I don't like 55 any more than the next guy, but before we can morally ask our military to die for our wasteful lifestyles over in the middle east to secure governments that are stable, we should do what we can first.

This includes 55 mph, investing in nuclear power, wind power, cafe standards, drilling, etc.

If you consider that our oil dependency is a national emergency, and if dropping the speed limit helps substantially to conserve oil, then this is a no-brainer form me. I have no idea where this guy got his numbers (24$, 30 cents). Can anyone clue me in?
I don't consider the extra time I spend driving slower "wasted." I don't have a cell phone, I just think, I have a lot of things to ponder. Maybe thinking is "wasted time" for him.

It is a statistical fact that faster driving only results in a few minutes saved when arriving at your destination.

I commute 20 miles to work: at the current posted speed limit of 65 MPH it should take 31 minutes to drive (with no traffic). At 55 MPH it should only take 36 minutes to drive. I don't think that five minutes is going to ammount to a lot of lost work time. People spend more time than that chatting, going to the bathroom, smoking, getting a snack, taking a long lunch break...you name it.

Complaining about loosing 5 minutes because you have to slow down on the freeway just shows how incredibly stupid you are.

We've proven in just this last week that reducing consumption can have a very immediate result in price reduction. And, really, for most of us the time difference between 70 and 55 isn't much, because most of our driving is short distance anyway. 55 will only add a few minutes to an Evanston beer run, and only makes time a factor across long hauls. And its' well known that most vehicles suffer terrible mileage degradation above 60...

Jack Mason, that is very short-sighted thinking. The "I need to go faster...because...um...because I need to get there faster" argument is delusional in the extreme.

The oil supply is dwindling. There is no doubt that a time will come when we will run out. It may be in 50 years, maybe more, maybe less, but it will come. Conservation is a valuable means to extend the life of a resource. This needs to be done to give us time to fully develop new technologies (hydrogen cars anyone?) and to refine and perfect current technologies (wind power anyone?) before we start killing people due to lack of heating oil (northern winters) and/or the expense of electricity (southern summers).

To say that getting there faster and continually pouring gasoline into that behemoth truck or SUV that carries one passenger is a better use of resources than conserving fuel is foolish at best, reprehensibly irresponsible at worst.

I have been researching different ways to improve fuel economy in my car. Google "hypermiling" and do some reading.

I did a few things that were quick and easy, and saw my gas mileage go from 32 up to 35 MPG. I was pretty happy, and still driving 75-80 in my commute.

I kept reading, but I didn't believe slowing down would make much difference.
I finally diceided to try it for a full tank and see what happened. I slowed down to 55-65 in my commute. I DID 42 MPG DRIVING SLOWER. That's a 20% improvement. (My last tank I got 43.8mpg) My car is rated at 29 on the hwy. How you drive matters to everyone.

If everyone slowed down in their commute, the country could immediate reduce our demand for foreign oil by 10-15%, and prices at the pump would come down.

Oh and the "cost", about 5 minutes each way. If everyone was willing to give 5 minutes we would all be better off.

In addition to the statistics that show that speeding does not significantly alter arrival times, there are plenty of statistics that show that gas consumption increases exponentially as speeds increase past 55 mph.

On average a car traveling 55 mph will get about 30 miles per gallon. Traveling at 65 mph drops that average to 25 mpg and 75 mph goes even further down to about 23 mpg. Lets see...7 gallons of gas at todays prices is about $30.

So what is 'foolish'? Speeding to save five minutes and spending $30 more for gas or slowing down, arriving a few minutes later (or leaving a few minutes eariler) and saving that $30.

Seems like a no brainer.

By the way, the source for that information is the US Dept. of Energy www.fueleconomy.gov

What is the point? Nobody obeys the speed limit anyway.

Dude my time is more valuable than that! Thats why I think freeway speeds should be increased to 95 or have speed limits eliminated all together!

Oh did I mention my time is so valuable that I actually live near my work and don't even need the silly freeway??

How about a 55 mph limit in and around large cities and a higher limit in less populated areas?

I have personally tried the challenge to slow down and see if it increased my fuel economy. Guess what? It did, by 1 mpg. So I don't know where all of you are getting the idea that slowing down can increase mpg by a huge proportion. The "Try it" commenter probably has an older car that does use huge amounts of gas when the speed increases. The problem is not with the speed limit on the freeways people. The problem lies in how our automakers are creating the vehicles we drive in. With the way that computers can control how the engine in a car works these days, cars can be programmed to have better gas mileage. Speed also has a minor result on mpg compared to aggressive driving (quick accelerations and decelerations)

Your freedom doesn't include to drive at any speed.

On returning from a trip to the coast and back by auto, we drove the speed limit, 55 and 65 in Oregon, 75 in Idaho and Utah, whatever required, and I can tell you that if we had to make that whole trip at 55, we would have not gone. Maybe that's that point. But what a shame, if American families can no longer make the great road trips. Try driving across Nevada at 55, you will be insane, or run off the road. 55 is reasonable in areas with lots of population and winding roads, elsewhere, not so much. Big truck are required to stay at 55 and 65 in many places. Some trucks even have governors. I don't think a rush to a national one size fits all law is a good idea for speed limits.

You still miss the point.

If everyone slows down our consumption goes down. PERIOD.

As far as your assumption about my car, um wrong. I was getting 35 MPG driving 75-80 in my commute, hardly the huge amounts of gas you are talking about.

It doesn't matter if you drive a Hummer or a Prius, the simple fact is ALL CARS/ TRUCKS get better mileage at 55 than 75!!! Do you understand?

If you are not willing to slow down, just admit that you are too selfish to sacrifice 5 minutes of your time for the good of our country.

Agreed. 55 in metro areas and 65 in rural makes sense.
I think common sense shoulld prevail.

If everyone would slowdown in their daily commutes, Congress would not be forced to act. People need to take some responsibility for their actions.

If you are not willing to slow down then you don't have any right to complain about the high gas prices. YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

A reduced speed limit can have serious consequences to the tourist industry. The higher price of gas has created numerous changes, some bad, some good. If you push on a balloon on one side, it pops out on the other. The economy is like an organism. Congress rushing to pass laws has unintended consequences. Let economists study the problem, let the market change behaviors, allow time to have a natural effect.

55 MPH is lame. I like 65 better.

Sorry, but every article I have read in regards to the 55 MPH speed limit that was mandated during the 70's gas crunch, suggests that it was a very lame means to save energy. There are other ways that will save just as much, if not more.

Proper tire inflation.
Engine tune-up.
Carpooling.
Turn off engine, instead of idling, while parked for longer than 15 seconds.

Sorry, Cost of Speeding, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the data you quote. Most modern cars have been designed with 65-70 mph highway use in mind. They just will not save that much when driven at 55.

If everyone drove a little slower everyone would be on the roads a little longer.

That increases the congestion.

Congestion causes accidents, and its more people waiting at lights burning gas not going anywhere.

I'm on the freeway everyday. I drive over 50,000 per year. Slowing down creates congestion, which increases stop and go (less efficient than constant speed) and will increase the likelihood of an accident. I have a diesel van that gets between 20 and 22 miles per gallon regardless of speed or whether I'm loaded or empty.

The problem isn't an oil shortage, or lack of refineries, or a lack of technology, speculators or any other lame excuse. The problem is we have a giant herd of uninformed sheeple who believe the oil propaganda stories that surface whenever those who are in control decide to squeeze more out of the little people and cause them to panic as evidenced by most of these posts.

Yes, people should have the right to drive at a safe speed which might vary from extremely slow to what some would consider excessive. We have speed limits for those who have no prudence or low level driving skills.

The solution is to stop being led by those who keep us living in constant perpetual fear and worry, and get off our backsides, form a company of moral people, and put these guys out of business.

Make the speed limit anything you wish, it won't change the mentality of those who will speed anyway. This was tried and debated in the 70's. I don't believe it had any major impact on fuel consumption, though I suspect a good many law enforcement divisions were able to pad their budgets a little with statutory revenue.
The speed limit on I-15 is 65mph. Try traveling that speed now and enjoy the feeling of cars racing past you. Different vehicles have different efficiency velocities. How about an individual speed limit dictated by the type of vehicle driven. Too many thoughts here, but I think we're straining at the wrong gnat.

There may be e very large 800 pound elephant in the room. One area we haven't looked at is timing and elimination of stop lights. I would be willing to bet that more gas is wasted there than in "speeding." I often sit at a red light being "protected" from entering an intersection for 30 seconds to 1 minute when no other cars go through in the other direction. That is a complete waste of energy AND time. Having done a lot of cycling I know that to be most efficient on time and energy, you get up to speed and stay there. Every time you tap your brakes or even think about it (small exaggeration) you waste gas.

Lets just stop and think about the "side effects" of changing the speedlimit. Now, we have to contract out, at taxpayer expense, new signs to be made or at a minimum a reflective weatherproof sticker. Since the signs cannot be changed by themselves, we now have to either send out government workers or contractors to go and change ALL of the signs that are above 55. So, we save 30 cents by paying a dollar (yes I realize that this is an exageration, but it is done for effect to make the political coolaid drinkers think). Since when did that make sense.