ad

Save Fuel The Sensible Way

Ivo Vegter By:
Friday, July 29th, 2011 04:16 pm GMT +2

Print This Post Print This Post
By Ivo Vegter

Energy minister Dipuo Peters has proposed to employ a team of expert consultants, at taxpayer expense, in order to conduct a study.

The question? Will reducing speed limits save hard-pressed South Africans money?

I didn’t follow tender procedures for this research contract, but I’ll venture an answer anyway: Sure it will. A little. And so will a law that rations our bread. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

“I am concerned about the impact on the ordinary farmer and the impact paraffin price increases have on the poorest of the poor,” Peters told the Times newspaper.

One might suspect that the ordinary farmer, despite his or her ordinariness, might be smart enough to consider the implications of R10 per litre of fuel, and modulate their own speed in the hope of improving fuel efficiency. One also suspects that the ordinary farmer, in their ordinary bakkie, doesn’t spend much of their ordinary day tearing down highways at extraordinary speeds.

And as for paraffin prices, here’s another piece of free advice for the minister: making South Africans drive more slowly will reduce neither the price of paraffin, nor the demand for it.

Now, one might argue that drivers are not sufficiently motivated to save their own money. At R10 a litre, the petrol price is a subject of discussion second only to the weather in pubs, shebeens and taxis across the country. But let’s assume it’s all talk, no action. If so, by what right should the government second-guess drivers’ own choices?

More importantly, why focus on the maximum speed limit in order to do so?

A glance at heavily-researched fuel economy test cycles suggests that few drivers spend a great deal of time driving faster than 100km/h. At best, a small improvement at the margins could be obtained by limiting maximum speeds.

The factors that most influence fuel economy are driving style – much of which is involuntary – and the efficiency of your vehicle.

Let’s consider driving style. It is well known that stop-start traffic, otherwise known as the urban cycle, is very heavy on fuel. Under test conditions, the Australian urban cycle, for example, consumes 80% more fuel per kilometre than the highway cycle.

This indicates that there is a far better way of improving the fuel consumption of the average South African driver than to reduce speed limits. Last night, I counted. Eleven speed bumps forced me to slow down to below 20 km/h in a five-minute trip home from a friend’s house, none of which could be justified by their location near schools or pedestrian crossings. I didn’t get close to the speed limit, though I did accelerate through the gears fourteen times (three times for intersections) instead of passing quietly by the darkened homes.

The vast majority of these fuel-guzzling annoyances could, at the stroke of a pen, be removed.

Let’s consider vehicle efficiency. New vehicles are far more efficient than old vehicles. However, most South Africans don’t buy new cars. Annual new car sales account for about 6,5 % of the five million cars on the road. At this rate, and assuming no greedy rich folks mess up the numbers by buying new cars more often, the entire fleet is replaced in 15 years.

Now the fuel economy of a typical new passenger vehicle has improved by 60 % since 1975, and by about 10 % in the last 15 years. Also, if you drive an average 15-year-old car, it is at least 10 % less efficient than it was when it was new. A new car would buy you an instant 20 % saving on fuel.

So, if fuel economy is the goal, the minister might want to start by looking at the price of new cars in South Africa. Customs duty on imported vehicles is 36 %. VAT is another 14 %, and a sliding scale for “ad valorem” customs duty takes the total for a R200 000 car to a whopping 70 %. Not to mention the green tax and licence fees.

No wonder South Africans can’t afford new cars more often than once in 15 years.

So, here’s the executive summary of my free report on the minister’s idea:

The potential gains from lowering the speed limit, not counting the profits to the treasury in the form of speed fine extortion, are minimal. Great improvements, however, can be had by slashing the rapacious taxation on new vehicles, and by removing speed bumps and other unnecessary impediments to speed on our roads. You’re welcome.


Tags: , ,

PLEASE NOTE: The opinion expressed in this article is the author's own and publication does not mean it is endorsed by the CAR magazine editorial staff or RamsayMedia, publishers of CAR magazine.
  • Erik Peers

    You have just obsoleted a whole commission of expensive experts. Well done. Continuing in the vein of your article of increasing the average speed of vehicles instead of decreasing the maximum speed, one could add; the synchronization of traffic lights. That would immediately stop motorists from speeding between lights, while at the same time increase the average speed of the traffic. All of which saves fuel. A passenger of mine who is from Sweden once remarked that traffic lights in SA areaut designed to stop the traffic. Whereas in Sweden traffic lights are designed to aid the flow of traffic. As an embarrassed South African, I could only agree with him. He made valid technical suggestions which I am happy to supply.

  • Ciro

    Brilliant.

  • Leon

    And even more fuel will be saved by the simple act of sincronizing robots… But I suspect the main reason for considering to lowering the speed limit is to feed the ever greedy gravy train with more revenue from speed fines…

  • WillieL

    Another way to look at the ‘hidden motives’ behind what government is trying to do. They’re thinking of dropping the speed limit to help people save money (not really thinking straight) , then also, they build toll-gates on critical routes with huge price tags for usage, and are considering doing it country wide. Gotta love the contradiction. I know the global warming religion dudes originally started with the idea of dropping speed limits to limit “CO2″, so I wonder if one of them are not trying something under the table with government again, under the pretence of “saving people money”. They had success with the CO2 tax which was also not studied sufficiently by local government, so they might try something like this. Other than that, it doesn’t make sense to try and make people save money but then you take those savings to pay for toll considered all over the land and on high usage roads used by people for business. Unless that is exactly what they are thinking.

    So not only must the people drive in small congested streets, not only must they handle every single speed reducing obstacle, including unmaintained road, not only must they pay extra CO2 tax if they worked their behinds off and want to drive in something a bit more premium, not only must they pay huge import taxes, not only must they then (if considered), purposefully drive EVEN slower and also try and be more patient on traffic filled roads, but the one little bit of decent travelling they might have, they will have to pay for (toll-gates).

  • cixelsyd

    Agree on the speed bumps 100%, OK to put tham at school crossings, but they’re popping up all over the place.
    BTW, on a 15 year replacement cycle, the average age would be 7.5 years, not 15 years.

  • Bernard

    Oh no no no ! That will just not do ! You have provided all the answers to a very expensive survey, and the survey company would probably use your ‘deductive’ research in any case. As a result, some politicians are now unable to afford that new car or house, and does the minister really care ? They will not like the results of the survey, and totally disregard any and all findings, as it does not increase or benefit the tax machine.
    More wasted tax payers revenue. I think that one of the older arguments might be of service. Provide a SAFE and RELIABLE public transport system, and the people who really need and want to use the system will do so.

  • http://www.lpgautopower.com.au Gas Conversion Melbourne

    This is the third time I’ve been to your site. Thnx for providing more information.