"I'm saving between $100 and $200 a week by cutting back from 72-73 mph to 60-65 mph," said Dennis Sheridan, who owns an 18-wheeler and hauls freight on a contract basis throughout the Northeast.

"If you're going from say, New York to California, you might lose an hour over the run," he said. "But on the East Coast, what are you going to lose, 10 minutes? You know as soon as you step on it you're going to hit traffic anyway."
I appreciate that we would save fuel if we slowed down. But I just have a hard time with inaccuracies being quoted like this, making people think it is fact. It's roughly 2900 miles from NYC to SFO.
2900/72mph = 40 hours/15 min.
2900/65mph = 44 hours/40 min.
2900/60mph = 48 hours/20 min.
2900/55mph = 52 hours/45 min.

OK, I know nobody will ever make this trip at these speeds the whole way. But, mathematically, the point made in the article is inaccurate. Going from 72mph to 60mph effectively adds one entire day to your x-country drive, NOT 1 hour. And, as you can see above, if we dropped speeds to the old federal standard of 55mph, this adds an extra 1.5 days driving for two nights lodging. The extra lodging expenses alone could wipe out any money savings.

Is saving gas worth it? Yes for the environment. Yes for your pocketbook if this doesn't impact your time-frame or if you have the extra time anyway. But, if it means an extra day on the road if you're doing a speedrun x-country, than that is an extra day's lodging at the very least which totally wipes out any money you've saved on fuel costs.

I'm a big supporter of doing things to help save our environment and use resources resources responsibly so I'm not opposed to the concept...but inaccurate statements like that which go unchallenged by the reporter just drive me batty.

I think people need to track their own vehicle's gas mileage to get a clearer idea of what works best for their car. This will also help them see if they are saving dollars, and just how much they are saving, per tank by going a bit slower.