[Bruce Hawkins]

So, on the news, I hear that States and/or Congress, is considering rolling back the 65 MPH limit, back to 55 MPH. I think this is a bad and ineffective idea...
At 65/55 MPH, having a head wind has more of an effect, whether or not the AC is on or not; 55/65 MPH - not so much...

I have a ScanGage2. It allows me to see my fuel economy (FE), at a glance. I can not see a significant difference between 55 and 65 MPH. However, I now see exactly, why my fuel economy (FE) can be effected...

I have come up with a way for most all cars and trucks, to get much better FE in-town, thus reducing fuel consumption = oil...

If the government really wants to reduce oil (fuel) consumption, they should do something about the largest causes (switching back to the 55 MPH, is like banning rolling down your cars windows):

#1) Stopping, (caused by, stop lights and signs, and traffic, for example) well specifically, starting to get back up to the speed you were going - This is the most significant cause of fuel use/ lower FE.
What the Government could do to fix this;
-- Outlaw stop signs, use traffic circles (round-a-bouts (what the French name for this???), instead.
-- Create standard for Stoplights, using Fuzzy logic or AI, technology - Maximize traffic through-put.
(Seems like lights are timed, to encourage, running the red light. And, If timed better, based on traffic through-put, this would yield less stopping, better FE. 80% of the time, I have to stop for a light, it's just me, and who triggered the light, in the other direction. If the light waited, till I went through, or gave the other person the green before, I got there, no one, would have had to stop!). Pass a law requiring States to use and adapt to the now technology...
-- Create laws agents impeding (holding up) traffic. (Hear in Cali, CHP, don't seem to ticket slow drivers, even when holding up traffic (even when going half the speed limit) ???
And then, enforce the new laws...
-- Make standards for fuel. (I am currently using Costco Gas, as it's more than $0.50 LESS per gallon; But, I reliably, get 1-MPG LESS FE??? This would likely make Gasohol, go a way.)

#2) Pedestrians and Bicyclist, you're next...
Pedestrians; Like the stop lights. We need more AI control hear too. How often do people just dart out in front of you, kuz ur toast if you hit a pedestrian, cross walk or not. Also, there the, "No fear!" Types, too. This is just wrong. No crossing with being directed to, by the AI aranoid:
Bicyclist, need there own space, 3K Lbs monsters (vehicles) and Bikes, don't mix so well (this is not an excuse to make, 3 foot passing laws, or remove lanes, and give to the Bicyclist - Both are bad ideas. Roads are for cars...

I'll think of more...

 

[Fromthecoast]

Making main roads more flowing is the biggest way to decrease consumption without any added expense. Main roads and highways should be continous as much as possible and entry and exit should be optmized bu using side access more.

I'm with you on that. One plus of dropping the speed limit is that you drop the overall speed down. At 65 everyone is going almost 75. If you drop it down to 55 then everyone drives almost 65. I've noticed a significant difference between 65 and 75 using my SGII.

Unfortunately I haven't hooked it up in the Accord yet. Any mounting suggestions?

 

[mhadden]

I really wish they would get rid of stop signs. They are worthless. Most people just sit and stare at each other at 4 way stops. One road should have the right-of-way and the other should have yield signs (same as a stop, but when no one is there, you can coast through). For example, if I want to go to Schererville from my town (Dyer), I have to stop at 6 stop signs in 2 miles. 3 of the intersections are T-intersections where the top part of the T should have the right-of-way (which is the road that I am on). Big waste of gas (as mentioned).

I agree, too, that the slow drivers are the ones causing the problems on the roads. Chicago rush-hour traffic slowdowns/jams are caused by the retard in the left lane going slower than the posted limit. Wisconsin is just as guilty. If enforcement of the left-lane-idiots increased, traffic could flow faster and eliminate or at least reduce traffic congestion (ie idling, stop-and-go, etc). At the same time, when a cop has someone pulled over here, everyone feels like its their duty to slow down and gawk. Everyone says hang up and drive! I say sit down, mind your own business and drive!

I think going back down to 55 will hurt a lot of people and it may not necessarily lower fuel consumption. Many of the cars on today's roadways are designed to get better mileage at a higher than 55 mph. I'm not saying they get better mileage at 70, but some may get better mpg's at 60 or 65 rather than 55.

Finally, I think "by-passes" should be just that. I'm tired of seeing all these extensions in cities to route traffic get clogged because of exit's every mile on the interstate. It's supposed to be limited access! My definition of limited access is one exit/entrance every 5-10 miles. Chicago has 5 exits within a mile in some spots! Piss poor design!

/rant

If anyone would like to nominate me the head of the DOT, I will gladly change the rules and layouts of the current roadways for the better!

 

[Tuolumne]

I have a trip computer built into my vw and the instantaneous reading always rises when you're at 55 v. 65. Are you saying there is no difference? I think it should be lowered, as everyone would just max out at 65-70 v. 80 as mhadden mentioned.

 

[gta_orbiter]

Bruce, I strongly agree with you on all these points.
Stop signs is probably one biggest gas-guzzling feature in North America. In many European countries, stop signs are virtually non-existent, and in most cases uncontrolled intersections are regulated by a combination of the "Main Road" and "Yield" signs.
It's just plain ridiculous how we have to stop and bow to the void at every single intersection while driving through an area that is absolutely car- and pedestrian-free 99% of the time.

But there's way more to these stop signs than fuel consumption!
There's a big fault determination problem with them. Let's face it, an intersection controlled by stop signs in reality remains... uncontrolled. In the case of an accident caused by a less-than-courteous driver there's absolutely nothing that factually proves his/her fault unless witnesses are available. This is totally unacceptable, as the sign just does not perform as a deterrent to such behavior, while punishing the obedient. In the case of a main/secondary road intersection, it is pretty clear - who's at fault.

But hang on, - what about those stupid 3-way stop signs on 4-way intersections, with 2 lanes running each way(as if it wasn't bad enough already)? Time and again I see this situation where, by the moment the 3 stopped roads (6 vehicles!) finally get a chance to move, no one knows anymore - whose turn it is. But even if you happen to remember yours, be sure that most of the other 5 folks don't. Whoever first came up with this idea definitely deserves some "decoration" for outstanding idiocy.

As for drivers impeding traffic - that's a whole separate story in itself. I drive on highways 98% of the time, and it's extremely frustrating and outright dangerous when someone in front of you just does not seem to know what the acceleration/merge lane is for, and you're stuck behind that person at 25mph having to wonder how you're going to merge that dense traffic doing 70. Surely enough, that person proceeds to barge in at 40mph at best, the folks on the road have to break hard or evade, the smooth flow is immediately disturbed and you've got your lovely traffic jam for hours to last, eating up tons of extra fuel.
It does not get that much better once on the highway itself. You know, when someone is moving at half the speed limit, as if they were just driving around aimlessly, it means they don't need the highway and should get off (or be taken off by police) and go use the streets.
We only have one toll highway here in Toronto, but I can tell you that the hefty tolls really help to keep such turtles out of the way.

Minimum speed limit should absolutely be enforced!

 

[gta_orbiter]

Just to add regarding 55 vs. 65 mph speed limit.
IMO, the assumption that a lower speed limit would be a fuel saver is oversimplified and nearsighted.
If we were talking about one car on an empty road, the rule would hold true for most cars. But let's not forget that lowering it on a highway with hundreds of cars per minute would immediately result in a reduction of the highway's bandwidth. That is, we'd most certainly start getting even more traffic jams, which would only contribute to even higher fuel consumption.

 

[Fromthecoast]

Just to add regarding 55 vs. 65 mph speed limit.
IMO, the assumption that a lower speed limit would be a fuel saver is oversimplified and nearsighted.
If we were talking about one car on an empty road, the rule would hold true for most cars. But let's not forget that lowering it on a highway with hundreds of cars per minute would immediately result in a reduction of the highway's bandwidth. That is, we'd most certainly start getting even more traffic jams, which would only contribute to even higher fuel consumption.

This is true and even more reason that LEO's should ticket those people who are driving in the left lane. ITS FOR PASSING!!! Anyone in the left lane not attempting to overtake a vehicle should be ticketed! At least on the highway/interstate.

 

[psyshack]

Speed kills mpg period. 55 mph will net better mpg over 65 mpg period. But it really does not matter in the USA. Folks think they have a god given right to speed. And speed limits mean nothing.

They also have no over all driving skills. They really have no idea how to merge onto a freeway or interstate. The roundabout's would be a disaster in the USA. See merging. Stop signs and yield signs have very little meaning. It would seem its a national pass time to run stop signs and utterly ignore yield signs. The basic concept of a speed limit is lost on most souls.

If the police would do there job millions of barrels of oil would be saved.

Now that Obama has been voted in and the USA is now going to be the socialist republic of the X-USA. We might as well do the full monty with traffic camera's and ticket schemes. Make driving cost out the ass with ungodly tax. Make drivers lic. much harder to get. And get ready, fuel is going to go much higher than its ever been. Dems do not want to drill. We will all be slowed down.

 

[gta_orbiter]

Speed kills mpg period. 55 mph will net better mpg over 65 mpg period. But it really does not matter in the USA. Folks think they have a god given right to speed. And speed limits mean nothing.

They also have no over all driving skills. They really have no idea how to merge onto a freeway or interstate. The roundabout's would be a disaster in the USA. See merging. Stop signs and yield signs have very little meaning. It would seem its a national pass time to run stop signs and utterly ignore yield signs. The basic concept of a speed limit is lost on most souls.

If the police would do there job millions of barrels of oil would be saved.

Now that Obama has been voted in and the USA is now going to be the socialist republic of the X-USA. We might as well do the full monty with traffic camera's and ticket schemes. Make driving cost out the ass with ungodly tax. Make drivers lic. much harder to get. And get ready, fuel is going to go much higher than its ever been. Dems do not want to drill. We will all be slowed down.

psyshack, I don't know why you're so happy about the perspective of us having to slow down and the fact that fuel is gonna cost more. (Are you a stockholder of the big oil, by chance? :lmao
While it's true that there are people out there that always seem to speed no matter what the speed limit, most of us are just having to deal with the hectic lives, trying to get from point A to point B on time. IMO, that is a reasonable thing to expect in the 21-st century. Or, would you rather us all just quit driving altogether and resort to horse riding? That would certainly save all the fuel in the world, but everything else would come to a standstill.

btw, USA is astronomically far from being a socialist republic, no matter who the president is. Just take my word for it, as I have actually lived in one.:wave:

 

[ESHBG]

I really wish they would get rid of stop signs. They are worthless. Most people just sit and stare at each other at 4 way stops. One road should have the right-of-way and the other should have yield signs (same as a stop, but when no one is there, you can coast through). For example, if I want to go to Schererville from my town (Dyer), I have to stop at 6 stop signs in 2 miles. 3 of the intersections are T-intersections where the top part of the T should have the right-of-way (which is the road that I am on). Big waste of gas (as mentioned).

I see what you are saying, but stop signs are used in a lot of areas to calm traffic and reduce speeds, especially through residential areas. They work miracles, and I have seen the proof countless times in my lifetime. Also, if/when issues do arise in an area w/ stop signs, they are one of the easiest things to enforce.

 

[namegoeshere]

So if we get rid of stop signs, how are people (grandma, grandpa, blind people, people in wheel chairs, children, etc.) suppose to safely cross the street?

 

[gta_orbiter]

So if we get rid of stop signs, how are people (grandma, grandpa, blind people, people in wheel chairs, children, etc.) suppose to safely cross the street?

Pedestrian crossing markings. "Stop if there's a pedestrian waiting to cross".
It works the same way at mid-block crossings.
But you know, there are thousands of places where there's hardly ever a pedestrian crossing an intersection.

 

[kopimon]

I like the idea of blinking traffic lights @ intersections instead of stop signs (they're more likely to get your attention than a yield sign) .. blinking yellow means right of way, only yield to pedestrians, blinking red means yield to pedestrians and cars

 

[mhadden]

So if we get rid of stop signs, how are people (grandma, grandpa, blind people, people in wheel chairs, children, etc.) suppose to safely cross the street?

By exactly what gta_orbiter said, use pedestrian crossings. As much as I hate Wisconsin and their ignorant laws, their "yield to pedestrians in crosswalk" law is excellent. I think its more dangerous to cross at a 3 or 4 way intersection from a pedestrian point of view (traffic can come from any of 3 or 4 ways!). A crosswalk somewhere a couple hundred feet from an intersection is better, where traffic can only come from two ways (obviously IMHO).

 

[psyshack]

psyshack, I don't know why you're so happy about the perspective of us having to slow down and the fact that fuel is gonna cost more. (Are you a stockholder of the big oil, by chance? :lmao
While it's true that there are people out there that always seem to speed no matter what the speed limit, most of us are just having to deal with the hectic lives, trying to get from point A to point B on time. IMO, that is a reasonable thing to expect in the 21-st century. Or, would you rather us all just quit driving altogether and resort to horse riding? That would certainly save all the fuel in the world, but everything else would come to a standstill.

btw, USA is astronomically far from being a socialist republic, no matter who the president is. Just take my word for it, as I have actually lived in one.:wave:

What is wrong with slowing down? Is your life and daily grind so badly planed you can't follow the most basic of speed limits?

I am a stock holder in oil company's. Speeding up helps me money wise.

The price of oil is going back up. And Im sure it will be higher than anything we have seen yet. Throw in the fact Obama is not for domestic drilling. And Im sure the fed tax on gas will go up to pay for his pipe dreams. You haven't seen anything yet.

 

[Bruce Hawkins]

Making main roads more flowing is the biggest way to decrease consumption without any added expense. Main roads and highways should be continous as much as possible and entry and exit should be optmized bu using side access more.

I'm with you on that. One plus of dropping the speed limit is that you drop the overall speed down. At 65 everyone is going almost 75. If you drop it down to 55 then everyone drives almost 65. I've noticed a significant difference between 65 and 75 using my SGII.

Unfortunately I haven't hooked it up in the Accord yet. Any mounting suggestions?

I have mine inside the center console, in fount of the Odometer (I can look over it, if needed).

Speed Vs FE; There is a relationship; However, the wind and AC on, has the most effect. Speed is more in the zone of windows up or down (effecting FE)...

 

[kopimon]

Did you guys with SGII's have to calibrate them or was it just "plug&play" ?

 

[Bruce Hawkins]

I have a trip computer built into my vw and the instantaneous reading always rises when you're at 55 v. 65. Are you saying there is no difference? I think it should be lowered, as everyone would just max out at 65-70 v. 80 as mhadden mentioned.

There is a clear difference around 75 MPH. Like I said in above reply, 55 Vs, 65 MPH is like trying to see the difference having the windows down (vs up), vary hard to test (seance it always breeze hear (and slight rolling hills)...

 

[Bruce Hawkins]

Did you guys with SGII's have to calibrate them or was it just "plug&play" ?

You have to calibrate. And there is not enough steps to get it as close as I'd like.
After I calibrate it, its between +0 to +1.1 MPG off (4.2%), or -1 to -2 MPG, if I set the calibration to the other direction.
And, you need to set engine displacement, and something else, I forgot???

 

[stevencrosbie]

There is a big difference in my truck anywhere north of 60. Under 60 it is pretty much at the top and below 45 keeps me out of 6th gear for the most part.

Anything over 70 puts my mileage under 20.