On this day in 1974, Richard Nixon responded to the Arab oil embargo by signing the Emergency Highway Conservation Act. The law offered the states a choice: impose a 55 mph maximum speed limit or forego federal highway funds. The national limit remained in effect for more than a decade, annoying my dad*, who ignored it whenever he got behind the wheel**. My mom, by contrast, never drove more than 52 mph, infuriating dad even more than the posted limit did. Between their arguments over an appropriate pace and the thick clouds of smoke wafting from their cigarettes***, long road trips were a blast. Anyway, in 1987 and 1988, with fuel prices lower and gas lines unheard of, Congress amended the law to allow for speeds up to 65 mph. Then, in 1995, legislators repealed the federal limit entirely****.
The history of the 55 mph speed limit reminds us that the Republican Party once embraced conservation. As this Bill Cronon op-ed points out, Nixon, for all of his paranoia and war mongering*****, was relatively green. Beginning with Ronald Regan, though, the GOP sold what was left of its soul to petroleum companies and placated its libertarian wing by crafting energy policies relentlessly focused on production rather than consumption. The idea of something so simple as a federal speed limit now receives hardly any attention at all. Dad is relieved. And I have to admit that when I used to drive across the vast expanses of Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana pretty regularly, I often ignored fuel economy in service of getting there. Fast. But with climate change now a foregone conclusion, and oil still flirting with $100/barrel, isn’t it time to talk about changing not just how much we drive but how fast? Who would have thought that Richard Nixon would have led the way******?
* Among other motorists.
** Including on the tree-lined streets of Cleveland’s eastern suburbs. Yes, that blur was my father. Sorry if your pet paid the price for his impatience.
*** He: Parliaments. She: Larks.
**** Dad still considers this the nation’s most important holiday.
***** Bill, who’s much more diplomatic than I am, doesn’t mention Nixon’s personality quirks and policy nightmares; he focuses on the positives.
****** I’m not saying he was a hero or anything, so spare me the Nixon-was-a-war-criminal e-mails. Because I know. But he apparently loved him some caribou. As long as they weren’t Jewish. Or Democrats. Or Jewish Democrats.
Editor’s Note: Although all of the details of the above stories are 100% accurate (except where they’re not), I love my mother and father dearly. So no guilt, please.


18 comments
January 2, 2008 at 3:28 am
T. R. Brereton
I was in college at the time, and remember vividly not only the drastic jump in gasoline prices and the lines to get gas, but because I went to college a long way from home, I particularly remember the god-awful amount of time it took to get back and forth during holidays.
Nothing in the intervening years since the federal speed limit’s demise has changed; as you admit, “I often ignored fuel economy in service of getting there. Fast.” We all do this. I just drove across Iowa, Kansas, and half of Colorado a couple of weeks ago as fast as the law (and weather) would allow, price and fuel efficiency be damned. It’s still cheaper than flying.
Isn’t that really the point? “[W]ith climate change now a foregone conclusion, and oil still flirting with $100/barrel, isn’t it time to talk about changing not just how much we drive but how fast?” Yes, to which — like Prohibition — one can say with authority, “that’s been tried and failed — what else ya got?”
An impediment we have at the moment is the interstate highway infrastructure, long distances between traveled points, and the absence of profitable alternatives to the airline industry. For all intents, it’s one or the other: drive, or take the plane. If you drive, particularly long distances, limiting speed — which increases time on the road — is going to be a particularly irksome solution. Until alternatives to petroleum become widely available, enforcement and improvement of CAFE standards seems more a likely proposition.
January 2, 2008 at 5:31 am
merlallen
My father once got a ticket for impeding traffic. Driving way to slow.
My mom thought 120 mph was fast enough.
My dad would annoy us with the slow driving, my mom would terrify us with the fast.
hahaha
I really miss them.
January 2, 2008 at 6:27 am
matt w
Isn’t driving less carbony than flying, even if you drive fast? But here’s where trains that don’t suck could make a difference — my Euro friends think it’s shocking that you can drive faster than you can take the train.
Also, improving fuel economy would be nice.
January 2, 2008 at 7:46 am
NewMexiKen
Tax the gasoline (at European levels) and let those who choose to drive fast pay for the privilege. Most gasoline is burned commuting to work in situations where alternatives are available, not a few drivers speeding across empty roads in Nevada.
January 2, 2008 at 8:34 am
ari
Or New Mexico. Right? And yes, I agree with much of what has been said above: the time has come for a higher fuel or broader carbon tax; improving mileage is a no-brainer; mass transit in much of the nation is a joke; and I don’t relish the thought of driving slower. That said, my broader point, that the Republican Party used to consider conservation but no longer does still interests me. I’d also note that we may now have to grapple with all manner of personal sacrifices, including arriving at our destinations marginally later.
Finally, welcome to the blog, NewMexiKen. And thanks for the links you’ve thrown our way in the past. We really do appreciate it.
January 2, 2008 at 11:47 am
NewMexiKen
Thanks for the welcome.
Your broader point, especially about Nixon, is a good one. I just still resent the speeding ticket I once got for doing 62 (speed limit 55) on an empty I-8 in rural Imperial County, California, one morning nearly 25 years ago.
Not long ago I was able to cruise I-5 between L.A. and San Francisco at 90 mph for nearly two hours (I was not alone). As much as anything it was realizing that it was costing me about 25¢ a minute in gasoline that slowed me down.
The interstate highway speed limit in New Mexico is 75.
January 2, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hank
Why isn’t there a middle-ground for sanity in this debate? Arguably, going 55 in the straight, flat, all-but-unoccupied plains is irrational. But, on the other hand, have you ever done Atlanta’s belt-way? Six lanes (or so it seemed last time I was there) in each direction, speed limit 70 I think, but that means going 80, at a minimum, with the fast lanes reserved for those going 90 and above. Mega-irrational.
In addition, the return to 70 mph coincided with two under-appreciated changes in driving, one in the law, the other in habits, that have made driving a nightmare compared to the 55 mph days.
The change in law was the lifting of the prohibition on passing on the right. This leads to a high frequency of two vehicles passing a middle vehicle simultaneously, and each attempting to change into the middle lane at the same time, among other annoyances (such as the elimination of the lane to your right as a safe refuge from a barrelling semi coming up behind you).
The change in habits has been twofold: first, the general and widespread assumption that using one’s turn-signal to indicate a lane-change is unnecessary; second, the infusion of technologies–cd changers, cell-phones, and lap-tops–into the driving compartment. All together, these changes have made our more crowded highways a circus of incompetence and irresponsibility.
A brief anecdote: a semi-driver recently plowed–at full speed–into the rear vehicle in a line of backed-up traffic on one of our interstates here, killing 8 construction workers in the back of a pick-up. Why? He was playing with his cell-phone and wasn’t watching the (perfectly straight, perfectly flat) road.
The driver was not charged with reckless or even careless driving, to the shock of the families and community. Being distracted by your cell-phone is an understandable, if unfortunate, reality of piloting a multi-ton semi at 80 mph in this state.
There’s more involved here than just carbon emissions and oil consumption: there’s also the frequency of accidents and the severity of those accidents when they occur. The 55 mph culture has it all over 70 on that score.
TR’s comment–“isn’t it time to talk about changing not just how much we drive but how fast?” Yes, to which — like Prohibition — one can say with authority, “that’s been tried and failed — what else ya got?””–doesn’t have the authority he thinks it might. That there was widespread flouting of prohibition in the ’20s is well-known. But that’s hardly the whole story: the fact is there was wider-spread compliance (especially outside the inner-cities) and, what is more, mean levels of alcohol consumption not only dropped substantially, but that decrease was lasting. We have yet to return, in fact, to pre-Prohibition drinking levels in the US.
All laws are broken by a certain percentage of the population. But larger percentages comply, and the laws generally serve a pedagogical function that shouldn’t be ignored.
January 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Ben Alpers
What Matt said about trains! I’m spending a car-less year in Germany and I can honestly say that not even once have I wished that I had a car here (and I should add that Germany is one of the more car-obsessed countries in Europe; if any European country would make one dream of getting behind the wheel, this would probably be it).
Dramatically improved public transportation is a key part of any sensible policy designed to limit gas consumption.
January 2, 2008 at 4:52 pm
urbino
Agreed. Especially, I think, for covering long distances. For in-town travel, I favor the bicycle.
January 2, 2008 at 4:55 pm
urbino
I think part of what you observe re Nixon vs. current GOP, Ari, is the GOP’s return to market fundamentalism. Everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, and the market — or Market — will sort it all out for the best. When we need to get off of fossil fuels, new energy sources will appear as if by magic, courtesy of the Market. “Whatever is, is right.”
January 2, 2008 at 6:14 pm
ari
Your problem, Urbino, is that you lack faith in the market. If you had such faith, you wouldn’t even need a bicycle. You’d have a pony.*
* Yes, I’ll keep linking to this post over and over again — at least until Belle Waring herself visits this blog and asks me to stop. Or thanks me.
January 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm
urbino
You mean you find my lack of faith disturbing? (Sorry. Cross-mojination from another thread.)
I don’t like ponies. They mock me.
January 2, 2008 at 6:47 pm
ari
Plus, when wild, they kick and bite — as noted elsewhere on this blog.
January 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm
urbino
Or, at least, that has been the case. You know. Historically.
(I, btw, have just arrived home, having ridden my non-kicking, non-biting, non-mocking bicycle from my office to the grocery store, and thence homeward. Eat it, pony-boy!)
January 2, 2008 at 8:38 pm
ari
Need I remind you that I live in Davis, California? I rode many more miles than I drove last year. And Eric rides a cool recumbent, at once cementing his reputation as an environmentalist and tech-geek. Also: you don’t have to tell me twice; pony-boys are delicious.
January 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm
urbino
Kewl. Would that my fair city were so bike-friendly.
I’m an Xtracycle rider, myself.
Back on the original subject, would it not be more fruitful to pursue reduced automobile usage by making alternatives more available and realistic, as opposed to imposing new speed limits? As you and others have noted, America’s sheer largeness doesn’t make one terribly optimistic about compliance. ISTM pursuing stricter speed limits would be more a distraction than anything else, and one likely to piss off a lot of people and produce a backlash.
January 2, 2008 at 10:11 pm
ari
I should point out that mere hours after this post went up, oil hit $100/barrel. That seals it, I’m leaving blogging for a future in futures.
January 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm
ari
Xtracyle: yes, bikes like these are all over Davis. Though we seem to have our very own local variety.