The San Francisco Chronicle publishes an experiment (via Romenesko) recommending that people drive 55 mph on 70 mph-limit highways to save gas. What does this recommendation have to do with product liability? Well, it provides an interesting cost-benefit study. Read on.
1) We’ll leave aside the fact that one can’t do a legitimate comparison of gas savings by driving one way on the first leg of a round trip and the other way on the return leg. I get much better mileage driving into Washington, DC than on my return trip because the first leg is downhill and the second leg is uphill. Let’s just assume that it’s a level trip each way.
2) The author saved 2.1 gallons on a 200-mile drive. At $3/gallon, that’s $6.30 in savings—except it took him an extra 49 minutes to make the drive. Do you really value your time at less than an after-tax $8/hour? (Halve that if you’re driving with a passenger who’s also losing 49 minutes.) The article doesn’t mention the opportunity cost. The financial benefit actually ranges from tiny to negative.
3) The article does mention the safety issue. Getting passed 830 times (several times a minute) versus 94 times has to substantially increase the risk of a collision, especially given the article’s tales of being subjected to tailgating.
4) There’s a social cost externality from driving slow—you’re slowing down the drivers around you (wasting their time), and increasing their risk of a collision.
5) One might protest that there’s a social cost to gasoline usage that’s not reflected in the price of gasoline. But that’s an argument for raising the gas tax (and to stop complaining about alleged “gouging” at the gas pump), rather than for measures that crowd the roads and make driving more inconvenient.
In sum, the Chronicle and the 55 Conservation Project are making a recommendation that doesn’t really save that much (if anything) in the way of money, can substantially inconvenience others, and, most of all, make the roads more dangerous.
What’s the liability reform tie-in? Well, note that automobile companies have been hit with millions of dollars of product liability verdicts for design decisions less risky and more cost-saving than what the Chronicle and 55 Conservation Project are proposing here. (E.g., Mar. 21, Mar. 7, Dec. 21). And (as should be the case) no one thinks that these two institutions, or the drivers that unilaterally adopt their recommendation to needlessly drive slower than the prevailing traffic, should be held liable for the foreseeable consequences of the recommendation or its adoption.
10 Comments
The author obviously doesn’t drive 980 between the Caldecott and the 80/580 Maze as I do daily.
Driving slower than the posted speed limit would be extremely dangerous on the 980 (of course the first to serve as self-appointed “lane monitors” will be the uber-smug Prius crowd)
The 980, for those not familiar with the East Bay, is a modern feeder freeway designed to move a high volume of Oakland Hills and CoCo County commuter traffic quickly to the main N-S/E-W arteries; not for social/policy experimentation.
A simple and proven maintenance technique of inflating tires to factory specs, can increase your gas mileage as much as 40% if you are driving on under-inflated tires. Which would save more gas than clogging up our freeways for longer periods during commute and increasing pollution & noise in adjacent neighborhoods.
One hopes the CHP will publically denounce the 55 Conservation Project for what it is: half-baked social nannying of no proven merit.
I Can’t Drive 55
Okay…I know I live in Liberal Nutterland, but this idea tops them all: Drive 55 -save gas endorsed by the…
Theoretically, going 55 mph on the freeway would not be too much of a hazard (so long as you stayed to the right) as you would be going the same speed as any vehicle pulling a trailer.
In practice, though, most 18 wheelers (on Hwy 101 in my area, any way) seem to be going ~63 mph and most non-truckers with trailers are doing at least the same speed as the rest of traffic.
I tend to drive at 65 and find myself one of the slower vehicles on the road (and I stay to the far right).
You’d think that speed limit enforcement would be as obviously in the public interest as enforcing the rules on illegal immigration, yet no one in authority has the stomach for either.
http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2005/10/ted_frank_makes.html
Ted Frank makes quick work of a San Francisco Chronicle columnist who wants us to drive 55 mph. (No fair using opportunity cost, though. That’s economics! Why should selfless, well-meaning people have to listen to that?)
Speed limit enforcement, per se, is not necessarily in the best public interest. Most accidents are tied not to the speed of the vehicles involved, but in the differential of speed between the two. If both vehicles are going 70 – and road conditions warrant it (most interstates are designed for speeds well in excess of 70 mph) the chance of an accident occuring are slight. If one vehicle is going 70 and the other going 55 then the likelihood of an accident occurring increases. The Chronicle is simply encouraging it readers to create situations in which the likelihood of an accident occuring increases.
Steve,
Actually, law enforcement does not believe speed limit enforcement is in the interest of public safety (not NECESSARILY the same thing as the public interest).
Want proof? Exhortations to, as professional courtesy, not give speeding tickets to other officers… OR THEIR FAMILIES.
You could make the case that officers are SUPPOSED to have high speed training, have authorization at other times, etc. But their families are ordinary citizens, no more likely to have high speed training or authorization than the rest of us (and try using your level of training to get out of a ticket if you aren’t a LEO).
In other words, speed limit enforcement is PRIMARILY about revenue.
5b) There is a social cost to “hogging” the limited public resource known as highway capacity. Spending more than your fair share of time on the commons may actually end up costing everyone a great deal as we respond with more highway expenditures.
I live in Philly and I used to drive a car for a courier company. Going faster hardly makes any difference on hi-ways around a major city. When I used I-76 to commute to Center City Phila the average speed is 8 – 16 MPH (when you balance time against distance). From what I remember in Driver’s Ed most accidents are caused by poor decisions, if you are going fast you have less time to make a decision. While most Interstate Hi-ways were designed for 70MPH they aren’t necessarily maintained for that speed, and neither are many cars. Also the condition of a car’s tires become more critical at a higher speed. If you are going 70 and you are getting pasted 94 times over 200 miles how much faith do you have in the other drivers, their cars, and tires.
I live in the DC area, and inspired by the drive 55 project, go at exactlty 55. Everybody passes me but it is very calm since I never have to apply breaks (long gap in front of me). Near the Wodrow wilson bridge there is a 50 construction speed limit and I go at exactly 50. More people should do the same.
Shawn