The experiment wasn't scientific.
No control groups were involved.
No advance planning was done.
And yet, I guarantee the experiment in question could be repeated on virtually any interstate highway in the nation with exactly the same results.
A couple of Sundays ago, I had occasion to drive from Drexel to Asheville to take in a Tourists game (they were playing the Crawdads) with my daughter, Jennifer, who is a senior at UNCA.
The journey from Drexel to Asheville's McCormick Field is one of about 60 miles, all but a mile or so on interstates 40 and 240, requiring the expenditure of about two gallons worth of gas in our 2004 Subaru Outback.
As I passed a convenience store on the way to I-40, the price of regular gasoline stood at $3.40 per gallon. Premium gas was 20 cents higher. Diesel fuel stood at just under $4 per gallon.
Before leaving the house, I had done some quick Internet research about the impact of auto speed on gas mileage, visiting several sites, including the official Environmental Protection Agency site, and the American Automobile Association site.
All of the experts were in agreement on several points:
Most cars get their best gas mileage at around 55 mph.
Mileage goes down about 1 percent per mile for speeds from 56 to 65 mph.
Above 65 mph, gas mileage really starts to decline, particularly as the speed hits 70, 75, or even 80 mph.
So, with the soaring price of gasoline resting comfortably on one side of my brain and with the knowledge that a moderate speed means better fuel economy and less money spent on gas residing in the other, I hatched my plan.
I would drive from Drexel to Asheville at a steady 60 mph. (I considered making the drive at 55 mph, but I really wanted to live to see the ballgame at McCormick Field.)
Surely, I reasoned, with everyone rumbling and grumbling about the price of gasoline, with those on the right touting drilling for oil everywhere from Alaska to Florida, and with those on the left extolling hybrids and scooters, everyone would be doing the easiest thing possible to save fuel -- simply slowing down.
Wrong.
At a cruise-control-regulated speed of 60 mph, I was passed by very nearly every vehicle traveling west that Sunday afternoon. A few went gently by in the 65 mph range.
Far more were in the 70 to 75 mph speed bracket. And at least 30 to 40 percent of the other drivers on the interstate that early spring afternoon were pushing their vehicles forward, by my estimation, at 75 to 85 mph.
More than once, my "experiment" led to transfer trucks roaring upon me and riding inches from my back bumper before they could barrel out in the fast lane and thunder around me.
More than once, I knew that I was tying up traffic, leading to cursing and frustration among the drivers around me, all because I was "creeping along" at the ridiculously low speed of 60 mph.
And more than once, I was sorely tempted to give in to safety and sanity and raise my speed to match that of the majority of my fellow drivers, say 72 mph or so. But I was feeling stubborn and righteous and angry and so held to my guns and my speed.
I did pass one vehicle, just this side of Old Fort. It was an ancient truck driven by an ancient man going at the ancient speed of 45 mph. I wonder if he too was conducting an experiment.
Conclusions? Any number could be drawn, not one of which is very flattering to us as a people. It would be easy to say we're stupid. It would easy to say we're selfish. It would be easy to say we expect someone to solve our problems for us with no hint of sacrifice on our part.
And I do say "we" because had I been running late, had my Sunday not been so leisurely, and had I been concerned about getting to the ballpark in time for the National Anthem, I would have been flying up that mountain at 75 mph also.
Maybe cartoonist Walt Kelly said it best long ago: "We have met the enemy ... and he is us."
IN MY OPINION Bill
Poteat
