[LDT]

Originally Posted by ///MPhatic

When people can't be prudent then prudence should be forced upon them. The question is; can we leave it at prudence when that genie is out of his bottle?

The 0-60/¼-mile/top speed parts are safe, they have to do with freedom, and it's one one thing we won't ever give up. That's why you have 47M licensed drivers that can't pass a driving test.

And yes, I'm one of those that think to get a license you should have to take an ANNUAL written test, driving test, vision/hearing/spatial-awareness test, and drug test before you PAY for your license.

May it one day be so.

Agree with getting unlicensed, uninsured and incompetent drivers off the roadway, especially illegals. And if couples had to pass a test before becoming parents we’d have half as many morons driving around.

[Car-Addicted]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the demographics of drunk drivers is not in favor of them being buyers of new cars?

[Westside Guy]

Originally Posted by labphoto

Could have used it with the moron that did 153 mph and killed two passengers.

https://www.abc15.com/news/crime/dri...two-passengers

FYI, speed has nothing to do with stupidity as a moron could be driving at 40-50 mph and kill people also.

[KevinGS]

Emotionally, as a car enthusiast, in a vacuum, I say, "Hell no, of course not."

Logically, as a member of a collective society, "Yes, of course we should limit the speed of cars, especially since states have speed limits anyway." It makes no sense to have speed limits and then allow cars the ability to go above it. Why have a limit in the first place?

Driving is a privilege, not a right. And no where is it written that fun should be a part of driving, especially as it relates to high-speed driving.

As for track cars, I'm sure they could make a technology where the cars can go at higher speeds only in selected locations, like a track.

Hec, with all the noise many cars are making these days (burble, crackle, pop tunes be damned!), I'm shockedthere's not widespread state legislation to rid society of all this noisy mayhem when people are driving, especially in neighborhoods and cities.

Originally Posted by Westside Guy

FYI, speed has nothing to do with stupidity as a moron could be driving at 40-50 mph and kill people also.

Well, yes, but excess speed exacerbates the issue.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

That's cold but in general we are doing pretty well on lowering the motor vehicle fatality rate.

The number is so ridiculously low but dragonslayers must find dragons to slay in order to justify their existence.

[erickonphoenix]

I won't condone speeding on any public roads but if I did I'd suggest maybe NOT doing it on surface streets with cross traffic?

When I was young and dumb we kept that stuff way out in the middle of nowhere so we wouldn't crash into people and there were fewer cops.

[YASBBYM3]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

The number is so ridiculously low but dragonslayers must find dragons to slay in order to justify their existence.

Well, if you want to be 100% correct, you don’t stop the chart at 2010 as the number has risen pretty consistently since then and stands at 1.35 as of 2022. But that’s only if accuracy is important.

[tracer bullet]

If there was a limit such as 155 mph, I'd find it hard to argue. If the limit was 70, I certainly would. Changing it depending on where you are at any given moment is feasible but doesn't seem realistic anytime soon. And when it is, the cars will be driving themselves anyhow.

Even at 155 I understand the slippery slope thing.

[rak299]

A great idea, if coupled with a driver ejector seal and a large explosive device, so the car will not block other traffic.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

That's cold but in general we are doing pretty well on lowering the motor vehicle fatality rate.

We're doing pretty well, huh?

On average, there are over 6 million passenger car accidents in the U.S. every year. Road crashes are the leading cause of death in the country, resulting in more than 38,000 people losing their lives each year.

According to the DOT, 42,939 people died on America’s roads in 2021. Compared to 2020, fatalities increased:

• 10.1% overall. 42,939 lives were lost, the highest total number recorded since 2005
• 14% on urban roads
• 14% among drivers ages 65 and older
• 12.5% among people walking, totaling 7,388 lives lost, the highest recorded in decades
• 17% among fatal crashes involving at least one large truck
• 8% among motorcyclists, totaling 5,932 lives lost, the highest total ever recorded

[FC4]

Originally Posted by YASBBYM3

Should cars have built-in speed limits?

No.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

We're doing pretty well, huh?
According to the DOT, 42,939 people died on America’s roads in 2021.

For prospective, not even making the list.
Top 10 leading causes of death in the US, 2021
Heart Disease 695,547
Cancer 605,213
COVID-19 416,893
Accidents (unintentional injuries) 224,935
Stroke 162,890
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 142,342
Alzheimer's disease 119,399
Diabetes 103,294
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 56,585
Kidney disease 54,358

[NickyC]

Ban assault cars!

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by NickyC

Ban assault cars!

You and I own "assault cars".

[FC4]

For those in favor of limiting speed, why stop there? Why not limit acceleration rate as well?

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

For prospective, not even making the list.
Top 10 leading causes of death in the US, 2021
Heart Disease 695,547
Cancer 605,213
COVID-19 416,893
Accidents (unintentional injuries) 224,935
Stroke 162,890
Chronic lower respiratory diseases 142,342
Alzheimer's disease 119,399
Diabetes 103,294
Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 56,585
Kidney disease 54,358

Oh, so because traffic accidents miss the Top 10 by like 12,000 people (so like four 9-11s), annually, it's a non-issue, not even worthy of proposing solutions.

Originally Posted by FC4

For those in favor of limiting speed, why stop there? Why not limit acceleration rate as well?

Yeah, why not? Do road cars (and motorcycles) really need to accelerate at a ridiculously high rate?

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

Oh, so because traffic accidents miss the Top 10 by like 12,000 people (so like four 9-11s), annually, it's a non-issue, not even worthy of proposing solutions

Never said that lives are not important but there is a cause and effect issue here.
These measures will raise the cost of new cars and as a percent of cars on the road, new cars will be a very small percentage thus almost no change in traffic deaths saved by this law.
If we are playing a numbers game since most fatal deaths occur in drivers from age 25 - 34yr should we have greater restrictions on that group?
Point is this is a slippery slope and more about emotion and less about laws that can make a change, like enforcement of laws already on the books relating to speeding, DWI and property damage.

Curious how many folks who think this is a good idea to save lives are also supportive of abortion rights?

[Suds]

All I can say is i will need 3-5 seconds of push to pass on back roads, unlimited speed.
This would be a driving experience I haven’t had since driving governed gas go-carts when I was a kid. We know that work around.

Also, don’t let your insurance company stick their dongle into your OBD port.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Curious how many folks who think this is a good idea to save lives are also supportive of abortion rights?

I'm not in favor of speed limits, but this is an absolutely ludicrous comparison to make.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by eugenebmw

Any EV cars definitely need to have build in speed limits. Even low end EV cars can easy reach over 300 hp. Not to mention high end EV are over 600 hp. If you hit by a EV (easy to be over 1 ton), good luck

This is not a good take. Most EVs lose power at high rpm and have poorer high speed capability. I've never even seen an EV going over 90 MPH and rarely see them go over 70-75. Every big triple digit disaster I've ever heard of was caused by an ICE car.

I do think this is a consequence of the overall horsepower wars though. A 13 second quarter mile was a fast car 20 years ago. Now everything is fast and the truly fast cars are ridiculous.

[KevinGS]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Never said that lives are not important but there is a cause and effect issue here.
These measures will raise the cost of new cars and as a percent of cars on the road...

...so did 3-point seatbelts, front headrests, airbags, 3rd brake lights, ABS, backup cameras, and bigger bumpers. And I'm sure when each of these safety advances was proposed, consumers and auto manufacturers made the same argument: "It will raise the cost of a new car and that's unfair to consumers." Saving lives be damned, cheaper products is what really matters.

new cars will be a very small percentage thus almost no change in traffic deaths saved by this law.

Oh, so if the proposed measure won't save a significant amount of lives (as a percentage) in Year 1, it's not effective enough and we shouldn't consider it?

If we are playing a numbers game since most fatal deaths occur in drivers from age 25 - 34yr should we have greater restrictions on that group?

Why not? Insurance costs are higher for younger drivers, which young people (and/or their parents) often argue is "not fair". And many states restrict what time of the day new drivers can drive, and some even restrict who can be in the car.

So if we collectively think restrictions on when someone can drive is a prudent thing to do to save lives, why then allow the 17-year-old to purchase a $15,000 used V8 that we allow them to modify to 500hp+, and then bitch and moan when that person is speeding, or worse, kills someone in an accident?

Maybe the adults in the room should look ourselves in the mirror first.

Point is this is a slippery slope and more about emotion and less about laws

Oh, that's an interesting perspective. When we look at the figures and deem that 40,000 car accident deaths is simply way too many lives lost since many of these are likely preventable with technology, that's considered being too emotional.

But when car enthusiasts suggest that they want to be able to drive as fast as they want and accelerate as fast as they want on public roads (within reason, of course ), purely for entertainment purposes, that's rational.

And yes, every law or legislation is a slippery slope. If this were the reason why we shouldn't enact new legislation, then nothing new would ever pass. And I'm sure this "slippery slope" argument has been used since the first day any government was established, and still used today (with great success, by the way).

...that can make a change, like enforcement of laws already on the books relating to speeding, DWI and property damage.

So, across the country, let's continue to use our precious police resources every day to catch people speeding and driving drunk when we could simply have the auto manufacturers fix much of this with technologies that already exist?

What a prudent use of our tax dollars.

[chris719]

Originally Posted by KevinGS

So, across the country, let's continue to use our precious police resources every day to catch people speeding and driving drunk when we could simply have the auto manufacturers fix much of this with technologies that already exist?

What a prudent use of our tax dollars.

Don't worry, this will never happen because of what you highlighted here. The police and municipalities will never allow their speeding ticket revenue stream to go away.