Why are cars built to go so fast?

[His Divine Shadow]

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.

Well I would say making it harder and more expensive to pass would just generally up traffic safety overall and make people taking their driving more seriously. And would a speed limited at say 140-160kph really do anything in the case of drunken idiots? No if we're after those I say we install alco-locks in cars and also never give back licenses to people caught driving drunk.

And even if my idea don't affect aggressive driving I still think it should be done in certain parts of the world. In parts of the US for example its really easy and cheap to get a drivers license. Didn't even parts of texas have a right to drive law?

EDIT: Oh while enforcement after the fact doesn't help in the case of a violation a severe fine or loss of ones license and / or vehicle might sting enough to more folks than before will not do it again. Not a perfect solution but atleast it's something and generates income for the state.

[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.

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.

I only have limited experience with American drivers. But from my point of view, I can say that driving is a very important cultural thing here and people take it seriously...
My limited experience with American drivers was that they were very intimidated by normal traffic on an Autobahn, and one who was scared shitless. Others may be better suited for it.
I know it's totally irrational, but it is really, really deeply rooted to drive that fast here.

[Darth Wong]

Well I would say making it harder and more expensive to pass would just generally up traffic safety overall and make people taking their driving more seriously.

Definitely. Unfortunately, the institutional and social inertia opposing such a change would be enormous. Making car manufacturers put speed limiters in their cars would be relatively easy to do.

[Vympel]

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.)

When I got through my green P's to my full licence, studying for the test I remembered the statistic that a young male driver is least likely to have an accident when his mother is the passenger, and most likely to have an accident when his girlfriend is the passenger. Not exactly rocket science

[Lusankya]

And young female drivers are more likely to have low-velocity crashes, wheras young male drivers are more likely to wrap themselves and their friends around a tree.

I guess both are equally incompetent, but males are more dangerous.


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

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

One nice thing about such a speed limiter (let's say an 80 mph limit) is that you wouldn't need nearly as many traffic cops.

[aerius]

One nice thing about such a speed limiter (let's say an 80 mph limit) is that you wouldn't need nearly as many traffic cops.

Well, for the 2 months or so before the whiz kids figure out a way to re-chip or reprogram the computer, remove the speed limiter and sell the parts & instructions over the internet.

[Uraniun235]

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.

Just a tidbit: At least some of these limits are dictated not so much by trying to get people to slow down for safety's sake, but because of the design of the car. For example, my Thunderbird is electronically limited to about 105-110 because the driveshaft is so long that faster speeds could potentially damage the car.

I think that you very easily could limit them in favor of safety; those that want to go faster could (relatively) easily have the limiter adjusted or removed.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

The same could be said for Adjusting your radio,

Another thing that can be solved through application of technology. There exist car radios which automatically adjust their own volume levels.

Talking on teh cell phone..

Some municipalities already ban the use of cell-phones while driving. More municipalities should do so.

eating, drinking. yelling at your kids..

Mitigating these would be exceptionally difficult, whereas mandating that automobile manufacturers lower the top speed of the electronic speed governors that are already in virtually every new automobile would not be. And speeding reduces the time a person has to react to potential threats on the road. The government has an ethical responsibility to control the variables that it can reasonably control to minimize the damage that a given reckless jackass can do. It may not be able to stop you from stuffing that Big Mac into your face while cradling that super-size Coke in your lap, while yelling at your kids because they refuse to share their Chicken Mcnuggets, but they can put a damper on you wanting to go 25 MPH over the speed limit while doing so.

[Thunderfire]

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

Add a psychology test and the reckless driver will fail. Germany uses a point system - get to many points and you'll loose your licence. A psychology test called MPU is required to get it back.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But, to answer the OP, the reason is primarily the consumer market. People appear to want cars that go significantly faster than they're actually capable of driving them, and they want vehicles that are quiet. It's not a matter of necessity or efficiency, because automobiles of the 1980s and early 1990s frequently had motors pushing less than 100 HP, and easily turned in fuel-economies in the 20-30 MPG range and beyond. If we'd kept the horsepower levels from that era, while allowing everything else to advance, we'd easily have a vehicle that gets 40-60 MPG owing to better streamlining, lighter bodies and motors, sophisticated engine and transmission management computers, and advances the powertrain and powertrain components.

However, such a vehicle tends to need something like 15 to 20 seconds to make freeway speeds, engine noise offends the modern consumer's sensitivities at speeds faster than 75 mph (120 km/h,) and passes tend to require more foresight and planning than the typical jackass is capable of. Mind you, none of these would be problems if all vehicles were required to be slow and ultra-efficient and if people learned to give themselves sufficient time to get to where they're going.

[LordShaithis]

Great idea, only it doesn't go far enough. We need to remove the sound systems from all cars. Self-adjusting volume my ass, people still need to change the station or cycle through discs.

Wait a minute, I have it. I'm a genius. What we do is we have the government ration out transportation passes. They would look like credit cards and would have to be swiped through a reader in your car before it would start. Each would be good for a set number of miles, and would fall into a certain category. You know, a family would be issued X amount of work passes, school passes, shopping passes, and so forth. There would even be a limited number of recreational passes handed out, and family passes based on where your relatives live, so you wouldn't have to quit visting grandma. If you run out of passes, you can just walk or take the bus. If you want to go out of state, buy a plane/train ticket.

Just think of all the lives that would be saved by the reduction in traffic, once Joe Retard can't just hop in his car and drive around willy-nilly. It would help the environment, as well, and it would get more people out exercising as they walk to the corner store to avoid depleting a pass.

Yes sir, my plan would save countless lives. If you don't agree with it, you hate human life, and are a republitard. After all, you don't NEED to be able to just drive wherever you want, whenever you want. Please think of the children.

[theski]

But, to answer the OP, the reason is primarily the consumer market. People appear to want cars that go significantly faster than they're actually capable of driving them, and they want vehicles that are quiet. It's not a matter of necessity or efficiency, because automobiles of the 1980s and early 1990s frequently had motors pushing less than 100 HP, and easily turned in fuel-economies in the 20-30 MPG range and beyond. If we'd kept the horsepower levels from that era, while allowing everything else to advance, we'd easily have a vehicle that gets 40-60 MPG owing to better streamlining, lighter bodies and motors, sophisticated engine and transmission management computers, and advances the powertrain and powertrain components.

However, such a vehicle tends to need something like 15 to 20 seconds to make freeway speeds, engine noise offends the modern consumer's sensitivities at speeds faster than 75 mph (120 km/h,) and passes tend to require more foresight and planning than the typical jackass is capable of. Mind you, none of these would be problems if all vehicles were required to be slow and ultra-efficient and if people learned to give themselves sufficient time to get to where they're going.

GMT.. Do you want that???

[Darth Wong]

Snip the usual Republitard bullshit

Oh look, a fucking idiot whose idea of an argument is to exaggerate the living fuck out of it and then declare that it's a valid extrapolation through the power of Black and White fallacies.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

But, to answer the OP, the reason is primarily the consumer market. People appear to want cars that go significantly faster than they're actually capable of driving them, and they want vehicles that are quiet. It's not a matter of necessity or efficiency, because automobiles of the 1980s and early 1990s frequently had motors pushing less than 100 HP, and easily turned in fuel-economies in the 20-30 MPG range and beyond. If we'd kept the horsepower levels from that era, while allowing everything else to advance, we'd easily have a vehicle that gets 40-60 MPG owing to better streamlining, lighter bodies and motors, sophisticated engine and transmission management computers, and advances the powertrain and powertrain components.

However, such a vehicle tends to need something like 15 to 20 seconds to make freeway speeds, engine noise offends the modern consumer's sensitivities at speeds faster than 75 mph (120 km/h,) and passes tend to require more foresight and planning than the typical jackass is capable of. Mind you, none of these would be problems if all vehicles were required to be slow and ultra-efficient and if people learned to give themselves sufficient time to get to where they're going.

GMT.. Do you want that???

I certainly wouldn't mind it. Of course, I spent the better part of eight years driving just such a vehicle, and never found a lack of horsepower to be a serious showstopper, except for a couple of times when I buried the car up to its chassis in snow and mud; and going up some particularly steep hills, where the only vehicles I could pass were 18-wheelers, busses, and geriatric Chevy pickups.

[theski]

But, to answer the OP, the reason is primarily the consumer market. People appear to want cars that go significantly faster than they're actually capable of driving them, and they want vehicles that are quiet. It's not a matter of necessity or efficiency, because automobiles of the 1980s and early 1990s frequently had motors pushing less than 100 HP, and easily turned in fuel-economies in the 20-30 MPG range and beyond. If we'd kept the horsepower levels from that era, while allowing everything else to advance, we'd easily have a vehicle that gets 40-60 MPG owing to better streamlining, lighter bodies and motors, sophisticated engine and transmission management computers, and advances the powertrain and powertrain components.

However, such a vehicle tends to need something like 15 to 20 seconds to make freeway speeds, engine noise offends the modern consumer's sensitivities at speeds faster than 75 mph (120 km/h,) and passes tend to require more foresight and planning than the typical jackass is capable of. Mind you, none of these would be problems if all vehicles were required to be slow and ultra-efficient and if people learned to give themselves sufficient time to get to where they're going.

GMT.. Do you want that???

I certainly wouldn't mind it. Of course, I spent the better part of eight years driving just such a vehicle, and never found a lack of horsepower to be a serious showstopper, except for a couple of times when I buried the car up to its chassis in snow and mud; and going up some particularly steep hills, where the only vehicles I could pass were 18-wheelers, busses, and geriatric Chevy pickups.

One last question.. Do you commute to work or school?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I certainly wouldn't mind it. Of course, I spent the better part of eight years driving just such a vehicle, and never found a lack of horsepower to be a serious showstopper, except for a couple of times when I buried the car up to its chassis in snow and mud; and going up some particularly steep hills, where the only vehicles I could pass were 18-wheelers, busses, and geriatric Chevy pickups.

One last question.. Do you commute to work or school?

Back when I went to school, the total length of my daily commute was over fifty miles, and combined city, highway, and mountain driving, with the occasional bout of bad weather to make getting from the mountains to the interstate interesting. I did this all in vehicle developing no more than 65 HP, even with foul snowy weather, because the university was in the city, which was 2500 feet lower in elevation . . . where it was bone-dry and clear.

These days, I live in the city, so my commute to work isn't quite so interesting or so long.

[CmdrWilkens]

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.

Couple of things

1) Cars in the US already have electronic speed limiters they just happen to be set somewhere between 110 and 130 mph as I already mentioned
2) Setting those standards lower effectively bars the ability to keep up with reasonable and safe speeds in a half dozen midwest and western states (Nevada, Wyoming, Montana, etc)
3) I NEVER said society didn't want to stop those deaths I said there was no reasonable way to prevent them without seriously redesining the cars because of point 2 which would cost more than most people would be willing to pay.

My popint is that speed governors only work to curb the highest end speeding incidences and right now you can't drop them lower without limiting the ability to travel throughout the midwest and west so you would need a new device with exactly the kind of regional transmitting capacity that aleters the governor based on location which would require a rather noticeable investment that the consumer won't pay for.

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.

If they were drunk speeding is, to my calculation, a secondary cause and the alcohol would have caused fatalaties whether they were speeding or not. Even if you don't accept that it doesn't change anything about the points above.

[Thunderfire]

Mind you, none of these would be problems if all vehicles were required to be slow and ultra-efficient and if people learned to give themselves sufficient time to get to where they're going.

There is a good chance that you'll get more sleep related deaths when you do this.

[Qwerty 42]

I'm just making an observation, and my apologies if it's already been posted, but I'd imagine that a lot of fatal accidents occur in suburban areas, where sixty miles per hour is very fast, but a speed cutoff wouldn't influence it.

Or is there something to this that I'm missing?

[The Silence and I]

Where do most accidents occur? At 40 to 60 mph, on suburban or city streets, not highways. Limiting the speed at say 90 mph would have zero effect on these accidents.

What about granting a non-existent electronic infrastructure that allows a per road speed limit? Here the problem is abuse. What sort of limits should be imposed? 10 mph over the limit? 20?

At 10 mph over the legal limit people will do what they always do--go about 5 to 7 over the limit, leaving only a handful for you to overtake with. Not appealing, and not safe--there are times you really need serious acceleration and relative speed to avoid accidents.

At 20 over you have a maneuvering window, but there is little point to it now--people can still go 50 in a 30 zone! That isn't helping very much!

A flat ban can be useful, but how high? Can it be changed for different counties, or states? It wouldn't cut back on most accidents though. A dynamic ban requires a massive system we simply don't have, and still won't solve the problem.


AFAIK hugely excessive speed doesn't kill except rarely, it is going through blind corners, or interections at locally excessive speed that does most in. Well, that and doing too fast in harsh weather, or being drunk.

I despise the idea of such a ban on principle, but I honestly do not think the problem can be solved through this kind of regulation. People will still forget to look around corners, or fall asleep or get drunk, nerfing top speed won't do much IMO.

My 2 cents anyway.

[Death from the Sea]

You've got to be kidding. Like where? You think this no doubt small class of areas not governed by the law (and, therefore, not likely to be an area where there's potential for serious accidents) should determine how fast cars should go?.

it is called "private property" which includes race tracks, parking lots or any other privately owned land. so yes. If I can drive as fast as I want to on private property, then why should the gevernment regulations stop me from doing so?

And how does "personal responsibility" work when you pulverize someone else's car and kill everyone in it because you were driving too damn fast?

"personal responsibility" works so that if you are going so fast that you kill people in a car crash that you can be held personally responsible for the consequences with both criminal and civil law. it is called being responsible enough to not drive like an idiot, which would include driving too fast.

just because we have the ability to drive faster than the speed limit does not mean we have to.

if we made cars only go the speed limit, which one are you going to use? are they going to include a water sensor so that when it rains your car will run slower so you can't drive as fast on the wet road? are you going to make it so that the driver is in a bubble so that the driver is not distracted by a cell phone, radio, screaming kids, billboards, police on the side of the road? cause those cause alot of accidents too.

besides even if cars maxed out at 65mph or 70mph then they could still speed and cause the same accidents on streets with speed limits of 25mph.

[Xon]

it is called "private property" which includes race tracks, parking lots or any other privately owned land. so yes. If I can drive as fast as I want to on private property, then why should the gevernment regulations stop me from doing so?

The government has every right and the responsibility to regurlate what happens on private property.

You sure as fuck can not legally build a nuclear reactor in your backyard, nor can you host a racetrack on your private property.

[Broomstick]

it is called "private property" which includes race tracks, parking lots or any other privately owned land. so yes. If I can drive as fast as I want to on private property, then why should the gevernment regulations stop me from doing so?

The government has every right and the responsibility to regurlate what happens on private property.

You sure as fuck can not legally build a nuclear reactor in your backyard, nor can you host a racetrack on your private property.

No, you can't build a nuke in your backyard - but you CAN have a racetrack on your property.

In additional to the dozen or so official racetracks in my area - all of them, as far as I know, in private hands - we also have three "clubs" within 100 miles of where I live where you can take your car and drive as fast as you want and the car can go. Private land with no speed limits other than physics and your own abilities. One of my co-workers has a Porsche he takes out to one of those clubs - he likes to tease me that he drives a car faster than my airplanes fly.

Whether you approve or not, such things do exist.

But I don't think it's the guys in the cars with the six-figure price tags taking their pampered babies out to the private track who are the problem. Most of those folks are smart enough to get some additional training and skill.

The real problem with speeding are fucktards who overestimate their abilities/misjudge conditions on public roads.

[salm]

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.

Meh, during my stays in the US and Canada i never noticed a serious difference between driver quality in North America and Germany. Drivers are dicks everywhere.