Not really. That old law itself, as I told bitkahuna above, was virtually unenforceable, at least on a widespread basis. It only slowed down a few drivers who actually had some respect for it. What ACTUALLY slowed traffic down back then, and still does today, a lot more than speed limits can, is traffic congestion on main roads and speed bumps/4-way stop signs on residential streets. And we all know that it takes more gas to stop and start than to simply keep moving.

Warner is retiring in November. The race to succeed him is already on in my state.
I've generally had respect for him over the years, but I have to sometimes doubt the sanity of someone who would marry actress Elizabeth Taylor (Yes, he was one of her 7 husbands...8 when you consider she married Eddie Fisher TWICE).

I just love stopping for a red light when there's not another soul around; lights are timed randomly (in Houston anyway) not to turn green consecutively as you drive down a busy street.

tell him to go ride a bike!

So if the law doesn't do much, it shouldn't be enacted. Consumers overwhelmingly hated 55 and overwhelmingly appreciated it when the interstates were raised to 65. And when the laws were 55, I *did* get ticketed at 62 and 65 in Pennsylvania. I don't like driving having to 'weigh a risk' all the time, and driving long distance at 55 on empty interstates is so mind-numbingly boring I dare say (contrary to your physics argument) that more accidents occur at lower limits due to boredom and falling asleep.

they say that traffic accidents will decrease with slower speed limits, but here in KY, they raised teh limits to 70 mph from 65 last year, and guess what? we had LESS deaths in that year than previously. when i drive faster, i pay more attention to what's going on, i'm more alert. if i have to go slowly, i get tired, bored, sleepy, and it becomes dangerous.
then you have the road rage issues. imagine people accustomed to going 75 suddenly having to drop to say 60 because of increased enforcement. there are going to be some pissed off people on the road, anything that happens will cause them to go into a road rage fit! it happens to me when i'm stuck behind some morons doing 55-60...
yes it will save oil, but really, we're not short on oil. statistics show that as a nation we've cut back on driving so that should lessen demand but price has actaully risen despite lower demand. obviously it's not a supply demand issue and i wish they'd stop acting like it is.

I was curious about the WWII Gas Rationing and found this.... it really wasn't about the gas.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_382b.html

Dear Cecil:

How was gas rationing handled during World War II? --Bob M., Phoenix

Dear Bob:

Poorly. Actually, gas wasn't what they were rationing at all. The main purpose of the restrictions on gas purchasing was to conserve tires. (And you thought those bureaucrats were stupid.) Japanese armies in the Far East, you see, had cut the U.S. off from its chief supply of rubber.

There were four rationing classifications. An "A" classification, which could be had by almost anyone, entitled the holder to four gallons a week. A "B" classification was worth about eight gallons a week. "C" was reserved for important folk, like doctors, and the magic "X" went to people whose very survival required that they be able to purchase gasoline in unlimited quantities--rich people and politicians, for example.

Rationing was handled through the federal Office of Price Administration. To get a classification and rationing stamps, citizens appeared at the OPA office in person and swore to the high heavens that they (1) needed gas desperately and (2) owned no more than five automobile tires (any in excess of five were confiscated by the government). Each driver was given a windshield sticker that proclaimed his classification for all the world to see. Theoretically, each gallon of gasoline sold was accounted for. The buyer surrendered his stamp at the point of purchase, and the vendor forwarded the records to the OPA.

Gas rationing began on a nationwide basis on December 1, 1942. It ended on August 15, 1945. Speed limits were 35 MPH for the duration. For a short time in 1943, rations were reduced further and all pleasure driving was outlawed.

--CECIL ADAMS

that's interesting. one couldn't own more than 5 automobile tires? i have about 25 unused tires sitting in my garage! i wonder what the fine or penalty was for having extra tires?

You beat me to it, the last few years I have done a lot of long distance driving and my feeling is that by going a it faster on a long trip you reduce your time behind the wheel and that cuts down on boredom. sometimes I got at least 10 hours sleep before i get behind the wheel I do the 800 mile trip from NY to SC in one day and sometimes when I don't get enough sleep before leaving I pull into a cheap motel for 4 or 5 hours to take a quick nap

But driving faster makes you pay more attention and it helps reduce your time, I know I get less attentive at the end of a long stretch behind the wheel.

In the 70's they lined the pumps to get gas because while there was a shortage people could still afford to go get it if they could find it.

Now there's a "shortage" and every pump has some, but no one can afford it.

A real shortage means gas stations have lines around the block and gas is nearly impossible to get rid of. There's no shortage........

Oregon instituted an odd/even approach to reduce the gas lines. If you license plate ended on an even number you could gas up on an even day, etc. Also, as I recall, some stations limited the amount you could buy to stretch the limited supplies.

No shortages now so let the free market respond; higher prices, reduced travel, higher mileage cars, more drilling, more refineries, etc.. It'll be painful for awhile but will sort itself out and we'll be the better off for it.

I did not say that the laws of physics by themselves caused more or fewer accidents; only (correctly) that physics dictates that the faster one DOES go, the greater the potential impact force, vehicle damage, and likelihood of injury or death if one DOES have an accident. It is the simple principle of kinetic energy.

Obviously, if you are alone on an arrow-straight highway in Kansas or Montana with no other traffic for miles around, and you are doing 100 MPH, you are not likely to hit anything else and have an accident, unless an animal or something like that wanders into the road. But if you are doing 100 on the D.C. Beltway at rush hour, or on a curving mountain road, you are guaranteed to hit something, go off the edge, and incur damage or injury. But either way, the amount of kinetic energy stored in the moving vehicle, and its potential impact force if an accident does occur, is the same, regardless of actual road conditions..

I've always felt (and no, I don't have a government study to cite...this is a personal opinion; let the attacks begin) that it's more a speed DIFFERENTIAL that's dangerous...not "speeding".

If I'm doing 75 on an Interstate and everyone else is doing 75, life is good. We're all driving at (about) the same speed, cruise-control is set; nice and safe.

Then, all of a sudden, we all come upon a "safe" driver...who's doing exactly 55. Everyone's stepping on their brakes, or turning off their cruise-control (which DOESN'T light up the brake lights), we're changing lanes to get around him/her, and having to get back in a line and get the pace set again.

Anyone watch NASCar? They fly around the track for 50, 60, sometimes 70 laps, all going at the same pace. Then, they'll come across a car near the back of the pack; someone who's 5 MPH off the pace...and that's where the excitement of Stock Car racing comes in!!! The crash!

Now, yes, I know, we're not all professional drivers but, I think most of you get my point.

I think the most dangerous people on the road are the ones that drive onto the Interstate entrance ramps at 45 MPH, trying to merge. They're doing 20-40!!! MPH less than the traffic they're merging with but, they're "driving slow and careful, just to be safe".

Actually, guys, I may have to apologize here.....I think I quoted the wrong formula

What increases at the square of the speed is NOT necessarily the fuel use but the potential crash IMPACT force......the amount of energy stored in the moving vehicle that can cause impact damage.

While fuel use and air resistance, of course, DOES increase with added speed, it probably not increase to that extreme. So.....I apologize if I misled anyone here.

Which is why the Bugatti Veyron runs out of fuel in 16 minutes at full chat; just before the tires explode.... ;-)