mart@utcsrgv.UUCP (Mart Molle) (01/21/84)
> > *** > * Both my cars (Volvo 122, Saab 99) will get better mileage at a nice steady > * 80 than a guzzler will ever get at any speed. Change the cars, not the road. > * > * --Jim Bray (decvax!bbncca!jbray) > ** > > Mr. Bray apparently feels that it's an infringement of his freedom not to > be able to go 80, but it's not an infringement of his freedom to be > prevented from buying, say, a Cadillac. > > Jeff Winslow (jeffw@tekecs.UUCP) The real point here is that pro-55 people are unwilling to set any PERFORMANCE STANDARDS about fuel consumption. Instead, they are saying `we will enforce THIS SOLUTION to conserve fuel'. Notice that this solution creates no incentive for me, personally, to try harder. I can feel good about buying a [generic] Cadillac and driving it at 55 even tho I could have purchased, say, a [generic] Rabbit turbo-diesel and driven it at, say, 90mph and STILL burned less fuel. Why should I pay extra for an `equivalent car' (eg. Chevy Celebrity vs. Malibu?) or settle for `less car' for the same money (eg. Audi 5000 vs. Cadillac?) just to save some fuel? Obviously Mr. Winslow would not be impressed. Now, how about another approach to the problem of reducing fuel consumption. Why not insert a fuel flow limiter between the gas tank and the engine to limit the fuel flow to some fixed upper bound, set the speed limit to some sensible value chosen without regard for its alleged fuel savings, and let everyone drive at whatever speed they choose in whatever car they choose. Suddenly the `Cadillac' owner running at 50mph will notice he can go 55 without the air conditioner on all the time. Perhaps he will also notice all the `Audi' drivers whizzing by at the speed limit [of say 70mph?] and buy a more efficient car next time. Obviously, this would require inspections to make sure the thing isn't defeated in some way (such as a bipass, or a hidden fuel reservoir between it and the engine). To me, the concept seems no more of an infringement than having to let the electric utility put a seal on the distribution panel in my basement so I don't change the 100amp main fuse inside. If you like the idea but feel it is unfair to those who lust after gas guzzlers and can afford to pay for the privilege, there could always be some optional flow limiters with higher maximum rates, for which you had to pay a progressive (as in income tax?) annual tax... Mart L. Molle University of Toronto
hlh@linus.UUCP (Henry L. Hall) (01/23/84)
Perhaps another way to "enforce" the saving of fuel is to install a more
stringent minimum fuel mileage standard, perhaps one that goes not on only
the current CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) rate now in effect, but
instead on a per car basis. Currently, a manufacturer whose fleet achieves
less than 25 mpg must pay a gas-guzzler tax (a tax that is usually passed
on to the people buying the car, witness Rolls Royce whose proud owners must
pay a surcharge of ~$1000.00). Perhaps this would be enough of an incentive
to get people to switch to more fuel efficient vehicles. Moreover, it would
allow the people of America to buy the car of their dreams while paying for
their social irresponsibility.
Isn't the free enterprise system wonderful, as long as it's strictly enforced.
:-)
Henry L. Hall
{allegra, cbosgd, decvax, ihnp4} !linus!hlh {UUCP}
linus!hlh@mitre-bedford {MIL}stanwyck@ihuxr.UUCP (01/24/84)
AARRGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, I guess I stayed out of this fray long enough. Mr/Ms Molle (I forgot the first name) just fried me good. First. The reason 55 mph is better than fuel flow limiters or other such riduculous thinking is safety. It is UNSAFE to have traffic traveling at widely varying (i.e. >5-7mph) differences of speed. The ideal speed for any vehicle to travel on an expressway/freeway is as close to the mean speed of the rest of traffic as possible. (Whatever that speed is!) If traffic is moving 40 then it is very unsafe to go 55. Other drivers don't expect your vehicle to approach them at >> the speed of other traffic. Secondly, 55 is easier to enforce (though admittedly it is not well done) than variable speed for variable vehicle. How could a patrolman ever determine that you were in excess of your limit if your limit could not be determined except by stopping your car and tearing it down to see if it had been tampered with. Again, the problem is the unsafeness (is THAT a word?) of widely different speeds. Maybe your car could get the required fuel usage at ninety, and someone elses could go only 35mph, would it be safe for you to share the expressway? Flames. flames, everywhere, and not an extinguisher in sight. Why oh why will some people insist that they know how to drive, when all they know how to do is cause others to wreck their vehicles trying to avoid them........ (p.s. people who pick on the spelling and grammer of flames flamed in a reactionary manner at early early hours of the morning are lower forms of life than maggots. (I would have said wombats, but i think wombats are nice warm cuddly critters that kep my toes warm at night.)) -- ________ ( ) Don Stanwyck @( o o )@ 312-979-3062 ( || ) Cornet-367-3062 ( \__/ ) ihnp4!ihuxr!stanwyck (______) Bell Labs @ Naperville, IL
marcum@fortune.UUCP (Alan M. Marcum) (01/30/84)
The proposal to save fuel by restricting flow, thereby setting a speed limit based on fuel consumption, is an interesting idea. One challenge in implementing it is providing an "emergency bypass" to allow emergency acceleration when needed. This must occur without driver intervention. Hmmmm. Big car brother is watching you! Alan M. Marcum Fortune Systems, Redwood City, California ...!hplabs!hpda!fortune!rhino!marcum