The “Double Nickel”

Written March 2, 1991

Waste of “government” funds from the public purse is nothing new. Many people have come to take it for granted or resigned themselves to putting up with it. There is another drain on pocketbooks of the public at-large that many ordinary man-in-the-street types are not even aware of. I’m referring to the pernicious regulations and policies which affect almost every aspect of our lives. The policies adopted in these regulations are always “for our own good” and meant to protect us, presumably, because we haven’t the sense to take care of ourselves. Many, if not most, regulations are invisible to all but the industry being regulated.

Regulation generally tends to raise the cost of something or other. The costs of regulation are, of course, passed on to the consumer and he pays up — none the wiser. Price increases due to regulation are probably (erroneously) lumped under the heading “inflation”. It is an invisible tax of sorts, the cost of which never shows up on the books. Nevertheless, it is part of the price we pay to be “governed”.

One such policy, also touted as being for our own good, is the “Double Nickel”, our national 55 MPH speed limit. It’s effects are ubiquitous, tending to raise the cost of almost everything. Surprisingly, this cost to everyone is largely ignored, its “good points” always being in the fore. When this particular bit of handiwork was first foisted upon an unsuspecting populace, we were told that it was necessary and good; that something had to be done to save gasoline and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It promised much but delivered little.

It’s not unusual for well-intentioned legislation to sometimes back-fire and have just the opposite effect from what it was supposed to. Such was the case in at least some instances where the 55 MPH speed limit was concerned. For example, in the Los Angeles area both fuel consumption and air pollution actually rose due to more tightly packed “rat-packs” on the freeways. Everyone drove at pretty much the same speed and traffic became more congested than usual with more people riding their brakes and/or accelerating and braking more than they would have otherwise. Though speeds were lower, fuel consumption was up. That wasn’t the way it was supposed to work.

We have a national speed limit because (according to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 1978 55 MPH Fact Book) “There are two premises on which the 55mph limit is based: The need to conserve energy, and the need to save lives.” I rather suspect that the “need to save lives” is a case of 20/20 hindsight as I don’t recall hearing about a projected savings in lives in 1974 when we were first treated to the concept of a 55 MPH speed limit nationwide. As we shall see, neither of the two “premises” are particularly well served by the Double Nickel. Even given the alleged savings in lives, however, it is doubtful that the 55 was ever good for anything besides political propaganda.

True, the 55 does save some gasoline but even its proponents no longer pretend that it saves a significant amount. Instead, the depth of their analysis usually boils down to:

1. “The 55 MPH limit saves lives.”
2. “Saving lives is good.”
3. “The 55 MPH limit is therefore good.”

Assuming that the first assertion is true (and there is much room for argument), and though most reasonable people would acknowledge the second to be true, we still have too little information upon which to base (3), the conclusion. Totally ignored is the other side of the equation i.e. the bad effects of our national speed limit.

Too often, the people dealing with these things suffer from selective perception, seeing only what they want to see. I have yet to see a balanced look which considers the “down-side” effects of this costly burden. The cost (in terms of dollars) to the federal treasury for this particular bit of mischief is small; the individual states are responsible both for enforcing the limit and for certifying annually to the federal government that they are doing so. Nevertheless, it’s costing us dearly as we shall see.

When the 55 was first imposed, only 12 states had maximum limits of more than 65 MPH. Most state limits were thus affected by 10 MPH or less. Those with the higher limits and which could therefore be expected to show the most improvement in gas milage per mile driven were mostly western states, the less populated states. Meanwhile in the more heavily populated states, most of the people live in metropolitan areas where most of the streets and roads already had limits of 55 or less. Even those thoroughfares which had limits greater than 55 (freeways, tollways, turnpikes expressways) did not always see speeds at that limit because of rush-hour traffic density (i.e. bumper-to-bumper at a crawl). Given that the majority of all gasoline is burned in urban driving situations, the portion of gasoline-as-motor-fuel which would even be affected by the new limit was not great.

Bear in mind too that oil is used for far more than motor fuel. It is used for everything from firing boilers to making fertilizer and plastics yet its use as a motor fuel was singled out to bear the burden of reducing our energy consumption. Note too that vehicles not traveling over public roads can use fuel with abandon. We were left free to fly, run our pleasure boats, climb hills in our off-road vehicles and generally tear around the landscape in our usual pursuit of recreation without having to worry where our next tankful would come from as long as we didn’t do it on a public street or highway. Therefore the potential savings in fuel were never very large to begin with but were instead vastly over-estimated in order to get the public to go along.

Even had the 55 limit worked at saving a significant amount of gasoline, how much would it have reduced oil imports? Remember that some of the fuel saved would be domestic. In 1974, 37 percent of our petroleum was imported. Even a sizable reduction in consumption would have had a lesser impact on the level of imports and the idea was, after all, to reduce our vulnerability to a bunch of “Blackmailers in Bedsheets”, wasn’t it? Ironically, despite the national speed limit, imported oil increased to 47 percent of our total by 1977 and today it is even higher.

The national speed limit was, I believe, largely symbolic: enacted to assure The American People that something was being done about the “energy crisis,” a crisis brought about by government policies in the first place.

The seers told us that the savings would be considerable. Let’s look at how it worked out in the real world. The Fact Book states; “Nevertheless, it is estimated that highway fuel consumed in 1975 was 2.9 percent less as a result of slower driving speeds than would have been expected based on 1962-1972 growth rates.” This at a time when there was relatively high compliance with the 55 MPH limit. I think that it would be safe to say that any error in the above estimate would tend to be optimistic inasmuch as it is based on pre-embargo growth rates, rates which almost certainly would not have been sustained once OPEC turned off the spigot.

I couldn’t help but wonder how the estimated savings are calculated these days. Given that our national automotive fleet has since been drastically down-sized, how much of our current “fuel savings” are due to downsizing and engineering improvements and what portion is due to the lower speed limit? Indeed, what with the federally mandated C.A.F.E. (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements and the resulting more fuel-efficient automobiles, the potential savings of a 55 MPH limit are now are quite likely even less significant than they were in 1975.

Doubtless, it would be instructive (perhaps even entertaining) to see just how such figures are derived. At the very least one would have to know:

1. How many automobiles have we?
2. What kind of fuel milage do they get at various speeds, specifically, 55 MPH and above?
3. What percentage of the milage that these cars are driven is driven on roads where the limit is currently 55 and, presumably, would be higher were it not for our national speed limit?
4. Given our current automotive mix, what types of cars are used for the driving in (3) above? i.e. Do travelers tend to choose more frugal cars or do they drive thirstier but “more comfortable” cars on long trips?

Some of the above information, I realize, may only be available from government agencies since gathering it is a very ambitious undertaking. Whatever the source of the figures used, one must ask “Are the figures realistic?”. After all, the federal government requires that auto manufacturers use federal (EPA) milage figures only with a disclaimer such as “Use figures for comparison only…… actual milage will probably be lower” or words to that effect. Are these same padded figures being used to estimate our savings of fuel at the national level?

A Saving Quality

Fortunately (for the politicians), the 55 MPH speed limit seems to have another saving effect.

Following the imposition of the 55 MPH speed limit nationwide, traffic fatalities fell off by 16.5% “The 55 saves lives!!!” Or so it seemed, but, hold on there. In 1974, people weren’t driving as much as they used to — not when they had to wait for two hours to buy gas! But wait! Milage driven in 1974 was only off by 2.6% while fatalities are down by 16.5%. Logically, the difference is attributable to the lower speed, right?

Not necessarily. Let’s examine the milage that typically was not driven. Very likely, Junior did not get the car Friday night for his date. Not when Pop had to wait in a line two blocks long on an odd numbered day to buy gasoline. As for Pop, he’s probably less inclined to go out to have a few drinks with the boys for the same reason; he can’t afford to waste the gasoline. Thus, the milage not driven during the oil embargo was probably the frivolous, high-risk mileage, the joyriding, the Sunday drive to the country. The kind of driving that contributes disproportionately to traffic accidents. Surely that must be considered.

Further evidence that the speed limit could not be entirely responsible for the reduction in traffic deaths is given by the fact that fatalities were down not only on the highways, but on the city streets as well and by an equal percentage to that on the highways. This fact seems to have been ignored as no attempt was made to separate urban fatalities from highway fatalities. All deaths were instead considered to be the same.

Rather than look at quantities of fatalities then, let’s consider the mileage death rate (deaths per hundred-million vehicle miles). This would be a better indicator of how safe it is to travel. Not well publicized is the fact that the mileage death rate had been in a steady decline since 1966. In fact, in the period 1970-73, the rate had dropped by 13% (4.72 to 4.11) compared with just a 7.7% decrease (from 1974-77, the first years after adoption of the lower speed limit.The rate of reduction of highway deaths actually decreased with imposition of the 55.

So what was the real potential for fuel savings? It would help to know:

1. How many miles of U.S. highways were actually affected and to what degree?
2. What percentage of the total miles being driven by motor vehicles in this country were then being driven at speeds in excess of 55 MPH?
3. And, what effect would this savings have on reducing oil imports?

The figure may very well be at a pre-1973 level now, but how much of that is due to other factors such as increased seat belt usage? (It is currently running at about 11%; what was it then?) and how much is due to improved automotive safety engineering and just plain safety consciousness? And, better yet, how can they tell how much is attributable to what? I think the answer to that is that they’re only guessing. Assuming, however, that some lives are saved by the 55 MPH speed limit, we should ask “At what cost?”.

We need to analyze all the costs and put a dollar value on them. Many people might find trying to put a dollar value on a life saved to be heartless or uncaring, but if reducing traffic fatalities were a “cost-is-no-object” effort, surely we would abandon motor vehicles entirely! Many people believe that “If it saves even one life, then it’s worth it.”, but, most of them are, you should note, still themselves driving even though they may one day be responsible for a traffic death. Clearly, there is a price that the vast majority of us would agree is too much. For some, the price to pay for the chance of possibly saving someone’s life would not be objectionable until 45 or even 35 MPH. Judging, however, by the widespread flaunting of the 55 MPH limit, the cost of saving lives (and/or fuel) is already excessive. Certainly, it is more than most of us are willing to pay.

And just what are the costs? Obviously, the cost of enforcement comes immediately to mind. This, no doubt, is more than offset by the fines paid by violators. In fact, many jurisdictions throughout the country have found the national speed limit to be a valuable source of revenue. And, of course, it’s the “patriotic” thing to do to drive 55. It is only natural then that one might question the true motive behind any statement issued by a governmental body in support of retaining the 55 MPH limit. Might not they practice selective perception, ignoring any facts which do not support their foregone conclusion?

The fines are only one kind of cost and are only paid by those of us that get caught. All of us, however, pay hard earned dollars in the form of higher transportation costs for almost everything we use. The vast majority of consumer goods are at one time or another shipped by truck at some point in the distribution chain; trucks that are (at least supposed to be) traveling a maximum of 55 MPH compared with the 65 or 70 of ten years ago. Time is money to people that drive for a living. Many truckers prefer to take their chances with the “Smokeys” (with one eye on the mirror and the other on the radar detector) and just pay the fines. For them, it’s cheaper than driving more slowly and thereby reducing their income. Still, the limited compliance together with other factors does increase the cost of shipping everything. I have seen this figure estimated at more than $200 per year for every man, woman and child in the country; a tidy amount in anyone’s book! And,doubtless, no small amount to the typical “family of four” so often referred to.

It used to be that a traffic fatality caused financial hardship, if at all, only to the people immediately involved and, of course, only when an accident actually occurred. The 55 MPH speed limit has us all paying now, even for accidents that don’t occur. We have, in effect, socialized the cost of saving a relatively few lives.

Above and beyond the dollars spent for increased transportation costs there is the cost of lost time. Time, unlike gasoline or even human life, is neither renewable nor replaceable. Each one of us knows the value of our own time. Lost time can mean lost income or a lost opportunity. I am the best judge of what my time is worth. It is probably safe to say that even at the minimum wage, the dollar value of this essentially wasted time is, once again, considerable. No doubt it would be interesting to see if, on a one-for-one basis, the total man/hours saved by the 55 is greater or less than the total man/hours expended in saving them. i.e. Does the estimated remaining life of the “typical” traffic fatality times the number of lives actually saved equal or exceed the time expended by everyone in driving 55 as opposed to 65 or 70 MPH? If not, then the 55 MPH limit is not beneficial after all, it is counter productive. This “bottom line” approach is necessary for an objective look at the issue. Which brings me to the subject of cost effectiveness.

Assuming that the data were obtained to allow us to develop accurate figures for the true cost of and actual benefits derived from the 55 MPH speed limit in terms of fuel and lives saved, we then confront the question “Can we achieve the same results more cost-effectively?”. We’ve already seen that market forces and C.A.F.E. requirements have put more fuel-efficient cars on the road. Can a significant fuel savings, comparable to what the 55 saves us be accomplished in another, more cost-effective way?

Why not an ad campaign encouraging tune ups? An additional benefit of this approach would certainly be improved air quality.

What about the simple matter of keeping tires at their proper inflation pressures? Inflation pressure has a significant effect on gasoline milage. It has been stated elsewhere that simply keeping tires properly aired-up could save as much fuel as what the 55 MPH speed limit does now. And it would save tires too! So why not urge the service station associations or other trade groups to offer a free tire pressure check with a fill-up? It is the rare “full service” station that does it without being asked.

There must be ways to conserve fuel without the tremendous drain on the economy which is part and parcel of the 55 MPH speed limit. Let’s use them. It should be much easier to convince people to do something they want to do (save money and tires, breathe cleaner air) than to convince them to do something they don’t want to do (drive 55).

And what about more cost-effective methods for reducing traffic fatalities? It is well known that alcohol is a factor in several times as many traffic fatalities than is excessive speed. It would appear then that a major problem is being given scant attention in favor of addressing a minor, but more lucrative, contributor to traffic deaths. If the legislature would just sort out it’s priorities (but then, perhaps it has) the proper course to pursue should be obvious. Getting unsafe drivers off the road, be they drunks or incompetents, would go a long way toward reducing traffic deaths. Let’s weed out the bad drivers with a real driving test. “Twice around the block then parallel park” can’t begin to show how a driver will handle an emergency. We test eyesight, why not check reaction time? Are we afraid that requiring a demonstration of fitness would “discriminate” against some? It is not the high-performance cars which are dangerous, it is the low-performance drivers. Surely it is obvious that we could save many more lives than the 55 does now if only we would address the real problem.

Mobility is as American as Apple Pie and anything done to reduce that mobility erodes part of our freedom. Then too,like the Eighteenth Amendment, the National Speed Limit is vastly unpopular and only serves to undermine respect for all laws. How many people drive 55 only because it is the law and would drive faster if it were permitted? What of the millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens that have become criminals because of this law? To be sure, there are those that support it, but I believe they are in the minority.

A few years ago, the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) circulated questionnaires concerning peoples’ attitudes toward the 55 limit. They wanted to develop a public relations campaign to urge compliance and it was essential that they first know why people weren’t complying. Not surprisingly, the state government wasn’t overly concerned with carnage on Arizona’s roads; they were worried about a possible cut-off of federal highway aid funds if a minimum compliance level wasn’t reached. It is this aspect that I find particularly galling; the use of the federal “big stick” to force compliance on the various states. I have never seen the published results of the DPS survey. It asked what speed people thought the limit should be set at. Are most of us happy with 55 MPH? I think not. D.O.T. is at a loss to explain why public acceptance is high (based on polls) while compliance is so low.

This is just another case of our government protecting us from ourselves whether we like it or not. We have far too much of that already.

Of course, the one possibility that I have not addressed is that I could be wrong about the whole thing. Perhaps our national speed limit does save more than it costs, though I doubt it. Even if it does, it is still a vastly unpopular law. Millions of people every day “vote with their feet” to show their displeasure with the beloved “Double Nickel”.

Even if we are charitable and grant that the 55 MPH speed limit may have done some good at some time, surely it is an anachronism now. U.S.D.O.T. says that the number 55 was chosen “by studying wind resistance factors and engine efficiency factors”. In the interim since 1974 we have been building cars that are efficient at 55 MPH instead 70.

The problem was not one of excessive speed but one of low efficiency. Improvements in aerodynamics, engine efficiency and even tire technology have reduced the need for our national speed limit. The 55 MPH speed is not “a Law We Can Live With.” The cost of the “Double Nickel” is not small change. Most people, as indicated by compliance levels, feel that the 55 is too darned expensive. If more people could afford the luxury of driving at 55 MPH, they would!