Seems to me that there is considerable evidence that slower speed limits do not save gas, especially in stop and go city traffic. Does it make sense to run vehicle engines longer, thereby causing more air pollution?

There has been considerable research done on the 55-mile per hour maximum speed limit and the results showed an almost zero impact on fuel consumption.

Good intentions do not always make for good results! A lot could be improved upon with better regulation of stop lights. Idling vehicle engines cause more pollution and waste a lot of gas!

Slower mph laws don't save lives. They cause more problems.

My granparents endured 35mph speed limits and 4 gal/week gas rations without compliant while my dad was on a ship in the Pacific enduring suicide aircraft attacks. What would grandpa think of a nation full of people unwilling to endure any inconvenience whatsoever for the sake of their country?

Wow, is 55 too slow in stop and go city traffic? I agree that a 55 MPH speed limit doens't save any fuel. Enforcing it does. Most vehicles get substantially better mileage on the open road at 55 than they do at 70.

Is a function of speed. The slower you travel the less likely any accident will result in death due to the diminished forces. So how slow do you wish to go? Less discuss the issue of fuel consumption and not divert from the issue with a stupid comment about saving lives.

Oh, Jim, you actually state that "free enterprise" is the reason we are in the mess we are in??? For the past 30 years US companies have been forbidden to develop off-shore resources. When it is suggested to develop these resources, the liberal mantra is "you already have all these unexplored leases--develop them first."

There has been a moratorium on developing oil shale and tar sands. The big three automakers received government funds to develop hybrid vehicles. When the government stopped funding, Toyota, on their own dime, brought their hybrid vehicles to market.

And now you want to further dictate how fast I can drive and what kind of vehicle I am allowed to drive. Can you explain to me how this is all the result of free enterprise???

As for Grandpa, people made tremendous sacrifices during WWII. The big difference is that people knew these sacrifices were temporary measures to win the war, with the hope of a better life afterward. The environmentalists/conservationists/liberals would ask us to make tremendous sacrifices with no end it sight, and no plan for a better tomorrow. If we import 70% of our oil, telling me to live on 30% isn't a plan.

Americans use 5 times the oil of the average world citizen and 30 times that of the average Kenyan. If we reduced our consumption 70% to match what we produce domestically, we would be using a mere 1.5 times that of the average world citizen and 9 times that of the average Kenyan.
If the worlds oil were a pie, there would be 20 people in line for a piece. The US would be the morbidly obese jerk at the front of the line who took a quarter of the pie as the first piece.

Saving lives | 7:47 a.m.: "Less discuss the issue of fuel consumption and not divert from the issue with a stupid comment about saving lives."

You're so right. Lives are expendable. Death is justified on the freeways. It's such a small price to pay for the five minutes saved from speeding.

In the end we all die anyway.

Joe | 9:34 a.m.: "If we import 70% of our oil, telling me to live on 30% isn't a plan."

At 70% import rate this nation will soon be broke. Can you hear a giant sucking sound?

Lowonoil needs to take the time to consider his own data that he uses.

Is he implying that Americans should try to match the energy consumption of tribal villagers in Kenya? Of course not. then the comparison is meaningless.

Of course Americans appear to be fuel hogs when you use an average that include populations that have an almost 0 energy consumption. Tell us what Americans consume compared to Japan or Canada or Germany, or some other country with a similar standard of living. That would be meaningful data.

Lets look at facts: In Arizona when the Highway speed limit between tucson and Phoenix increased from 65 mph to 75 mph, highway accidents and deaths went down. Assumptions and theory do not equate to factual information.
The truth is this. Many people are going to go a certain speed on a road, regardless of what the speed limit is, and others will drive right around the speed limit. The roads are safer when everyone is going at or about the same speed. Having 1/2 the traffic drive 15-20 mph less than the other1/2 creates more accidents.
You can argue that everyone should drive the speed limit and that would solve the problem, but you must accept the reality that everybody does not.
In the same token, It would be nice if everybody drove a high MPG hybrid, but again, this is not reality. Even those who want them have trouble getting them because they are in low supply, and cost much more than a conventional car, placing them out of reach to most. Again, a disconnect between theory and reality.

KVC | 1:56 p.m.: "The roads are safer when everyone is going at or about the same speed."

And the speed standard is the legal speed limit. Not some arbitrary speed picked by lead-footers.