling resistance" factor dominates below about 55 and it doesn't change with speed. That's why 55 was chosen - it's the point at which "wind resistance" takes over and fuel consumption dramatically falls with increasing speed.

If nobody obeyed the 55 speed limit, how do you explain the facts that fuel consumption and highway fatalities significantly declined when we had it????

jspande · 12-29-2008, 07:48 AM

Quote:

fuel consumption dramatically falls with increasing speed.

Oooops - I meant dramatically increases with increasing speed.

cb5300 · 12-29-2008, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jspande:
For those of you who think that mules do not pollute, I'm afraid you're sadly misinformed. They definitely have emissions issues!

Reducing to 45 would not further save fuel - as I pointed out, the "rolling resistance" factor dominates below about 55 and it doesn't change with speed. That's why 55 was chosen - it's the point at which "wind resistance" takes over and fuel consumption dramatically falls with increasing speed.

If nobody obeyed the 55 speed limit, how do you explain the facts that fuel consumption and highway fatalities significantly declined when we had it????

I've never seen any figures that show a "Significantly decline" in fuel consumption at 55. I would point out that fuel consumption as a whole has a lot to do with the number of autos on the road today. There are a lot more out there today than when we hade a 55 mph national speed limit...More cars equal more fuel.

Also, as pointed out earlier, if you want to drive at 55 then do so, I for one won't, it makes the drive to boring and in my case cost me more in fuel. I've try the 55 mph thing and found that my mileage went down.

melvonnar · 12-29-2008, 11:35 AM

It:s interesting,
After reading all the posts on this subject it looks like 30% agree with the 55MPH; 30% say 55 to 60MPH and the rest want to go as fast there motorhomes will go.
It might be interesting to find out which groupe are involved in the most accidents.
OK folks; lets here from you all as to your accident record.
Question?
how many accident have you been involved in; in the last 10 years?
Comon folks; no fudging.