Why are cars built to go so fast?

[Mrs Kendall]

I think limiting the speed a car can go at is an excellent idea because I mean honestly how many people drive over the 200 km/h anyway? Our car can go to 220 km/h but I don't think that car has ever gone over 120 km/h at the very most. Unless of course the previous drivers did so and since it was a rental car before the hubby bought it it is highly likely.
Anyway, I think it should be capped at 160 km/h because I think that people would drive much slower that they would normally.

That totally depends on the country you live in
You're basically a mobile road block if you drive at anything below ~120km/h on a German Autobahn. 140-160 is the norm. When I'm on the Autobahn, I do as is German custom and drive 20km/h more than current speed limit on a part with speed limit. When I have no local speed limit on the Autobahn, I usually go about 180-200km/h. And I get tailgated at such speeds, here...

Well of course, but I thought that point was already raised in this thread so I didn't bother to mention it, I just assumed you all knew I was talking about Canada < Ontario in particular

[Mrs Kendall]

I don't feel bad about my penis(quite the opposite) but ofcourse I can't go around with my fly open in public, so this will have to do instead.

Ha! He admitted it He uses speed to make up for the fact that he can't show his penis off Precisely my point

[Thunderfire]

why cars were available on the market that could go 220km/h when the highest speed you can legally drive in the State/country was 110km/h.

Because not every country has the same speed limit. I live in germany and the autobahn is saver compared to city & country roads. Many cars are able to reach 220km/h. Things get stupid when you car is able to reach 300km/h in 10 seconds. Having some extra power is always nice. Not every one wants to drive the typical european familiy car with 65-100KW.

[Dahak]

why cars were available on the market that could go 220km/h when the highest speed you can legally drive in the State/country was 110km/h.

Because not every country has the same speed limit. I live in germany and the autobahn is saver compared to city & country roads. Many cars are able to reach 220km/h. Things get stupid when you car is able to reach 300km/h in 10 seconds. Having some extra power is always nice. Not every one wants to drive the typical european familiy car with 65-100KW.

Not to rain on your parade, but did you bother to read the thread before posting...?

[LadyTevar]

Why are cars built to go so fast?

Because some people worry that their penises are too small.

So liking to go fast has nothing to do with it? Acceleration? Aesthetics? It's all just penis envy?

Yup, admit it, you have a small pee pee so you drive fast

I have no penis... so why do I like driving fast and showing off by taking curves marked "20mph" at 45?

Other than the way it makes Nitram go pale and grab for the 'jesus bar'....

[Darth Wong]

God... whats next.. Top speed governers at 60...

please.. no more Nanny state

Why the fuck not, dipshit? Is this your idea of a fucking ethics argument? Rolling-eye icons and appeals to right-wing Republitard rhetoric? Limits greater than 60 mph are allowed in many areas AFAIK, but why not, say, an electronic governor at 90 mph, which gives a healthy margin without necessarily allowing some asshole to blast along at 120 mph?

Don't give me that "nanny state" bullshit as if it automatically validates your point of view; explain WHY this would be a bad thing.

I am so goddamned tired of the way people use phrases like "nanny state" to dismiss ideas without a fair hearing.

[Mrs Kendall]

So liking to go fast has nothing to do with it? Acceleration? Aesthetics? It's all just penis envy?

Yup, admit it, you have a small pee pee so you drive fast

I have no penis... so why do I like driving fast and showing off by taking curves marked "20mph" at 45?

Other than the way it makes Nitram go pale and grab for the 'jesus bar'....

Ok, I was teasing him

Besides you obviously love to do it to torture your poor hubby who is afraid for his life

I'm sorry if I don't have tolerance for people speeding since it kills others and all.
Nothing personal here.

[Thunderfire]

Not to rain on your parade, but did you bother to read the thread before posting...?

I did. Several posts apeared on this thread between hitting the quote & submit button.

[Chris OFarrell]

I completly fail to see at least in THIS country why you would need a car with any ability to go faster then say 140 KPH (110 KPM with some exceptions in the NT). It gives you 30 KMH over the speed limit which is really all you could realisticly need to overtake someone who might be doing a small fraction under the limit or something.

We also have far too many cars with acceleration power WAY out of where you need it to be. The ability to go from 0 to 100 in ten seconds is NOT a constitutionaly protected right over here, but people cry on like it is. Frankly I think people who have only been driving for a few years SHOULDN'T be allowed to drive certian types of cars, period.

I am seriously sick to death of P plate wearing (as in first second or third year on a licence) WRX's screaming from a standing start to 70 in a 50 zone from a red light just to show they can to everyone around them they can. They walk in, get their licence by driving oh so sedatly, then after getting the new plastic they'll fucking go and do burnouts on the way home.

It really is a case of taking it on a country by country basis. In Australia, I completly fail to see any need for cars that can do 200KPH or accelerate like something that should be on a race track, ESPECIALY in the hands of young hotheads without experience. What people forget when they start screaming 'IT'S MY RIGHT TO BUY WHATEVER CAR I WANT' is that THEY are not the ONLY people on the road. When you drive, you drive for everyone else on the road.

Not for yourself.

[theski]

God... whats next.. Top speed governers at 60...

please.. no more Nanny state

Why the fuck not, dipshit? Is this your idea of a fucking ethics argument? Rolling-eye icons and appeals to right-wing Republitard rhetoric? Limits greater than 60 mph are allowed in many areas AFAIK, but why not, say, an electronic governor at 90 mph, which gives a healthy margin without necessarily allowing some asshole to blast along at 120 mph?

Don't give me that "nanny state" bullshit as if it automatically validates your point of view; explain WHY this would be a bad thing.

I am so goddamned tired of the way people use phrases like "nanny state" to dismiss ideas without a fair hearing.

Gosh, and Hear I thought breaking the law is a personal choice.. I speed. so if I get a ticket It no ones fault but mine.. and who decides how fast we should be allowed to go.. ??

[Darth Wong]

Gosh, and Hear I thought breaking the law is a personal choice..

It's not one that's supposed to be allowed by the law, moron. Why on Earth do you think the laws should allow people to break the laws? Do you even listen to your own bullshit?

I speed. so if I get a ticket It no ones fault but mine..

So? How does that refute the idea of putting speed limiters in cars? What exactly is your ethical justification, other than repackaging your bullshit assumptions with different semantics? Do you think it would be OK to sell "terrorism kits" in stores because it's "no one's fault but the terrorist's"? Just chant "personal responsibility" over and over, and act as if there's no such thing as corporate responsibility?

and who decides how fast we should be allowed to go.. ??

The people who set the speed limits, genius. So once again, why not regulate car manufacturers to make them put speed limiters in the cars?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

God... whats next.. Top speed governers at 60... :roll:

please.. no more Nanny state

Why the fuck not, dipshit? Is this your idea of a fucking ethics argument? Rolling-eye icons and appeals to right-wing Republitard rhetoric? Limits greater than 60 mph are allowed in many areas AFAIK, but why not, say, an electronic governor at 90 mph, which gives a healthy margin without necessarily allowing some asshole to blast along at 120 mph?

Don't give me that "nanny state" bullshit as if it automatically validates your point of view; explain WHY this would be a bad thing.

I am so goddamned tired of the way people use phrases like "nanny state" to dismiss ideas without a fair hearing.

Gosh, and Hear I thought breaking the law is a personal choice.. I speed. so if I get a ticket It no ones fault but mine.. and who decides how fast we should be allowed to go.. ??

Of course, everything's nice and peachy-keen until you come around a blind corner while speeding and plow into a minivan driven by a 78 year old grandmother driving her grandkids home from a soccer match. Or you decide to drive far faster than is safe, and lose control and drive into a ditch, or a light pole, or the kids crossing the road, etc. And even if you think you've hurt only yourself, undoubtedly you're filing an insurance claim. And while your rates increase dramatically, the insurance company passes the buck along to the rest of us too, since they can point to your accident and the accidents caused by every other jackass going too fast and say that "such-and-such demographic is costing us a lot to insure, so we're going to have to raise your rates to cover for it."

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't like this "why would anyone ever nedd that" talk, just because we don't need something is no reason to outlaw it. Rather than limiting peoples cars lets just enforce stricter education on getting a license in the first place, make it expensive like it is here to get a drivers license(around 1200-1300 euros) and very hard to pass.

That is prefferable to outlawing and starting to screw around with cars.

This also made me remember that over here in Finland there used to be a law that made people who had just gotten their licenses to keep it under 80 the first two years, they also had to put an 80 sign on their cars back window. Well frankly that law was stupid and nobody followed it, good thing it got scrapped around the same time as the EU-entry because I sure wouldn't have followed it.

And 0-100 in ten seconds isn't that fast either, I see no problem with street-legal cars being able to do that or why we should stop people from getting such cars, thats just going way overboard.

[Darth Wong]

just because we don't need something is no reason to outlaw it.

Nice strawman, asshole. As if that's the only reason, and the traffic fatalities and injuries have no bearing on this discussion.

Rather than limiting peoples cars lets just enforce stricter education on getting a license in the first place, make it expensive like it is here to get a drivers license(around 1200-1300 euros) and very hard to pass.

Who the fuck said that aggressive drivers have trouble passing driver exams? Their problem is recklessness, not inability.

[His Divine Shadow]

just because we don't need something is no reason to outlaw it.

Nice strawman, asshole. As if that's the only reason, and the traffic fatalities and injuries have no bearing on this discussion.

No it's not the only reason, but just that line of thought that I don't feel good about. I was not trying to pretend it was the only one, it was just the one brought up that I felt I needed to respond to because unlike those points you bring up I don't think that one in particular should be used.

Who the fuck said that aggressive drivers have trouble passing driver exams? Their problem is recklessness, not inability.

I just offered it as an alternative idea. I believe making a license more expensive would make it harder to attain and less prone to being risked in behaviour that could get it withdrawn. This could be coupled with harsher laws for speeding. Increasing the actual difficulty and lenght would also raise the competency bar and while it might not take a bite out of reckless drivers, it would atleast make them better drivers before they get behind a wheel. Here it takes a month at absolute minimum to get a license, more like 3 months though, lots of studying and driving is required.

Also automated traffic cameras have been a huge sucess in Finland, traffic always slows down when they are around and practically the whole R8 from Björneborg to Åbo is flooded with them.

[Darth Wong]

Enforcement after the fact doesn't help the dead people. And deterrent doesn't work well on certain classes of asshole, particularly drunks, because they have impaired judgment and, well, they're too goddamned stupid to think that far ahead.

[Crown]

'If you impose technology which inhibit the maximum velocity I can reach in my car, then clearly I won't be able to speed as fast as I did before, and that, clearly, is wrong ....'


Um, okay. As much as that didn't make sense, this seems to be what some people are saying. Why don't you all come clean and be honest; you like fast cars, they're sexy, they're a status symbol and they are your passion and hobby, and you would feel cheated if they had speed inhibitors in them.

After you admit that your arguements are irrational and just emotional, we can all really move on.

[Dahak]

The argument, while logically valid, that people die in traffic from drivers with not-adjusted speeds is one that not many here really consider an argument for a general speed limit.
Regularly, there are studies that try to show that a speed limit would lower the amount of accidents, and studies that show the exact opposite. As it is, the number of accidents related to unadjusted speed (not necessarily excessive speeding) amount to about 17% of the total number.

Even our fines for speeding reflect the view Germany takes when it comes down to fast driving. Outside city limits, driving more than 40km/h faster than the limit (if there's a limit on the street) only costs 75 Euros.

[theski]

Gosh, and Hear I thought breaking the law is a personal choice..

It's not one that's supposed to be allowed by the law, moron. Why on Earth do you think the laws should allow people to break the laws? Do you even listen to your own bullshit?

I speed. so if I get a ticket It no ones fault but mine..

So? How does that refute the idea of putting speed limiters in cars? What exactly is your ethical justification, other than repackaging your bullshit assumptions with different semantics? Do you think it would be OK to sell "terrorism kits" in stores because it's "no one's fault but the terrorist's"? Just chant "personal responsibility" over and over, and act as if there's no such thing as corporate responsibility?

and who decides how fast we should be allowed to go.. ??

The people who set the speed limits, genius. So once again, why not regulate car manufacturers to make them put speed limiters in the cars?

There is no "Ethical justification for speeding" so you will get none from me. Conceded

[theski]

Why the fuck not, dipshit? Is this your idea of a fucking ethics argument? Rolling-eye icons and appeals to right-wing Republitard rhetoric? Limits greater than 60 mph are allowed in many areas AFAIK, but why not, say, an electronic governor at 90 mph, which gives a healthy margin without necessarily allowing some asshole to blast along at 120 mph?

Don't give me that "nanny state" bullshit as if it automatically validates your point of view; explain WHY this would be a bad thing.

I am so goddamned tired of the way people use phrases like "nanny state" to dismiss ideas without a fair hearing.

Gosh, and Hear I thought breaking the law is a personal choice.. I speed. so if I get a ticket It no ones fault but mine.. and who decides how fast we should be allowed to go.. ??

Of course, everything's nice and peachy-keen until you come around a blind corner while speeding and plow into a minivan driven by a 78 year old grandmother driving her grandkids home from a soccer match. Or you decide to drive far faster than is safe, and lose control and drive into a ditch, or a light pole, or the kids crossing the road, etc. And even if you think you've hurt only yourself, undoubtedly you're filing an insurance claim. And while your rates increase dramatically, the insurance company passes the buck along to the rest of us too, since they can point to your accident and the accidents caused by every other jackass going too fast and say that "such-and-such demographic is costing us a lot to insure, so we're going to have to raise your rates to cover for it."

The same could be said for Adjusting your radio, Talking on teh cell phone.., eating, drinking. yelling at your kids..

[Darth Wong]

The argument, while logically valid, that people die in traffic from drivers with not-adjusted speeds is one that not many here really consider an argument for a general speed limit.
Regularly, there are studies that try to show that a speed limit would lower the amount of accidents, and studies that show the exact opposite. As it is, the number of accidents related to unadjusted speed (not necessarily excessive speeding) amount to about 17% of the total number.

Even our fines for speeding reflect the view Germany takes when it comes down to fast driving. Outside city limits, driving more than 40km/h faster than the limit (if there's a limit on the street) only costs 75 Euros.

I've heard that Germans take their driving more seriously than we here in North America. I don't know how true that is, but I certainly know that North American drivers are truly shitty.

[CmdrWilkens]

just because we don't need something is no reason to outlaw it.

Nice strawman, asshole. As if that's the only reason, and the traffic fatalities and injuries have no bearing on this discussion.

Which again goes back to the fact that speeding on highways is not the real cause of fatalaties. A quick check over to NHTSA shows that of the fatalaties related to speeding less than 15% were on interstate highways in 2004 and they account for less than 4.5% of all traffic fatalaties. This doesn't take into account the fact that 40% of all speeders were drunk when doing so. Basically speeding is dangerous no doubt but right now you could attribute perhaps 850 out of 42k total traffic deaths to excessive speed on highways so thats a pretty slim percentage (1.9 if I did the math right).

Highways are your top speed zones and right now speeding isn't really that big of a killer on the higways as compared against excessive speed, intoxication, recklessness, and a host of other concerns that governing the top speed of a car won't change.

Would limiting car speeds stop at least those 850 deaths? Maybe it would but at what level do you cap speed? In central MD going over 80mph / 130kph is likely to get you into trouble moving too quickly through traffic. Now take the same speed and plant yourself in the middle of Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, or the Dakotas. At that speed you're barely creeping along and at least two of those states have speed limits of greater than 100 mph / 165 kph simply because you can see for miles and the roads don't turn. Basically trying to limit a car in the US is a difficult proposition simply because excessive speed near a city is simply piddling along in the midwest. A lot of cars do have governors (usually set at 110-130 mph) but you really can't limit them more than this without restricting driving ability in some states to favor safety in others. America has this dilemna and until someone can figure out a way to have a car's governor be limited by the state they are driving in it would be difficult at best to place any limit beyond the one I just mentioned.

Speeding recklessly endangers others but right now speeding in highway situations where your top speeds are obtained is a minor percentage and not one that is easy to correct. It would be nice to find some way of limiting top speeds but you can't account for differences in driving conditions across a continent right now meanwhile the problems we should be worrying more about are lower speed incidents that cause more fatalities.

[Darth Wong]

Which again goes back to the fact that speeding on highways is not the real cause of fatalaties. A quick check over to NHTSA shows that of the fatalaties related to speeding less than 15% were on interstate highways in 2004 and they account for less than 4.5% of all traffic fatalaties.

And society has no interest in preventing that 4.5%? What the fuck kind of logic is this? If you can't stop all fatalities then you might as well not bother trying to prevent any of them? Especially when something like an electronic speed limiter would be trivially easy to add to new car designs? It would actually be nice to have a more sophisticated system with regional transmitters that lowers your speed even more when in school zones or residential areas, but that would cost more.

This doesn't take into account the fact that 40% of all speeders were drunk when doing so.

Which means that they have poor judgment and a limiter would work, whereas deterrents would not.

[Lusankya]

There are plenty of things that could decrease the number of car accidents without limiting the speed of the car, because remember, especially on country roads, driver fatigue becomes a safety issue as well, so there's a point at which lowering the speed actually decreases safety.

For example, we could limit the number of passengers for young drivers, seeing as having passengers increases the likelihood of a car accident. (I heard somewhere that this was even more pronounced for young male drivers, but I can't find a report on it with my laziness, and besides, making the law different for young male and young female drivers would never fly, because it's discriminatory or something.)

According to the most recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study on crash rates by the number of passengers across different driver age groups, crash rates for teens rise significantly as the number of passengers increases. This is especially true for the most inexperienced drivers (16- and 17-year-olds). In 1999, 16- and 17-year-old teens driving with no passengers were involved in 1.6 accidents per 10,000 trips, yet the rate rises to 2.3 accidents with one passenger, 3.3 accidents with two passengers, and sharply rises to 6.3 accidents with three or more passengers in the car. This latter number is three times greater than the accident rate per 10,000 trips for 18- and 19-year-old teens driving with three or more passengers (2.1).

But the main problem with crashes over the Easter weekend is the number of people on the roads, who are more likely to be travelling on unfamiliar country roads. I'd like to see statistics on how many fatalities there are relative to the number of cars actually driving places, but I have no idea where to start looking.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[aerius]

I've heard that Germans take their driving more seriously than we here in North America. I don't know how true that is, but I certainly know that North American drivers are truly shitty.

Very very true. My parents lived in Germany for a few years before moving to Canada, when they did they were completely shocked by the low standards we have for drivers here as well as the shit-ass attitudes. It's only gotten worse since then, especially with the fuckheads in SUVs and performance sedans, which I broadly refer to as "asshole cars".