All US cars MPH to be limited to 80 as max speed

[jaguarr]

Why buy the Mustang GT, Corvette, Jag or Viper if their max speeds are the same as a Taurus? They would still sell because of their looks and acceleration speeds, but not nearly as much. Not only could that hurt European economy because of car manufacturers like Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini but it could hurt trade between us and those countries and hurt our own economy because of the American muscle cars that are so prevalent right now.

And this is probably the biggest reason why a proposal like this will never become reality. Very insightful, X-Chick.

jag

 

[huskerwebhead]

I just don't think it's a big enough trade-off for the potential problems it will solve versus the amount of time, resources, and money that it would take to pull something like this off and then enforce it.

1. First and foremost, the public has to be convinced this is a good idea. People love their cars. Muscle cars and various faster cars sell good for a reason. People like to go fast, or at least know that they can. Do they NEED to...no, in most cases they don't. Case in point, not too long ago they decreased the speed limit on the interstates here to 65 from 75mph. There was such a public outcry that they changed it back to 75mph not two months later. You may not consider this a valid reason...but like it or not, if the public isn't for it...something like this won't happen.

2. The automakers would have to buy in. And not just American, but any automobile that we import. And what if they don't want to comply? Do we stop importing those vehicles? Does that cause certain trade tension or effect any domestic economies? Probably will to some extent.

Not only do they stand to lose money because they will lose their highlight vehicles (sure some will still sell on looks alone, but the number will drop considerably) but they have added cost to make all their vehicles conform to this new law. A cost that will likely be passed on to the consumer. And who is going to pay extra for a Mustang that is as speedy as a Contour? Not many.

3. What do you do about older vehicles that don't currently have this modification? Will the government pay for all the necessary parts and labor? Or will the consumer be forced to pay that? Like someone said above, who would want to pay money to have a chip/monitoring system installed in an old junker that barely makes it to 60 or 70 anyways? What about all the car dealerships with vehicles on their lot...think of the impact in cost and labor that they would have to incur to become compliant.

4. Police chases wouldn't become obsolete or 100% safer, not by a longshot. Many police chases take place in residential or higher traffic areas where speeds of 100+ simply aren't possible. That's also where most of the accidents occur. Even when they are on the interstate how many chases have you seen where the vehicle has no front tires from stop sticks, going 25 mph with 10 cop cars behind them? They don't immediately overtake and stop that vehicle, not all the time. It depends on the risk to other drivers, passengers, etc. on when they decide to stop the vehicle or P.I.T. them.

Not to mention the fact that most criminals will likely have bypassed the device that inhibits speed and possible even notifies authorities that he modified it. Or they buy a vehicle that never had the modifications. And believe me, they'll be out there. Just like with guns. You're not allowed to have any guns that are fully automatic. But damned if people can't find a way to buy them...or buy the parts to modify them to be fully automatic. People will find a way.

5. Drunk drivers, statistically, don't kill people because they are going 120mph. They kill them because they are drunk and can't control their vehicle...even at low speeds. They cross the center line, pass out, jump curbs, etc. A head on collision between two vehicles going 35-40 mph CAN kill.

Granted, it will save some lives and prevent some accidents. But I think there is too much blame being placed on speed and this "solution" is being hailed as the answer to all problems...and it simply isn't. It's not going to solve any of these problems by a longshot.

 

[jaguarr]

I just don't think it's a big enough trade-off for the potential problems it will solve versus the amount of time, resources, and money that it would take to pull something like this off and then enforce it.

1. First and foremost, the public has to be convinced this is a good idea. People love their cars. Muscle cars and various faster cars sell good for a reason. People like to go fast, or at least know that they can. Do they NEED to...no, in most cases they don't. Case in point, not too long ago they decreased the speed limit on the interstates here to 65 from 75mph. There was such a public outcry that they changed it back to 75mph not two months later. You may not consider this a valid reason...but like it or not, if the public isn't for it...something like this won't happen.

2. The automakers would have to buy in. And not just American, but any automobile that we import. And what if they don't want to comply? Do we stop importing those vehicles? Does that cause certain trade tension or effect any domestic economies? Probably will to some extent.

Not only do they stand to lose money because they will lose their highlight vehicles (sure some will still sell on looks alone, but the number will drop considerably) but they have added cost to make all their vehicles conform to this new law. A cost that will likely be passed on to the consumer. And who is going to pay extra for a Mustang that is as speedy as a Contour? Not many.

3. What do you do about older vehicles that don't currently have this modification? Will the government pay for all the necessary parts and labor? Or will the consumer be forced to pay that? Like someone said above, who would want to pay money to have a chip/monitoring system installed in an old junker that barely makes it to 60 or 70 anyways? What about all the car dealerships with vehicles on their lot...think of the impact in cost and labor that they would have to incur to become compliant.

4. Police chases wouldn't become obsolete or 100% safer, not by a longshot. Many police chases take place in residential or higher traffic areas where speeds of 100+ simply aren't possible. That's also where most of the accidents occur. Even when they are on the interstate how many chases have you seen where the vehicle has no front tires from stop sticks, going 25 mph with 10 cop cars behind them? They don't immediately overtake and stop that vehicle, not all the time. It depends on the risk to other drivers, passengers, etc. on when they decide to stop the vehicle or P.I.T. them.

Not to mention the fact that most criminals will likely have bypassed the device that inhibits speed and possible even notifies authorities that he modified it. Or they buy a vehicle that never had the modifications. And believe me, they'll be out there. Just like with guns. You're not allowed to have any guns that are fully automatic. But damned if people can't find a way to buy them...or buy the parts to modify them to be fully automatic. People will find a way.

5. Drunk drivers, statistically, don't kill people because they are going 120mph. They kill them because they are drunk and can't control their vehicle...even at low speeds. They cross the center line, pass out, jump curbs, etc. A head on collision between two vehicles going 35-40 mph CAN kill.

Granted, it will save some lives and prevent some accidents. But I think there is too much blame being placed on speed and this "solution" is being hailed as the answer to all problems...and it simply isn't. It's not going to solve any of these problems by a longshot.

*slow clap*

jag

 

[huskerwebhead]

hm... yeah... economy > safety and/or life... that makes sense.

I an ideal world that wouldn't make sense, but we're far from ideal. Many people and most companies actually put alot of selfish things over safety. Oh sure, everybody agrees that life is precious and we should do everything to be safer. But the second you try and take away something people consider a freedom...you get alot of pushback.

People like things that are bad for them and get pretty upset when people try to take those away...even when they are bad for them. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, smoking bans, cell phones while driving laws, transfat laws that are trying to be passed. Alot of people are against this stuff, even though it's for their own safety.

 

[November Rain]

Errr....it's not the only grounds for my stance, since you have not been paying attention. The grounds for my stance is that people not paying attention to what they are doing and multi-tasking while they are driving is the main reason there are so many wrecks, injuries and deaths involving automobiles. Cars don't kill people. People kill people. Regulating the speed on cars to 80 MPH isn't going to change that. At all.

jag

you mentioned the point twice in separate locations, it may not be the main grounds but you are using it to help make a point about how speed is irrelevant to fatality rates and its solely down to concentration.

which isn't the case.

especially since concentration and reactions have no real bearing on breaking distance, again clearly illustrated in this piece of commercial below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOEHMWCg-M

concentration enough isn't alone. If that was the case, why bother having any kind of speed limit at all


to be fair jag, you weren't the only person who said it, however you did use it on more than one occasion and i just wanted to show you the statistics

 

[jaguarr]

you mentioned the point twice in separate locations, it may not be the main grounds but you are using it to help make a point about how speed is irrelevant to fatality rates and its solely down to concentration.

which isn't the case.

especially since concentration and reactions have no real bearing on breaking distance, again clearly illustrated in this piece of commercial below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOEHMWCg-M

concentration enough isn't alone. If that was the case, why bother having any kind of speed limit at all

Tell you what. Let me run over you in my truck at 30 mph. If you are still alive at that point, then I will tell you I was wrong.

jag

 

[kytrigger]

that's just terrible reasoning, sorry. "everyone is going to die whether they crash at 60 or 160, so let's just let them go 160."

false.

the point is not that "a lot" of damage is going to be done at both 60 and 120 mph, it's that much, much less will be done at 60, and that a car is infinitely more controlable at 60, with shorter braking distance, etc, etc...

and sure, people could find a way around that speed block chip (or whatever device would be implimented), that's why every car needs an onboard computer that will alert the police if it's tampered with, so that car can be immediately located, stopped and the driver have his license taken from him indefinately.

there is no upside to making cars that can go more than 75-80 miles an hour. it's nobody's "right" to go that fast, and there's no reason for street legal cars to be able to go that fast. on the other end, there is no downside to making cars that can't exceed 80 mph, because there is no good reason anyone should need to go that fast.

I never said between 60 and 160, I said between 80, and 120, which is a huge difference. There is absolutely nothing that can happen at 120 mph that can't happen at 80, not ot mention the fact that probably 99% of accidents don't actually happen over 80mph. And why limit it to 80? That is still speeding? If you actually wanted to limit the speed to a point where it could potentially make a difference in reaction time, then limit it to 60.

If you and others are really that concerneed over speeders, then why not just try and have the police actually enforce the speed limit? All of them are below this 80 mph stance that was taken, and if they actually did this, then the governor chip would be pointless. It is akin to England saying "guns are illegal, but now bullets are too."

 

[The Spawn]

Why don't we just do what they did in Minority Report?

 

[November Rain]

Alright, let's look at it this way

Is anyone against a speed limit being implemented in residential and populated areas of let's say 35 MPH?

Would anyone be against the idea of a speed regulating chip that made sure vehicles didn't go above this limit in populated areas but could then go as fast as they wanted on freeways and motorways and open roads?

because this is really the viewpoint i am coming from, vehicle speed regulators in populated areas. Not really from the perspective of the thread starter.

 

[The Spawn]

Speed regulators = cops.

 

[terry78]

Our cars are basically mechanical extensions of our penis. We trick them out, make sure to get the most accessorices possible(cars are the only item guys can accessorize without it coming off girly).

 

[The Spawn]

You didn't see Bow Wow's car in Tokyo Drift, did you?

 

[November Rain]

is tokyo drift worth watching?

 

[The Spawn]

No, but I'm just saying...I know everyone is entitled to their own opinions as to what's hot, and what's not...but you can all agree that there are some universal and synonymous things in this world that can be defined as "cool" by everyone.

I don't know if it's just the North East, but some folks up here **** their cars up with gigantic wings and ugly muffler tips.

Tokyo Drift: 7/10

I'm a sucker for Japanese culture...authentic or not.

 

[huskerwebhead]

Alright, let's look at it this way

Is anyone against a speed limit being implemented in residential and populated areas of let's say 35 MPH?

Would anyone be against the idea of a speed regulating chip that made sure vehicles didn't go above this limit in populated areas but could then go as fast as they wanted on freeways and motorways and open roads?

because this is really the viewpoint i am coming from, vehicle speed regulators in populated areas. Not really from the perspective of the thread starter.

*sigh* I guess...but, I mean, what's the point. This is even less likely. So we have wireless inhibitor chips, monitoring system, and now wireless inhibiting systems that need to be installed everywhere and somehow only effect cars on specific streets. It's be alot cheaper just to put in a crap ton of speed bumps....and probably more effective.

 

[The Spawn]

Modifying roads would be easier...like in Minority Report.

Everything is on a track.

 

[November Rain]

*sigh* I guess...but, I mean, what's the point. This is even less likely. So we have wireless inhibitor chips, monitoring system, and now wireless inhibiting systems that need to be installed everywhere and somehow only effect cars on specific streets. It's be alot cheaper just to put in a crap ton of speed bumps....and probably more effective.

not particularly cars on different streets but entirely urban built up areas, city wide so it's only read everytime you aren't on an interstate free way (for example), which is similar to how concorde speeds were regulated over populated areas and it was really free to let loose across the alantic.

If you are environmentally friendly, you find that the breaking and revving that occurs to get over a speed bump actually increases the emissions of Carbon dioxide so it's bad for the environment (you can't please everyone).


with a chip in every car and perhaps some sort of bluetooth transmitter that alternates the control system (making your car go faster or slower accordingly), it could be potentially accomplished.

to address your first question, the point would be to limit the potential speed any motorcyclist or pedestrian is likely to be hit at and thus greatly increase their chances of survival. It's not going to curve the number of accidents occuring or reduce crime rates or anything of this sort but will help make sure urban speed limits are kept by individuals which should have an effect on the number of people seriously hurt or killed in an accident.Hopefully.

 

[redmarvel]

1. At lower speeds you have more time to react to the situations around you.

2. At lower speeds other people have more time to react to how you are driving.

3. At lower speeds you are less likely to flip your car if you swerve suddenly.

as far as whether or not the government can actually force this plan into action...

Here in Canada the Hydro company will be installing "smart metres" to judge when you are using electricity. If you use electricity at night you will be charged less than for daytime usage. The consumer has to pay for the installation of the "smart metre". Currently it is voluntary, but they have warned that eventually it will be manditory. How many people do you know, who want to be up at midnight doing their laundry?

 

[November Rain]

electrical rates are like that normally in the uk, i regularly leave a load of washing on before i go to bed and then put them on a drying rack in the morning.

 

[The Spawn]

I'm a nocturnal person.

But when, and if the metre becomes mandatory,do you have to pay for it?

 

[Calvin]

Abortion? MURDER!!! MURDER!!!

Speeding? Guns? Corporal punishment? War? Death penalty? HELL YES!!!

 

[huskerwebhead]

not particularly cars on different streets but entirely urban built up areas, city wide so it's only read everytime you aren't on an interstate free way (for example), which is similar to how concorde speeds were regulated over populated areas and it was really free to let loose across the alantic.

This wouldn't work. Interstates, and to a lesser extent freeways/highways, often pass right through populated areas. I know neighborhoods that have interstates not 30-50 yards from the edge of the property lines.

If you are environmentally friendly, you find that the breaking and revving that occurs to get over a speed bump actually increases the emissions of Carbon dioxide so it's bad for the environment (you can't please everyone).

It's all about what people would be more willing to put up with or spend their money on. It's far cheaper and easier to install speedbumps then equip the entire motor vehicle industry and populated areas with a speed inhibitors. I'm willing to bet more people would want their money spent elsewhere.

with a chip in every car and perhaps some sort of bluetooth transmitter that alternates the control system (making your car go faster or slower accordingly), it could be potentially accomplished.

I have no doubt it couldn't be accomplished, so could the tranportation systems like they had in Minority Report like someone else suggested. That's not the point. The point is "is it economically viable." Will it actually solve any of the problems to a point that it's worth the massive amount of research, development, resources, labor, construction, education, money, and enforcement costs that it would take to accomplish this.

to address your first question, the point would be to limit the potential speed any motorcyclist or pedestrian is likely to be hit at and thus greatly increase their chances of survival. It's not going to curve the number of accidents occuring or reduce crime rates or anything of this sort but will help make sure urban speed limits are kept by individuals which should have an effect on the number of people seriously hurt or killed in an accident.Hopefully.

I understood the point of limiting it to populated areas. I was just saying that the initial idea of inhibitor chips is far enough out of the realm of possibility that adding something like this was even more unlikely. Why make it even more complicated?

 

[Mr. Smash'n Bash]

yeah, and going 65 as opposed to 80 gives you that much better of a reaction time, and will make it that much easier to slow your car and avoid an accident altogether.

How fast you are going does NOT affect your reaction speed. If your going 70mph and it takes you a second to respond to someone braking, when you're going 30mph its still going to take a second to respond to the same situation. The funny thing is they teach you to speed up and turn sharply to avoid things in the road, not to slow down.

 

[Calvin]

How fast you are going does NOT affect your reaction speed. If your going 70mph and it takes you a second to respond to someone braking, when you're going 30mph its still going to take a second to respond to the same situation.

That's a ridiculous bit of sidestepping there. The faster you're going, the less time there is before you get to the object you're trying to not hit. It's simple physics. You're telling me that if you're going 80 miles per hour, and you suddenly notice a kid 20 feet in front of you, it's just as likely to avoid it as when you're going 30 miles per hour and you suddenly see a kid the same distance ahead of you?

 

[Mr. Smash'n Bash]

That's a ridiculous bit of sidestepping there. The faster you're going, the less time there is before you get to the object you're trying to not hit. It's simple physics. You're telling me that if you're going 80 miles per hour, and you suddenly notice a kid 20 feet in front of you, it's just as likely to avoid it as when you're going 30 miles per hour and you suddenly see a kid the same distance ahead of you?

I'm not talking about the time it takes for you to get from one spot to another going such and such speed, I'm talking about the time it takes for the driver of the car to react. Like it or not, most accidents happen because the driver isn't paying attention to what he/she is doing and reacts to a situation far too late to change the outcome. If your a good driver, like you should be if your out driving on a highway populated with children like this scenario, then you should be able to move the car from one lane to another fast enough to avoid the kid.