Ready for 55 again?

I ran across this interesting article about a report that the International
Energy Agency
has just released.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EFD8144333.htm
The complete report is at
http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/200...background.pdf

Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report):
"But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed
restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory
driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on
cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on
corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%).

In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be
needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the
cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.

"Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments
for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We
assume this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people."

As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million
people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may
seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put
off."

Floyd Rogers

Meanwhile, my friends living in Europe drive much faster than
us in cars with much smaller engines and with much better fuel
economy. Why cant I cruise at 100 mph in a car with a 3 liter
engine and my buddy in France can with his 1.4 liter Peugeot?

In article >, fbloogyudsr wrote:
> cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on
> corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%)

Time to change a plate on one car to an even number.

> In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be
> needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the
> cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.

That's always the point, _CONTROL_ of the population. Ever notice how the
solution is always more monitoring, more control?

In article >,
fbloogyudsr > wrote:
>I ran across this interesting article about a report that the International
>Energy Agency
>has just released.
>http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EFD8144333.htm
>The complete report is at
>http://www.iea.org/textbase/work/200...background.pdf
>
>Here's an interesting quote from the article (paraphrased from the report):
>"But the most hardline emergency proposals come in the form of drastic speed
>restrictions (nb: the report says 90kph - about 55mph) and compulsory
>driving bans. Bans could be one day in every 10 (10%) or more stringently on
>cars with odd or even number plates. They would be banned from the roads on
>corresponding odd or even days of the month (50%).

Great, so I'd need two cars, one for the odd days and one for the even
days. Or, if I'm less scrupulous of the law, two license plates.

The report seems to based on be a bunch of estimates pulled from the nether
regions. Consider -- they claims savings of 500,000 barrels per day
by a driving ban for 1 in 10 days. Insane. Even assuming the ban was
actually widely observed, it would simply shift most travel to the other 9
days (including commutes; many employers would probably operate on
weekends so people could make up a missed day). They also claim a
> 1,000,000 barrel per day savings for a 90km/hr speed limit. Uhh,
guys, we've been there and done that here in the US. Didn't really
work all that well.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

223rem wrote:
> Meanwhile, my friends living in Europe drive much faster than
> us in cars with much smaller engines and with much better fuel
> economy. Why cant I cruise at 100 mph in a car with a 3 liter
> engine and my buddy in France can with his 1.4 liter Peugeot?

He can't. The speed limit on the French freeways is 130 km/h (80 mph),
and they have recently started enforcing it. Besides, driving a 1.4
liter car at 100 mph would kill the fuel economy. I drove 100 mph in my
BMW for 60 miles last weekend, and I had problems maintaining my speed
in the steeper inclines despite the rpms being right at the engine's
sweet spot. With a 1.6 liter engine I doubt it would even have been
possible.

Ulf

--
ulf.cc

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, fbloogyudsr wrote:

[nonsense]

It is a common misconception that 55mph either saves gas or improves
safety.

And the reason of these control freaks to demand a 55mph speed limit is
not their concern for the environment or energy consumption but the desire
to control people.

Chris

I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at
75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a
reality check.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 12:09:38 -0800, "fbloogyudsr"
> wrote:

>In forming its conclusions the IEA tacitly admits that extra police would be
>needed in these circumstances to stop citizens breaking the bans. Even the
>cost of those extra patrols are part of the IEA's study.
>
>"Policing costs are more substantial and may consist of overtime payments
>for existing police or traffic officers or increases in policing staff. We
>assume this cost at one officer per 100 000 employed people."
>
>As an example that means that the US workforce, currently around 138 million
>people, would need an extra 1380 officers to help enforce the bans. It may
>seem an optimistic figure. But even if this were so, the IEA is not put
>off."

Interesting stupidity. Let's see, we will allow people to work 10%
less, and increase taxes by 50%, thereby making all of our citizens
happier while increasing the standard of living.

Magnulus wrote:

> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at
> 75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a
> reality check.

And if you think that driving 60 mph doesn't take significantly more
time over the long term as compared to 75 or 85 mph, then you really
need a reality check.

In article >,
Magnulus > wrote:
> I guess you don't know what wind resistance is. If you think driving at
>75 or 85 mph doesn't use more fuel than driving at 60 mph, you need a
>reality check.

If wind resistance, or rolling resistance, or any sort of friction
that increases with ground or air speed, is the key to fuel economy
then the optimum speed is zero. But the optimum speed of a car is
over 40 MPH. So a superficial understanding of wind resistance
leads one to the wrong conclusion.

--
John Carr )