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

[Calvin]

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it though.

 

[huskerwebhead]

That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it though.

In a shiny happy world we should and would do alot of things like this. But that's not reality. I just don't see the automotive industries and the general public signing off on this ever. People are selfish and love alot of the things that aren't good for them...and big business loves their money. Anything that jeopardizes either or both rarely comes to pass.

The amount of time, money, resources, etc. that it would likely take to set this all up seems to far outweigh the potential few deaths it would prevent. At least I'm sure that's what the Auto Industry/Government/General Populace would think. Does that suck...is it sad that we place more value on money, economy, and our choice to speed if we want to over lives? Yes. But it's the reality of the world we live in.

 

[Motown Marvel]

werent their similar outcries against the ideas of seatbelts when first introduced?

 

[huskerwebhead]

werent their similar outcries against the ideas of seatbelts when first introduced?

I wasn't able to find a thread on that in the archive.

 

[Calvin]

In a shiny happy world we should and would do alot of things like this. But that's not reality. I just don't see the automotive industries and the general public signing off on this ever. People are selfish and love alot of the things that aren't good for them...and big business loves their money. Anything that jeopardizes either or both rarely comes to pass.

The amount of time, money, resources, etc. that it would likely take to set this all up seems to far outweigh the potential few deaths it would prevent. At least I'm sure that's what the Auto Industry/Government/General Populace would think. Does that suck...is it sad that we place more value on money, economy, and our choice to speed if we want to over lives? Yes. But it's the reality of the world we live in.

1) If you think it would only save a "few" deaths, you're an idiot.

2) Just because it isn't likely to happen due to unethical ideals, doesn't mean it isn't worth arguing for. This thread is essentially an ethical/hypothetical debate. Taking the stance of "this is useless to argue for because big business loves money" is a really lame defeatist stance. I'd probably respect you more if your stance were flat out anti-humanity, and that you simply want the pure freedom of going super fast for the hell of it, and that you were fine with people dying. At least it would be less of a *****fied stance.

 

[huskerwebhead]

1) If you think it would only save a "few" deaths, you're an idiot.

2) Just because it isn't likely to happen due to unethical ideals, doesn't mean it isn't worth arguing for. This thread is essentially an ethical/hypothetical debate. Taking the stance of "this is useless to argue for because big business loves money" is a really lame defeatist stance. I'd probably respect you more if your stance were flat out anti-humanity, and that you simply want the pure freedom of going super fast for the hell of it, and that you were fine with people dying. At least it would be less of a *****fied stance.

1) Sorry, I didn't have exact numbers. "It would save thousands and thousands of deaths!!!" There, feel better?

2) If you think I come here in the hopes of gaining your respect, or even care that I don't have it...you're an idiot.

 

[Calvin]

When did I say I thought you were hoping to gain my respect? Saying that a fairly reprehensible stance would be more respectable to me than your *****etastic stance doesn't mean I'm expecting you to agree with me or try to get my respect. It's really just a longer way of saying you're kind of a prick.

 

[huskerwebhead]

*sigh* it's really not even worth it at this point. The conversation has degraded to name calling already.

 

[Pirate_Robinson]

I read a report stating that the Autobahn has a ratio of 5% less deaths per hundred thousand miles than American roads. So much for your theory.

The attempt at logic in this post is really pathetic.

Mmkay, let me try to explain it better. If a man was to drive on the autobahn at what ever speed the driver chooses and another man was to drive the at the speed limits in America, over the course of 100,000 miles the American would be 5% more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than the German. Does that make more sense?

 

[The Spawn]

We should simulate a world with speed inhibitors...

We had few problems when Ford first started.

 

[X-Chick]

You're still missing the big picture here. I know of more accidents that happen because of drunk driving, wet roads, failure to yield, and just plain not paying attention. In fact, I'd say those make up about 90% of all accidents. The only accidents I have heard of that involved speeding, the person wasn't going over 80 anyway and usually they were drunk and/or ran into a tree or off the road.

 

[GunBlade]

Damn Calvin..

 

[GunBlade]

Who are you?

 

[Calvin]

Mmkay, let me try to explain it better. If a man was to drive on the autobahn at what ever speed the driver chooses and another man was to drive the at the speed limits in America, over the course of 100,000 miles the American would be 5% more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than the German. Does that make more sense?

No, it's not a correct assumption about what causes american roads to be more fatal than a particular german road with no speed limits. It's not simply the lack of speed limits that make the audoban have fewer crashes than american roads. American roads are much much more congested than that particular stretch of road. You've got a more varied driver demographics, and roads more windy than a freaking super highway stretch. The notion of "Audobon has no speed limits, america has speed limits, audobon has few crashes, therefore speed limits don't help with safety all" is idiotic.

Damn Calvin..

What?

 

[GunBlade]

Real Ultimate Power.

 

[Noir]

If such a ban was to happen...

Then it'll never work:

 

[GunBlade]

To hell with ninjas^


"Audobon has no speed limits, america has speed limits, audobon has few crashes, therefore speed limits don't help with safety all"

Ha ha you put something in quotes that I didn't say. Whatever Calvin, sounds like a lot of assumptions on your part. Besides my point wasn't that speeding is safe, it's that we should concentrate on other areas. Such as public transportation to ease the congestion. Speed is not a mega killer, accidents are, it dosen't really if your going 80 miles an hour or 90. It will kill people just the same and how often do people really drive that fast? Most cars shut down at 100 already and those that don't can't go much higher because of a lack of power and or aerodynamics.

The only way this could be really effective is if sections of road had sensors that adjust the maximum speed of the car based on the conditions. This has been suggested many times, but turned due to the fact that a very large percent of police funding comes from traffic tickets.

www.realultimatepower.net/

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

We don't need slower cars, we need more responsible drivers.

This makes perfect sence,but for the time being.We have to deal with what can be done.

 

[GunBlade]

What?

Damn, spitting fire..

Welcome back.

 

[Calvin]

To hell with ninjas^


"Audobon has no speed limits, america has speed limits, audobon has few crashes, therefore speed limits don't help with safety all"

Ha ha you put something in quotes that I didn't say. Whatever Calvin, sounds like a lot of assumptions on your part. Besides my point wasn't that speeding is safe, it's that we should concentrate on other areas. Such as public transportation to ease the congestion. Speed is not a mega killer, accidents are, it doesn't really if your going 80 miles an hour or 90. It will kill people just the same and how often do people really drive that fast? Most cars shut down at 100 already and those that don't can't go much higher because of a lack of power and or aerodynamics.

The only way this could be really effective is if sections of road had sensors that adjust the maximum speed of the car based on the conditions. This has been suggested many times, but turned due to the fact that a very large percent of police funding comes from traffic tickets.

It does matter if you're going 80 or 90 or whatever is over the speed limit. The point of america's roads having speed limits as opposed to that specific road is that the american roads have a lot of hazardous factors that make it much much much more dangerous if you're dealing with those factors at a high speed. On the german road, it doesn't have the same factors, so you can safely go fast. Doesn't mean we don't need speed limitation on our roads.

And of course there are other factors causing crashes. So what? We need to be doing something about all of them, including speeding. Like someone pointed out earlier, the faster you're going, the higher and higher the chance for fatality, no matter what the actual cause of the crash was.

 

[Calvin]

Damn, spitting fire..

Welcome back.

It's hard not to. I lost my parents to some speeding jackass in a car.





Not really though.

 

[Kritish]

The autobahn is one of the safest roads on this planet, and I don't think that lowering the speed limit to 80 mph (130 kilometers per hour) will lower the death rate.

 

[Calvin]

Nobody here was saying we should.

 

[November Rain]

If such a ban was to happen...

Then it'll never work:

it would work, you'd just have to put it on a train track and push it over a cliff, trust me....

 

[November Rain]

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.

alright, not state boundaries then, howabout freeway and high way boundaries at junctions where you join or jump off one. (similar perhaps to maybe a toll gate initially and some radio wave one afterwards

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.

As an engineer, i can tell you that a speed limiting control chip would be fairly easy to construct, the majority of companies probably already have one of some sort in their higher range cars that controls the amount and rate of power that is provided during accelleration in various gear changes and these can be tweaked to the user's desires. The cost would be somewhat minor, it would be the implementation of these devices that would be an issue.

In the UK ever car is required to undergo a service once a year, so it would be fairly easy over the space of a year to expect all cars to have this chip installed and have a system introduced within about 2 to regulate it.

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.

Well realistically the same could be said about the billions and billions of pounds being spent in this whole global warming debate.

the r and d already exists, all that is really required is cheap mass production and installation as well as advertising and making the population aware of what is going on.

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?

I don't think it is too far a stretch to have cars that operate at different specifications at different locations. At least this way, it allows people to drive as fast as the law would allow on freeways while limiting the speed in residential areas.

i thought i'd attempt to make some middle ground