Although calls for lowering the speed limit are revving up, they're about as popular as the $4 gas that prompted them. Most Americans -- 70 percent in polls -- can't abide the prospect of a return to the 55 mph speed limits of the 1970s and '80s. U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia, who's calling for a national conversation about an energy-saving speed limit, is heading uphill in a misfiring clunker. Most highway drivers would rather park it than poke along at 55.

But sure, let's talk.

Drivers of a certain age can well remember the double-nickel, the gas-saving 55 mph response to the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 (when long lines at the pumps intensified the shock of high prices).

So yes, granted -- driving a distance at 50 or 55 seems too slow. We don't want to go there again.

But it would save gas. Lives too. And lowering the speed limit would send a message that Americans can take effective action to curb our demand for oil, quite a lot of which is imported from unsavory places.

Although oil's price is set in a world market by the forces of supply and demand -- we hope -- even a comparatively small reduction in U.S. usage could help bring prices down. In fact, pressured by high prices, Americans are already driving less. We could save more by going slower.

So, even if it makes a trip to the beach seem like no trip to the beach, shouldn't we? One logical response is: not unless slowing down actually saves fuel. But clearly it does. According to the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, "you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional 30 cents per gallon for gas." Slower saves lives too, hundreds if not thousands a year. Think about that.

So, revive 55? Nope -- it's just too slow.

But 65 or 70 mph limits aren't set in stone. Instead, let's fall back to 60, taking the one action against high oil prices with an immediate payoff. With a little attitude adjustment about trip times, Americans can save gas, money and lives.

We could live with a mile a minute.