A simple question

[KIS]

While reading the most recent thread on speeding and the very predictable responses by both the nannies on this forum as well as the guys with their hair on fire. Why is it legal to have cars that can easily exceed 80 mph? With technology you can manufacture cars that are limited to 80 mph on public roads, and that have gps that would eliminate the speed governor when you're on a recognized track. My point is simple. When you allow manufacturers to produce cars that can easily triple most speed limits, why are you surprised when people actually do it?

[Nelrock]

I'm sure gps governed cars are coming in the future...I just hope I'm not around to see it.

[ksoze]

Toasters can kill, but we still sell them and most people do not cook breakfast in the bath tub. Most people also survive the purchase of gas powered guillotines (lawnmowers), cavity magnetron waveguide machines (microwave ovens) and vending machines with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that can kill if not taken as described (Ibuprofen).

[Nelrock]

Cars aren't made to be specifically driven in the U.S. either.

I don't subscribe to the "speed kills" way of thinking anyhow. IMO we (the U.S.) need lower speed limits because our drivers are more stupid.
I spent quite a few years in Europe...and...I can't recall ever seeing a accident/wreck. Oh, I know they occur, but I also know there's an entirely different etiquette to driving over there...which we don't have here.

[KIS]

Originally Posted by ksoze

Toasters can kill, but we still sell them and most people do not cook breakfast in the bath tub. Most people also survive the purchase of gas powered guillotines (lawnmowers), cavity magnetron waveguide machines (microwave ovens) and vending machines with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that can kill if not taken as described (Ibuprofen).

I disagree with your premise. Toasters do not make better toast while in the bath. Lawnmowers' primary function is to cut the grass. Most people don't derive a greater benefit from overdosing on Ibuprofen. But with cars capable of 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, and a top speed of 155 mph one can actually enjoy the car more fully when driving at triple digit speeds. I'm not advocating reckless speeds; but if you're not exceeding 65 mph, why own an M3?

[Inerrant]

I agree with you! But you cant take the individuals on this forum and any other car forum to seriously!! They have all gone over the speed limit and choose to preach when it suits them. Ive seen individuals get into wrecks doing 15-30mph! do i advocate reckless driving and speeding??? NO! but do i understand when you want to have a little fun? YES!

If you can find any Owner and or Driver of an M3 that has not gone over a posted speed limit in there city or town i would give up drinking water for a week! LOL!

[Erhan]

I believe the GTR in Japan has this future where the speed is limited to something like 120mph on the public roads. When you take it to track, it knows (gps), and removes the limiter.

To respond your question: There are hundreds of things that can be used in dangerous ways but are normally allowed (the list includes even guns). So cars are not the problem. Education is the problem. I took my driver license in about 10minutes here in the states. Drive around for about half a mile, stop at stop sign, stop at red light, back-up in an empty street (not even paralel parking). That was it.

[Nelrock]

Originally Posted by Inerrant

If you can find any Owner and or Driver of an M3 that has not gone over a posted speed limit in there city or town i would give up drinking water for a week! LOL!

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by Inerrant

If you can find any Owner and or Driver of an M3 that has not gone over a posted speed limit in there city or town i would give up drinking water for a week! LOL!

Well, is it the M3 drivers? I bet 99.99% of the drivers did drive above speed limit (and currently are).

[ksoze]

I am more fearful of a soccer mom in a swerving SUV with a cell phone in one hand and wailing kids in the back than I am of an M3 speeding. Very few accidents are caused by driverless cars and I suspect most accidents are influenced as much or more by alcohol, distractions and road conditions than the technical specifications of the car.

With that all being said, I do agree than some of the tales here of high speed runs on public roads is concerning, however I do not have to exceed the speed limit to enjoy my M3 (although I may get there faster).

[KIS]

Originally Posted by erhanh

I believe the GTR in Japan has this future where the speed is limited to something like 120mph on the public roads. When you take it to track, it knows (gps), and removes the limiter.

To respond your question: There are hundreds of things that can be used in dangerous ways but are normally allowed (the list includes even guns). So cars are not the problem. Education is the problem. I took my driver license in about 10minutes here in the states. Drive around for about half a mile, stop at stop sign, stop at red light, back-up in an empty street (not even paralel parking). That was it.

Please understand I advocate personal responsibility, and I own a variety of guns (I live in Texas), but the primary purpose of a gun is to destroy what you're shooting at. Whether it's a target or an intruder in your home. I believe no one would be killed by guns if none existed. Now back to my original premise. A car with a 414 hp engine is entirely superfluous if you don't intend to drive above 60 mph.

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by KIS

Please understand I advocate personal responsibility, and I own a variety of guns (I live in Texas), but the primary purpose of a gun is to destroy what you're shooting at. Whether it's a target or an intruder in your home. I believe no one would be killed by guns if none existed. Now back to my original premise. A car with a 414 hp engine is entirely superfluous if you don't intend to drive above 60 mph.

You know some of us track this car. And the gun is not only for killing, you can argue that it is for personal safety.

[KIS]

Originally Posted by erhanh

You know some of us track this car. And the gun is not only for killing, you can argue that it is for personal safety.

GPS would enable you to use all 414 hp when at a recognized track. Without being offensive, what do you think a gun would be used for in a personal safety context? Presumably to kill the person you're shooting at in order to maintain your personal safety.

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by KIS

GPS would enable you to use all 414 hp when at a recognized track. Without being offensive, what do you think a gun would be used for in a personal safety context? Presumably to kill the person you're shooting at in order to maintain your personal safety.

Yes, but you don't go kill people for funzies, so you shouldn't use all 414hp in public roads just to have fun while being wreckless. Humans, if educated, should be responsible enough to know when to use the power of their cars.

If you try to regulate things by enforcing rules you will make things worse, not better. Taking away the freedom is not the solution. The solution is education.

ps. you don't have to kill someone to protect yourself. That person(s) may back up because you have a gun. Or you may just injure them without killing them (not easy during a panic moment probably).

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by KIS

When you allow manufacturers to produce cars that can easily triple most speed limits, why are you surprised when people actually do it?

I don't think people are too surprised by it. But maybe that's not really what you were getting at.

It does bring up an interesting point: since people often sue the manufacturers of products merely for what they allow one to do with them, how come no one has tried to sue an auto maker for allowing a car to go so fast and then, for example, the driver killing an innocent person as a result.

[Nelrock]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

I don't think people are too surprised by it. But maybe that's not really what you were getting at.

It does bring up an interesting point: since people often sue the manufacturers of products merely for what they allow one to do with them, how come no one has tried to sue an auto maker for allowing a car to go so fast and then, for example, the driver killing an innocent person as a result.

Slippery slope. A car can kill even when operated legally.
Think this would be akin to suing a weapon maker over somebody using their weapon in an illegal manner.

[persian54]

Originally Posted by erhanh

If you try to regulate things by enforcing rules you will make things worse, not better. Taking away the freedom is not the solution. The solution is education.

This.

Remember reading about what happened when the US banned Alcohol?

Yeah.. that's what I think of whenever someone wants to limit/ban something...

[Merlosso]

Driving over 60 mph isn't necessarily dangerous; it's one vehicle's speed relative to another vehicle's. A car weaving in and out of traffic at 90 when everyone is doing 60 is dangerous. A car doing 60 in the middle lane while everyone else is trying to do 90 can be equally dangerous.

Probably the biggest problem with raising speed limits in the US is that it is legal to use any available lane and to pass on either side. If we drove in the far right lane and only used the left lanes for overtaking (and illegal to pass on the right), it would be much less dangerous.

Speaking of...

http://jalopnik.com/#!5794722/state-troopers-keep-fast-lane-clean-of-slow-hondas

[crackberry]

plz, no gps governed anything. i dont want big brother to watch over me.

its all about personal responsibility. if you are stupid to drive 120mph on public roads and you die, then its your fault. gotta be harsh over here. just try not to take someone out while you're at it.

i think people should focus more on drunk drivers. develop technology that prevents them from getting behind the wheel. that is a higher priority than someone speeding.

[Erhan]

Originally Posted by Merlosso

Driving over 60 mph isn't necessarily dangerous; it's one vehicle's speed relative to another vehicle's. A car weaving in and out of traffic at 90 when everyone is doing 60 is dangerous. A car doing 60 in the middle lane while everyone else is trying to do 90 can be equally dangerous.

Probably the biggest problem with raising speed limits in the US is that it is legal to use any available lane and to pass on either side. If we drove in the far right lane and only used the left lanes for overtaking (and illegal to pass on the right), it would be much less dangerous.

Speaking of...

http://jalopnik.com/#!5794722/state-...of-slow-hondas

Is it really legal? I always thought people don't know how to drive and don't give a sh*t..

[AM150]

Originally Posted by crackberry

i think people should focus more on drunk drivers. develop technology that prevents them from getting behind the wheel. that is a higher priority than someone speeding.

Isn't this the same thing? Using technology to prevent someone from doing something illegal?

This is scary in my opinion. Scarier than accepting the risk that I may run into a drunk driver on the road.

As was mentioned before: education, instilling strong moral values, and stricter punishments for excessively dangerous actions are what is required.

[Merlosso]

Originally Posted by erhanh

Is it really legal? I always thought people don't know how to drive and don't give a sh*t..

I should not have said that the way I did. I do not know with absolute certainty that it is legal in all states. But I did work as an insurance agent for several years and had licenses in over 30 states. In all that time and of all the people around the country I quoted, I rarely ever saw tickets for obstructing the flow of traffic.

Regardless of legality, you're right; people don't now how to drive and don't give a sh*t.