Why do cars go faster than speed limit?

[twolow]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?

[BK_GrandMarquis]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?
Shhhhhhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas. ;)

[O's Fan Rich]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?


Because we can.
Now, don't be giving anyone any ideas....
Moderator delete this thread before "they" read it please.... :nono:

[Fourth Horseman]

Two words: revenue generation. :)

[dwasson]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?

How did you get on this site?

[twolow]

Two words: revenue generation. :)
Why doesn't the insurance industry have lobbyist out trying to push this? Less speeders = less accidents = lower rates = less insurance industry brings in but that has to beat what they pay out to accidents...look at the recent deaths when the MM wrecked on the interstate after speeding.

I wouldn't care if my car stopped at 80...long as everyone elses did.

[dwasson]

I wouldn't care if my car stopped at 80...long as everyone elses did.

You need to be stopped.

[twolow]

How did you get on this site?
LOL, don't get me wrong...I love to speed and do it quite often and have been in some near misses. We all do it and luck is what has saved us from injury. I am a idiot and need a idiot proof car I guess.

Everyone here usually after their street racing story says the roads were empty and that makes it 'A OK' but it only takes one car to pull out or something for fun to turn to horror.

I tend to speed on the interstate simply to go with the flow. I think cars should be limited to make that flow the speed limit. Its sorta funny that you can register a 200 mph sports car for use on public streets.

[Bluerauder]

:laugh: :laugh:

I am a idiot and need a idiot proof car I guess.
I like a man who knows his limitations !!! :D Please tell me that you aren't running for public office. :rolleyes:

[woaface]

Because it's too easy for people to undo what's been done to a car to make them capable (or not capable) of such things.

Besides, people use those speeds on closed race courses all of the time.

It's not speeding that kills people, even if you're going 140mph, it's speeding in conditions that you clearly SHOULD NOT BE SPEEDING IN that kills people.

That and not wearing a seatbelt.

If you haven't noticed, this isn't China, the government can't do everything it wants to us. If we kill ourselves or someone else, you suffer the responsibility (going to hell or going to jail IMO.) People who can do things right shouldn't have to suffer because of those who do things wrong.

The vast majority of people in this nation could stand a tougher 101 course in driving if you ask me. It's simply too easy to get a license in America.

[Fourth Horseman]

If you haven't noticed, this isn't China, the government can't do everything it wants to us. If we kill ourselves or someone else, you suffer the responsibility (going to hell or going to jail IMO.) People who can do things right shouldn't have to suffer because of those who do things wrong.

On the other hand driving a motor vehicle is not a right, either. It would be entirely legal for the government to limit top speeds to whatever they deem appropriate.

[Fourth Horseman]

Why doesn't the insurance industry have lobbyist out trying to push this? Less speeders = less accidents = lower rates = less insurance industry brings in but that has to beat what they pay out to accidents...look at the recent deaths when the MM wrecked on the interstate after speeding.

The only answer to this that I can think of is that it would still all be relative to the insurance industry no matter how fast we go. For example, if nobody could go over 50 MPH, the accidents would be less damaging, and by extension less expensive to pay out. But, would they still be able to charge the same rates then? I'm guessing insurance costs for motorists would go down as well.

So from the insurance industry's point of view, it's probably all about equal.

[woaface]

Uh Fourth, YOU are the government.

The government builds the roads because WE PAY THEM TO DO IT!

Don't forget who's in charge.

[Joe Walsh]

Why are we even having this discussion???

This is America not some communist country whose government dictates every aspect of your life....

I think that 'twolow' was just "stirring the pot" to see what kind of reaction he'd get.

If he seriously thinks that limiting all vehicles to 80 mph maximum is a good idea, then I don't know why he is on this website... he should go join the Honda Excrement website :o
www.elementownersclub.com :puke: :puke:

[QWK SVT]

The only answer to this that I can think of is that it would still all be relative to the insurance industry no matter how fast we go. For example, if nobody could go over 50 MPH, the accidents would be less damaging, and by extension less expensive to pay out. But, would they still be able to charge the same rates then? I'm guessing insurance costs for motorists would go down as well.

So from the insurance industry's point of view, it's probably all about equal.
Sure... I'm not so confident the insurance companies would actually lower the rate, just because their costs go down. Just like the gasoline companies would lower the price of gas, too... Right? :rolleyes:

[MarauderMark]

Shhhhhhhhhh. Don't give them any ideas. ;)


De ja vue. :D

[Mad1]

Our step-son's 18-year-old girlfriend has gotten 5 tickets in the last couple of months all for 25+ mph over the speed limits. She hasn't even paid for the first ticket yet, but on the bright side ... her parents have made her get a job to pay for her own insurance now. (I had to laugh.)

Mad1
Jeremy

[DEFYANT]

Our step-son's 18-year-old girlfriend has gotten 5 tickets in the last couple of months all for 25+ mph over the speed limits. She hasn't even paid for the first ticket yet, but on the bright side ... her parents have made her get a job to pay for her own insurance now. (I had to laugh.)

Mad1
Jeremy
You might want to keep your step son out of this girls car...if you can.

[woaface]

Yeah, that's unbelievable. Her license should be suspended.

I've got two. One for 10 or less (which I didn't deserve) and one for 25+ (which I did deserve).


Our step-son's 18-year-old girlfriend has gotten 5 tickets in the last couple of months all for 25+ mph over the speed limits. She hasn't even paid for the first ticket yet, but on the bright side ... her parents have made her get a job to pay for her own insurance now. (I had to laugh.)

Mad1
Jeremy

[Fourth Horseman]

Uh Fourth, YOU are the government.

The government builds the roads because WE PAY THEM TO DO IT!

Don't forget who's in charge.

As per our PM conversation (a very good one, I might add) the Constitution of 1787 grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce and the various states the power to regulate intrastate commerce. The highway system is a tool of commerce and therefore clearly the government does have legal responsibility to manage it accordingly.

Please keep in mind that, Constitutionally speaking, there are differences between rights, liberties and privelages. Driving on public roads and highways is a privelage, not a right nor a liberty.

[woaface]

Of course it's not a "liberty." But my point is that a "right" is something that the government cannot take away from you. The government should not take away something that it did not invent, is pressured and paid to keep up, and is widely considered good by all people. You see what I'm saying? The government can't just tomorrow take it all up away from us, because it's OURS not THEIRS. We contract them to do their best to do the right job.

My PM addressed the following:

Of course it's not a "liberty" to endanger the public. But my point is that a "right" is something that the government cannot take away from you. The government should not take away something that it did not invent, is not pressured or paid to keep up, and is widely considered good by all people. You see what I'm saying? The government can't just tomorrow take it all up away from us, because it's OURS not THEIRS.

So how can we reduce the ability for crazy ass drivers to hurt others? Not by lowering the speed limit.

I'm not saying driving should be a free-for-all. I'm not saying the government should do nothing, and I'm certaintly not saying everyone should have a license. I strongly believe that a radical change should take place in the minds and highways of America. Those of us who can drive 50, 60, or 140 miles per hour safely should not be considered a threat. There are times when it is ok to drive that fast too. It happens on 40% of the autobahn every day.

The change I have in mind NEEDS the government to effectively carry it out.

I believe speed limits can be raised but not until we have better drivers, better driver's ed, and better highways overall.

Just a few simple rules and signs would be a good start. Signs that change speed limits based upon road conditions including weather and traffic. The banishment of unqualified cars from the interstate system. The implementation of more difficult driver's ed and license aquisition tests. NOT allowing states like South Carolina to give ANY sort of motor vehicle or moped license to those under 16 years of age, and eventually 17. Not providing a fully functional license to those under 18 who should be driving under restricted clauses. (Just before 18 isn't SO bad in my opinion, but 15 is NUTZ!) Red light cameras. No license ever at all period if you are charged with a DUI (above .1 or such.)

I got a full license when I turned 17 and had been driving by myself for months. It got me into nothing but trouble. My parents were reasonable in their hesitance to trust me. And to think I was one of the most alert drivers I knew, I just had an affinity for speed. I still love speed, but am a million times more weary of when and where I use it. I've been pushed into fear of police pulling me over and for the last year have always watched my rear-view mirror. "I'm driving a minivan." I tell myself. Then I picture bodies strew across the roadway, in a gruesome video I saw in driver's ed. I needed this fear a little earlier on. "I can do anything." I would say to myself. What I really needed was more training and experience. NOT JUST EXPERIENCE AND AGE.

Just little things like that, and the speed limit could, and should, be higher. You can lower it all you want but without taking loads of precautions (such as a few I've listed above) you won't solve the problem. Dangerous people don't CARE what the speed limit is, and according to government studies, neither do safe people. They will travel at an average speed that they deem appropriate for that road, and the safest speed for any road is the 85th-90th percential of that speed.

The government would HAVE to implement this of course. Privatization could be considered as well.

Even privelages are first governed by the people that have them. Only when they abuse them should the government step in with laws and rules that people think are good, not laws and rules that lobbists think are good.


As per our PM conversation (a very good one, I might add) the Constitution of 1787 grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce and the various states the power to regulate intrastate commerce. The highway system is a tool of commerce and therefore clearly the government does have legal responsibility to manage it accordingly.

Please keep in mind that, Constitutionally speaking, there are differences between rights, liberties and privelages. Driving on public roads and highways is a privelage, not a right nor a liberty.

[Fourth Horseman]

I'll respond via PM (but not tonight... tired... must sleep) rather than bore everybody here. ;)

[texascorvette]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?
Man, I want the keys to his liquor and medicine cabinets!!!!!!!

[metroplex]

What's next, ban on stilleto heels and steak knives because they can be used to kill people?????

If we speed limited every vehicle to something like 89 mph like the E-series, then what happens if there's an emergency that requires us to drive fast? And what is stopping people from overcoming this limiter?
What about states that have no speed limits?

And what speed limit are we talking about? If we limited our vehicles to 65 mph, then you can get a ticket in MI because the highway limits are 70 mph.
If we limited it to 70 mph, you can speed in a 55 zone.

[woaface]

Yeah, the people who REALLY want fast cars (like criminals and half the people here) will still get them, no matter how illegal. There's always a way.

[dwasson]

One thing that some of you are missing is that high performance is a safety issue. If cars were made to max out at 80 MPH the manufacturers would have little reason to pursue better braking or handling. The performance of a Toyota Prius is adequate for almost all normal city driving. It would be difficult on the street to prove any better performance.

The German car builders insist that the open limits on the autobahn require that German cars have higher limits, and better handling at the limits, than would be needed at lower speeds. This provides a cushion of performance that gives German cars an edge in safety at all speeds.

Would you trust Ford to make a car that was "safe enough"? I wouldn't.

[twolow]

I guess a simplified version of my question would be this:

Why do we have cars that will do 140?

[dflynn5]

Why are we even having this discussion???

This is America not some communist country whose government dictates every aspect of your life....

I think that 'twolow' was just "stirring the pot" to see what kind of reaction he'd get.

If he seriously thinks that limiting all vehicles to 80 mph maximum is a good idea, then I don't know why he is on this website... he should go join the Honda Excrement website :o
www.elementownersclub.com :puke: :puke:

If you want the government telling you what to do, I can point you at a number of countries. Meanwhile, what oh what are you doing with a Marauder. Might I suggest a Prius?

[SergntMac]

None of y'all seem to remember that we already had a national speed limit set by the federal government. We don't have it anymore because it didn't work. Traffic related deaths were reduced by 6400 in the first year after the reappeal of the law, and highway revenues increased 2-3 billion dollars.

People like to drive, and they will drive as fast as THEY feel safe driving regardless of any posted limit. The government's job is to deliver the best highways it can, and to regulate driving privilages on those roads. In both cases, the government (state or federal) is as efficient as it always is, fulfilling about 80-75 percent of it's obligation.

To answer the initial question here, cars go 140 MPH because people buy them. If the cars didn't sell, no one would make them. It's the same rationale enjoyed by the adult entertainment industry on the internet. Almost everyone calls it "porn" and speaks negatively of it, yet it's entirely consumer driven. No customers? No porn. Ditto illegal drugs, no customers? No dope dealers.

[twolow]

That was the best response I think I've read, thanks Mac.

I don't think I am Communist :rolleyes: for asking the question and some responses have been entertaining.

I speed cause I can, I love to shoot assault rifles cause it's fun, I squish squirrels in the road cause it is saddistically entertaining, I have ripped the mattress labels off my bed because I knew it was the wrong thing to do, and I occassionally use my telescope to look in the neighbor's windows cause I'm a perv.

Just because I do all of this doesn't mean it's my God given right to do so and rules are generally needed for those who don't have common sense and I lack that based on past experiences :o

The reason i started this thread truely was because I was sure someone somewhere has tried to pass such a law, not that I'm about to lobby for it myself.

I do think that one day cars will have GPS computers that tell on you when you speed. I'm not sure there would be just cause to try to fight it as whats the difference in a computer catching you speed or the officer at the end of your driveway?

[woaface]

Mac said what I said in my longblown item uptop.

People will drive what they feel safe.

I love Mac's posts...so informative, and ALWAYS worth reading.

You know I think in London they were toying around with a GPS tracking system that would cut off fuel to a car if it exceed the posted speed limit by 10 or 15 mph.

[twolow]

Mac said what I said in my longblown item uptop.
Yes, your post did say the same thing...sorry to have overlooked you Mr. Face ;)

[B.C. Bake]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?
What world did you come from? Track racing is fun, and you don't have to do it on the freeways. BTW if you have a MM sell it and but a HYUNDAI ACCENT.:bop:

[metroplex]

I guess a simplified version of my question would be this:

Why do we have cars that will do 140?
My answer to your question is why do we want to restrict ALL cars to a certain speed limit? And how would you implement this restriction and what speed limit would you implement?

Electronic? Easily over-riden illegally.
Mechanical with Electronic parts? Also can be overcome.

[twolow]

My answer to your question is why do we want to restrict ALL cars to a certain speed limit? And how would you implement this restriction and what speed limit would you implement?

Electronic? Easily over-riden illegally.
Mechanical with Electronic parts? Also can be overcome.
If I were to guess I would say 80 as I don't know where 80 is legal. But whatever the highest speed limit out there, 5 above that.

As far as overriding it, of course you could. It falls into the same catagory as changing out your exhaust or rolling back your miles. You can of course do it but face fines if your caught or fail a inspection...like altering anything else on your car.

I do find it facinating how everyone objects and calls me crazy but I still don't know why you need a car that can do a hundred or better. One answer and I think it was yours is that you may be in a emergency situation and that doesn't hold water to me as thats no excuse to speed or run red lights. Call 911. Emergency vehicles of course would not be speed locked.

Others said for racing purposes and thats fine, just that you wouldn't have a street legal ride of you drove your race car to the race. Gordon doesn't drive his NASCAR to the track.

[Fourth Horseman]

I speed cause I can, I love to shoot assault rifles cause it's fun...

The difference here, of course, is that owning and bearing firearms is a Constitutionally protected right. Driving a motor vehicle on public roads and highways is not. Don't mean to beat that point to death, but I think it is important to clarify the difference from a Constitutional perspective.

[twolow]

The difference here, of course, is that owning and bearing firearms is a Constitutionally protected right. Driving a motor vehicle on public roads and highways is not. Don't mean to beat that point to death, but I think it is important to clarify the difference from a Constitutional perspective.
But that does open up a whole other topic as to what your right is. When the founding fathers said 'bear arms' did they mean a simple K-Mart rifle or single round pistol as was around at the time or does it apply to all arms regardless of the era such as a machine gun, gatlin gun, shoulder fired rocket launcher? Where's the line?

[Fourth Horseman]

But that does open up a whole other topic as to what your right is. When the founding fathers said 'bear arms' did they mean a simple K-Mart rifle or single round pistol as was around at the time or does it apply to all arms regardless of the era such as a machine gun, gatlin gun, shoulder fired rocket launcher? Where's the line?

I think it's a serious mistake to assume that the founders weren't smart men and women. I'm not saying you are, but a statement like yours above could be construed that way.

In 1787 the founders were well aware of technological progression. They'd seen changes and improvement in firearms in their time, and were certainly aware of the improvements made over the previous centuries. Yet they chose to enumerate ownership and bearing of firearms as an intrinsic, god given right. They did not set limitations. They did not say something like: only single-shot weapons limited to 500 yards range with muzzle velocities under 2800 fps, and calibers less that .50". They were careful to choose the wording of the Bill of Rights.

But that is another topic altogether. That they did NOT list operating vehicles of any kind as an intrinsic right is my point.

[twolow]

I see your logic and think you made a valid judgement that i can agree with :D

[Bluerauder]

That they did NOT list operating vehicles of any kind as an intrinsic right is my point.
I think that is covered under "... and the pursuit of happiness." in the Declaration of Independence. :D

[Fourth Horseman]

I think that is covered under "... and the pursuit of happiness." in the Declaration of Independence. :D

Well said, brother. Well said! :banana2:

[SergntMac]

This discussion is much too provocative now.

It started out with a question of why cars go fast, and now it's hovering at what weapons were available, or, imagined, when our Founding Fathers sat down together, drunk I imagine, and started BSing each other about the latest BS around them.

Makes me wonder if any of them mentioned Paul Revere's 60' times...

C'mon, y'all...Reel it in already, eh?

[Fourth Horseman]

This discussion is much too provocative now.

It started out with a question of why cars go fast, and now it's hovering at what weapons were available, or, imagined, when our Founding Fathers sat down together, drunk I imagine, and started BSing each other about the latest BS around them.

Makes me wonder if any of them mentioned Paul Revere's 60' times...

C'mon, y'all...Reel it in already, eh?

If I side tracked the discussion, I apologize. But when it's questioned as to whether or not the government has the legal power to enforce limitations on people's use of public highways it becomes a quesitons of rights and privilages. I know most people aren't accustomed to considering matters of government beyond how much tax they pay every year and who's going to fix the afore-mentioned roads. I wonder where we'd be today if our founders had not sat down, drunk or otherwise, and discussed the future of government on this continent. I, for one, am glad they didn't just reel it in. ;)

[dwasson]

But that does open up a whole other topic as to what your right is. When the founding fathers said 'bear arms' did they mean a simple K-Mart rifle or single round pistol as was around at the time or does it apply to all arms regardless of the era such as a machine gun, gatlin gun, shoulder fired rocket launcher? Where's the line?

The foundng fathers knew that only an armed populace was safe from the predations of government. This meant, and they discussed it in the Federalist Papers, that private individuals had the right to own weapons of the same quality as the military. Note that the framers of the Constitution said that we have the right, not that any government could give is the right. In order to keep tyrany from taking over this nation today, that means that citizens have the right to carry any small arm.

But, in light of the venality of our elected representatives, and the ignorance of the public, stupid laws like the assault weapons ban (more truthfully called the scary-looking gun ban) have been accepted as reasonable by many people.

We have already lost so many rights. Now we are losing the tools to protect the rights we have left.

/soapbox

[Rider90]

Well said Mac, and I'm not smooching. People drive at what speed they feel safe at and the police often times do not matter until they light you up. Even then, it just means you are in the market for a lawyer (or you may already be a return customer)

[MENINBLK]

If states have inspections and emission tests and all that, why does the government not limit the maximum speed of a car?

I don't know of anywhere that gets above 70-75 so why not make cars peak out at 80?

It wouldn't really matter if you were blowing through a neighborhood but on the interstates there wouldnt be anyone doing 90+ to pull over. No high speed chases on the interstate either.

Why do we have cars that will do 140?

Because this is AMERICA.
We have fought for our FREEDOMS.
In AMERICA we enjoy our FREEDOMS.

Our FREEDOMS are PRIVILEDGES given to us by the very people
that fight for our FREEDOMS.

They are NEVER RIGHTS...
RIGHTS are FOUGHT FOR...

When you say you have a RIGHT to something,
there has to be a justification for that right.
Either you earned it or fought for it.

A PRIVILEDGE is a FREEDOM GIVEN TO YOU by another for you to ENJOY.
This PRIVILEDGE requires a little common sense and RESPONSIBILITY for porper use.
Anything else constitues ABUSE, which inevitably leads to having the PRIVILEDGE REVOKED...

Then you will NEED to EARN the RIGHT to have the PRIVILEDGE reinstated.

So driving a car requires RESPONSIBILITY, GOOD JUDGEMENT,
and the ability to accept CONSEQUENCES for your actions...

This is why cars do whatever they do.
Not every car can do 200MPH, and every car that can do 200MPH
doesn't cost the same as a Prelude...

You earn the priviledge of owning a vehicle that can achieve that speed,
you also have the responsibility to drive it sensibly.

Its that simple, and doesn't require any more thought than that.

My question is this...
'Why are people still driving with a CELL PHONE on one ear, when its against the law in so many states ???
Even the POLICE drive while using a Cell Phone !!!

WHAT COULD POSSIBLE BE SO IMPORTANT ???

[Haggis]

The foundng fathers knew that only an armed populace was safe from the predations of government. This meant, and they discussed it in the Federalist Papers, that private individuals had the right to own weapons of the same quality as the military. Note that the framers of the Constitution said that we have the right, not that any government could give is the right. In order to keep tyrany from taking over this nation today, that means that citizens have the right to carry any small arm.

But, in light of the venality of our elected representatives, and the ignorance of the public, stupid laws like the assault weapons ban (more truthfully called the scary-looking gun ban) have been accepted as reasonable by many people.

We have already lost so many rights. Now we are losing the tools to protect the rights we have left.

/soapbox

:bows: :bows: :bows: