Driving, The Third Option

Several years ago I was listening to a feature on NPR talking about how people could not trust the fuel efficiency numbers published by the EPA. There were all kinds of moaning and complaining about how the sticker did not match real world experience.

At the time I had kept complete records over an eight-year period and found that my mileage was at least as good as the EPA rating, even though I did far less highway driving than the 45% standard. I ended up giving a brief interview on a later program.

That was a long time ago, and since then the EPA has adjusted their ratings in response to public pressure. But the distress continues.

This Edmunds post asks: “So why doesn't your fuel economy match the EPA rating?” It explains that since those changes, applied to the 2008 model year, “ratings aren't really all that far off the real-world mpg that consumers get….While there are lots of people who cannot under any circumstances get their vehicles to come close to the official ratings, there are also lots who regularly meet or exceed them.” The only exceptions were some poorly run tests by Ford, Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai-Kia that resulted in government-ordered adjustments to the ratings and fines to the companies. (The companies rather than the EPA do their own tests and submit the results.)

So if it was possible to match the standards before 2008, and since then there are “lots of people who regularly meet or exceed them," why is it still an issue? Other factors like weather, terrain and congestion do come into play, but Edmunds explains, “calm drivers, those motorists who don't accelerate constantly and who avoid unnecessary lane changes, get 35 percent better fuel economy than other drivers.”

My idea of the third option expands on that definition of calm drivers. I can tell just by watching brake lights of cars ahead of me and the drivers who pass me on the way to a red light that many drivers seem to think they have only two choices with their right foot: keep it on the accelerator or press on the brake. As a result they try to drive the speed limit as close to the intersection as possible before braking to a stop.

The third option is to simply lift your foot when approaching a red light or approaching a vehicle that is already braking. This allows your car to slow down gently (and likely causes the person following too close behind you to apply the brake.) It only requires someone to look ahead while driving to anticipate problems. That person following too close does not have the time to anticipate and is forced to react immediately to any speed variation of the car in front. This is easy to observe on any road or highway in the country as the brake lights flash on and off.

The physics is simple. It takes fuel to accelerate and maintain speed. Each time the brake is applied it undoes some of that work. In effect some gasoline has been used to produce heat cause by friction at the brakes instead of producing motion. It’s pure waste. Critical thinkers hate waste.

Another Hidden Tax

A few days ago the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new rules requiring lower-sulfur fuels for motor vehicles to reduce smog-causing emissions.  The rules would take effect in 2017.  Articles from yahoo.com and USA Today give the details.  The minute my readers see these headlines, versed as they are in the fact that there is no magic money tree, they understand that we are going to be paying the cost of this change.

Some people will say, “I am willing to pay more for my next car and for gasoline if it means cleaner air.  That’s fair, but let’s look into all the questions associated with the proposed change.

There will be a cost.  The EPA estimates that gasoline will be about 1 cent per gallon more, and add about $130 to the cost of a car by 2025.  Their justification is that full implementation of the rules “will help avoid up to 2,400 premature deaths per year and prevent 23,000 cases of respiratory ailments in children.”  Note the use of “up to” in the last quote.  As I’ve pointed out before, up to means no more than, and very possibly fewer.

Fuel industry experts estimate a 6-9 cent per gallon increase and say that the extra refining “would actually increase greenhouse gas emissions because of the energy-intensive equipment required to comply.”

If I take a conservative estimate of 16 million vehicles sold per year by 2017 and 3 cents per gallon at current gasoline consumption of 134 billion gallons per year, our annual bill comes to $6.1 billion.  That’s a hidden tax of $200 per person per year, which hits the less wealthy people the hardest.  It works out to more than $2.5 million per life saved and reinforces my earlier posting  about how agencies pass rules without any real standards for cost justification - the old if-it-saves-just-one-life argument.

Beyond cost are the considerations of marginal improvement in air quality.  When it comes to air quality, water quality or the purity of anything, the question must be: how much is enough?  It is either impossible or prohibitively expensive to achieve 100% clean water or air.  There must be, and is, a set level of acceptability.  Unfortunately, government agencies and advocacy groups want to push that standard to the next level and the next.  It is easy to argue that if x parts per billions is good, then x-1 parts per billion is better, but there is a point where there is no discernible difference in terms of comfort and safety.  Where is the debate on what is acceptable and at what point this incremental raising of standards should stop?

So when you see or hear headlines about an agency setting a stricter standard, you should automatically ask:  how much will it cost me, is the cost justified and is the increased level of purity scientifically justified or is it just another idealistic step toward unachievable perfection?