by "CB" (jrcb)
Published 05/09/2017 at 21:27
by "CB" (jrcb)
Published 05/09/2017 at 21:27
Tags: Going down with the ship
STARS: 5
I think that street cars should be limited to an absolute maximum of 160 kilometres an hour (99-100 miles per hour) in North America. There’s realistically no need to go any faster than that on a public road. Maybe there would be a way to “unlock” the car for track use.
"Panther Brown Tdi Volvo Shooting Brake Manual Miata RWD Wagon Stole HondaBro's Accord." (ningaboss)
05/09/2017 at 21:30, STARS: 0
I’m actually cool with this. Pretty sure the Nissan gtr does this in Japan, the limiter is removed when you reach a race track.
"Phyrxes once again has a wagon!" (phyrxes)
05/09/2017 at 21:33, STARS: 2
If unlocking for track mode also disables appropriate “safety” stuff I’m okay with this as well.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
05/09/2017 at 21:33, STARS: 3
Damn Canadians. Keep your low speeds to yourself.
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
05/09/2017 at 21:33, STARS: 0
The worst ticket I ever got was for going 120 on a highway clocked at 105 and pleaded with many hundreds of dollars down to 85. I would have been okay with a limiter in that case.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:34, STARS: 0
Some days, we just need a bit of government paternalism.
"LOREM IPSUM" (lorem---ipsum)
05/09/2017 at 21:35, STARS: 0
...and all new cars should be able to detect alcohol impairment and prevent driving off.
"dogisbadob" (dogisbadob)
05/09/2017 at 21:35, STARS: 0
Doesn’t Japan already do this? I think their limit is 112 mph
The new GTR uses a GPS-check. But tracks open and close all the time, and sometimes there are road course type events that it wouldn’t see as a track
Lastly, don’t forget that the most popular cars now can hardly reach that speed anyway (cheap sub-100 hp cars like the Mirage and Spark, as well has crossovers/SUV’s and trucks)
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:35, STARS: 0
This is one reason why I’m excited for self-driving cars. No more drunk drivers.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:36, STARS: 2
Do they? That definitely sounds like a more than reasonable limit.
"LongbowMkII" (longbowmkii)
05/09/2017 at 21:37, STARS: 1
If you need triple digits to have fun you’ve bought the wrong car.
"That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms" (thatbastardkurtis5)
05/09/2017 at 21:41, STARS: 1
This is where a more conservative version of me would post a picture of the US Constitution and say something about freedom. For the record I agree with that version of me, I just don’t have the picture handy where that guy has it as his phone wallpaper.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
05/09/2017 at 21:42, STARS: 2
Keep your communism up there, I live where I live for a reason.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:43, STARS: 0
You do you, comrade.
Also, it’s socialism.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
05/09/2017 at 21:44, STARS: 0
I don’t need to go that fast to have fun and nearly never go that fast. But I don’t need no big gubment controlling my speed.
"Wobbles the Mind" (wobblesthemind)
05/09/2017 at 21:44, STARS: 0
I was just thinking about this today! I decided that they should use GPS and Sign Reading to limit the car. I also thought it would be cool if cars recognized emergency vehicle sirens and lights.
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 21:47, STARS: 0
But what will the spoiled devilspawn of money laundering “investors” who buy residency while they play the slot machine of 604 and 416 real estate do when their supercars are governed? Disconnect the nannies and still avoid real punishment?
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:47, STARS: 0
My thing with GPS is tunnels and inaccurate readings. Sign reading kind of makes sense, as long as the signs are always unobstructed and clear.
"Milky" (jordanmielke)
05/09/2017 at 21:48, STARS: 0
Tomato tomahto, color colour, communism socialism. Its all the same.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:50, STARS: 0
It’s simple: when caught, they’re put on an isolated road system where they have a minimum speed limit set, that if they go below it, the car explodes. Pretty much like Speed.
More seriously, tickets and/or jail time for deactivating the systems on public roads and speeding.
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 21:53, STARS: 0
Progressive fines? To the point of being draconian?
Who does the enforcement, and who holds it to accountability? It’ll need to be a bit better than the current joke of traffic enforcement.
"Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo" (thetomselleck)
05/09/2017 at 21:53, STARS: 1
My vehicles are already governed to not exceed 76.
"AestheticsInMotion" (aestheticsinmotion)
05/09/2017 at 21:54, STARS: 1
I can’t speak for trucks, as I only drive an old ranger with much frequency, and I’m not about to test it at 100mph. That said you’re mistaken about popular vehicles being able to hit high speeds. Most crossovers and SUV’S can easily hit 100mph and beyond with little effort. Yes, that includes the popular ones. Hell, my Miata hits 114mph, it just takes at least that long in seconds to get there.
110 mph in a 09 Subaru Outback comes fairly quickly and is handled just fine, that is to say it’s not a terrifying white-knuckled experience. A Mazda cx-7 takes a bit longer but again, cruising at 100 mph is a low stress endeavor assuming the roads are decent and there’s either little traffic or they’re going the same speed. The low-end luxury SUV/Crossover realm, from Acura, to Lexus, to entry-level offerings from Mercedes and BMW can all go faster than 100 mph without breaking a sweat. These are all very common vehicles, much more so than any sub 100 hp car like the two you listed.
(edit: this is based on American roadways. I realized you may not be talking about that specifically and if so, my mistake! For better or worse, we have VERY few options with less than 100hp)
"coqui70" (coqui70)
05/09/2017 at 21:55, STARS: 0
But what if you’re been chased by Krasnaclapopian terrorists ... or Alt-Right Nazis while on a mission from God?
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:57, STARS: 0
Hah, yeah, the current fines in Ontario are little bit crazy. My dad was saying “why do they say how many points I’ll gain at 120? I’ll get run off the road if I drive that slow.”
Since we have connected cars now, I imagine some sort of pinging system from the car to a central system to ensure that limiters are set in place, and “bricking” the vehicle if it’s tampered with.
To enforce it, can’t say. Short of every road being watched at all times, realistically not everyone can or will be caught. As always, it remains a luck of the draw.
"wiffleballtony" (wiffleballtony)
05/09/2017 at 21:57, STARS: 0
If only there was a way...
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:58, STARS: 0
I imagine cop cars wouldn’t have the limiter, so ex-cop cars may be safe when escaping from Illinois Nazis.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 21:58, STARS: 1
But is the free overnight shipping from Japan?
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/09/2017 at 21:59, STARS: 1
And as long as the NIMBY/nagging old lady types don’t get them set ridiculously low like they are where I live. Freeways are 60 here. I used to live somewhere the highest posted speed was 50 for 20 miles from my place (and they were pulling for 40 after they succeeded at getting a bunch of local roads reduced from 35 to 30 or 25). They’d also need to fix Los Angeles, because all their posted speeds seem to be suggestions (they should be at least 85).
"wiffleballtony" (wiffleballtony)
05/09/2017 at 22:00, STARS: 1
"CRider" (crider)
05/09/2017 at 22:00, STARS: 0
Maybe in Canada, where cops chase bad guys on these
But in ‘Murica, we have these. No need for a governor.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/09/2017 at 22:01, STARS: 1
Since when are Mirages and Sparks the most popular cars?
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/09/2017 at 22:03, STARS: 1
Hey, they have speed limit signs with three digits there. Respect.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 22:03, STARS: 0
I’m more terrified of the horse than the cop car. If that horse was trained like how K-9 units are, you’re screwed.
Tactical horses also need to be a thing.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/09/2017 at 22:04, STARS: 0
By you, or do you do this to yourself?
Although I don’t know that I’d want to go even that fast in a 1980s Toyota (no offense intended).
"coqui70" (coqui70)
05/09/2017 at 22:08, STARS: 0
Yes but there’s no longer a 440 6-barrel carb option.
"415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°)" (415s30)
05/09/2017 at 22:09, STARS: 1
Fine with me, no reason anyone needs to go that fast. I go 80 in a 75 in the middle of nowhere but that’s in.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
05/09/2017 at 22:18, STARS: 0
Our newer turbo diesel trucks have a speed limiter at 95 mph. I think it’s because the tires are not speed rated. 400+ hp will reach 95 really fast.
"wafflesnfalafel" (wafflesnfalafel1)
05/09/2017 at 22:24, STARS: 2
Rationally you are correct, spiritually your argument falls flat.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 22:27, STARS: 1
Oh, I know. This is why a lot of the disagreement stems from “but my freedoms”.
"Vicente Esteve" (vicente-esteve)
05/09/2017 at 22:31, STARS: 0
I would agree, so that tunes that also take the limiter off would be even more satisfying.
"Nibbles" (nibbles)
05/09/2017 at 22:36, STARS: 1
My truck is limited to 99mph
"OPPOsaurus WRX" (opposaurus)
05/09/2017 at 22:46, STARS: 1
100 MPH is still enough to get the job done. A good friend of my cousin just hit a telephone pole doing 100. Hanging out with my cousin a lot, I had also hung out with this guy a number of times, his parents and my aunt and uncle were good friends. He was 22, and on a motorcycle. 100 miles an hour is enough.
While I agree with you to a point, a wise man once said, “Nature will find a way.”
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
05/09/2017 at 22:46, STARS: 0
Yeah, because the Venn diagram of drunk drivers and new car buyers is pretty tight.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 22:47, STARS: 0
It’s not going to be an immediate solution, but an eventual one.
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
05/09/2017 at 22:55, STARS: 0
How do we get there? At what point do the systems stabilize long enough that the price for the myriad of cpus and sensors become either reliable enough at average age (maybe 15 years by then) or cheap enough (in a $4k car) to be maintained, which of course means replaced.
Self driving cars will be for at best middle class for the foreseeable future.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:01, STARS: 0
Well, consider how far mobile phones and computers have come in the last twenty years. I’d probably say that it’ll be another thirty years before self-driving cars become the mainstream. Maybe even longer since we’ll have to sort out our roads, V2V, and V2I.
But you’re right, they’ll be middle class and up for a while.
"AfromanGTO" (afromangto)
05/09/2017 at 23:06, STARS: 0
I doubt drunks could afford self driving cars....
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:07, STARS: 0
You act like all drunk drivers are from a certain socio-economic class. As well, the tech will trickle down eventually.
"AfromanGTO" (afromangto)
05/09/2017 at 23:11, STARS: 1
Oh you crazy Canadians.... Don’t drive down to Miami or through Atlanta with that rationality. In Atlanta you’ll have a soccer mom yelling at her kids, on her cell, and drinking a starbucks weaving in and out of traffic at over 100. In Miami it is similiar to a scene from Fury Road, and you better speed. Because if you make that granny late to bingo, it will not end well for you. lol
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 23:13, STARS: 1
I think the intentions of this idea are good, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with ;)
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
05/09/2017 at 23:13, STARS: 1
Mobile phones and computers are exactly what I’m considering. Reliability beyond 2 years for phones, and 4 years for laptops has been completely abandonded, as it provides near 0 ROI to both suppliers and producers. I say this as someone with 16 years in mobile component design.
No one will car about the average user.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:14, STARS: 1
There are several reasons why I don’t enjoy going to America. The whole “I will kill us all before I’m late to Bethany’s soccer practice” mentality is one of them.
Besides, Toronto sucks enough already. I can’t imagine driving in a place with worse drivers.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:16, STARS: 1
Absolutely, but I also consider it a bit facetious most times that claim is made. There’s probably a reasonable middle ground somewhere (that leaves everyone unhappy).
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 23:18, STARS: 1
I think we’re living that middle ground now. Arbitrary limits, arbitrary enforcement, no accountability by the authorities, but no real restrictions.
If an Orwellian society like Britain doesn’t restrict like that, or a fun-hating place like Switzerland doesn’t, I doubt it will fly in NA.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:18, STARS: 0
True. And unfortunately, profit and a buck come before a good product (this is why I’m generally unhappy with my Galaxy S7 after less than a year of owning it after the battery went to hell for a month, and my laptop after the battery life dropped from five hours to two in three years).
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:20, STARS: 1
A fair assessment. So the alternative, in my eyes, would be to upgrade infrastructure, driver training, and vehicle maintenance like the Germans do. So at least people are vaguely competent and in a safe enough setting when doing higher speeds. However, that would also not fly in North America.
However, as others stated, it seems the Japanese have a limiting system. So it can be done, it’s just convincing people to get onboard.
"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg)
05/09/2017 at 23:21, STARS: 1
You’d be holding up traffic at that speed in a lot of places. Texas and Florida, for example.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:22, STARS: 0
I mean, if every vehicle was stuck at that speed, you wouldn’t be holding up traffic, now would you?
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 23:25, STARS: 2
I think Japanese culture in general is more deferential than in NA, especially compared to Murka. Wouldn’t be so easy in many or most states. Tell someone from TX that their car is limited to 100 mph - good luck! Hope you have body armor! :) Outside of Berkeley, it might be a tough sell, and the auto industry would fight it tooth and nail.
"RiceRocketeer Extraordinaire" (ricerocketeer2)
05/09/2017 at 23:26, STARS: 0
I don’t disagree
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:28, STARS: 0
Jeez, that’s awful.
"sm70- why not Duesenberg?" (sm70-whynotduesenberg)
05/09/2017 at 23:29, STARS: 0
No, but you’d also take awhile getting anywhere.
From a practical standpoint you are probably correct. Having done greater than those speeds on public roads on a few occasions, I can say that a) there is no need to do it whatsoever, b) it is scary and could get you dead or in jail, and as such is dumb, and c) it’s nice to know your car can do it should you ever need it to for some unknown and unlikely reason.
"MarquetteLa" (marquettela)
05/09/2017 at 23:30, STARS: 2
Why? What percentage of traffic deaths/injuries/accidents are at 100+ mph? If you wanted to make an actual difference you’d be advocating for better driver education & infrastructure.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:31, STARS: 1
The cultural differences, I think, are where the main issues lie. The whole anti-government, pro-freedom thing in America (as well as lobbyists with automakers due to horsepower and top speed dickwaving) would mean that this never gets implemented. Which, to me, is kind of absurd. Sure, condemn someone for speeding and hitting 140 on a public road, but to prevent them from being able to do it? You’ll have to fight a lot of people.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:34, STARS: 0
The better education and infrastructure I’m all for.
I wish I had numbers to back it up rather than an arbitrary gut feeling. I dunno, it’s more of a “why are cars even able to go that fast if most people will never legally go that speed?” question.
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 23:38, STARS: 2
I think the issue is really inconsistent enforcement and punishment. If that changed, this might be less of an issue. If people know there’s a legitimately good chance they will feel legal and financial pain if they act stupid - no matter how high their socio-economic status (and it matters just as much in Canada as anywhere), they might not be so tempted.
Doesn’t really make me lose sleep though - distracted and impaired driving are 100 billion times more relevant to me than super-speeders. I suspect the incidents that actually involve speeds of 100+ mph are a fraction of casualties and related issues.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:44, STARS: 1
True. That’s the issue of only having a few cops per thousand people (and a whole bunch of roads all over the place). Beccaria’s initial thoughts on deterring crime was the punishments had to be certain in the administration, swift in being delivered, and proportional to the offense, which is clearly not the case.
Yeah, I personally think driver’s ed should be mandatory (maybe make it a class in high school) and we need to find a better way to deal with impaired driving. As mentioned elsewhere, I’m excited for self-driving cars, but those will bring their own host of issues.
"CRider" (crider)
05/09/2017 at 23:47, STARS: 0
I’d like to meet one of your 100 MPH pursuit horses.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/09/2017 at 23:50, STARS: 0
Eh, you can’t outrun radio.
Besides, when they find out where you’re hiding, send in the Musical Ride!
"fintail" (fintail)
05/09/2017 at 23:57, STARS: 2
I’d go after the laws and enforcement before going after the cars - but that’s just me. If it’s that hard to enforce speed, it will be even harder to enforce modified cars.
Self-driving cars present a Pandora’s box of issues, especially around liability issues and taxation (if said cars don’t break laws, the funds from cherry-picking enforcement will need to be found elsewhere). Hold on to your wallet.
"CRider" (crider)
05/10/2017 at 00:04, STARS: 0
That is so Canadian I can’t believe it was accidental.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/10/2017 at 00:06, STARS: 0
Most endeavours there are likely to fail. Short of having photoradar on every highway to catch every speeder, or monitoring systems that somehow know when people break laws such as tailgating, failing to yield, signalling, revisions of law enforcement will still result in a lot of people falling through the cracks. Realistically, we need to go after the people so that they don’t want to break the law: either by finding a way to have everyone agree on a steady highway speed, reminding people that their actions can have incredibly awful consequences, et cetera. But how likely is that going to be when people currently feel limits are too low or only exist for making money for police forces?
With self-driving cars, we might need a bit less law enforcement. Less speeders, less accidents, that kind of deal, so maybe the hit to our wallets won’t be as bad as feared.
"CB" (jrcb)
05/10/2017 at 00:10, STARS: 0
It’s also a Beaverton article, so it may not be true. Either way, it seems likely.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/10/2017 at 00:55, STARS: 0
You have clearly never crossed the Bonneville Salt Flats on I-80. Any car in proper working order should be able to do whatever speed they’re comfortable with out there. 150mph would seem perfectly reasonable in anything capable of attaining it.
"Shoop" (shoopdawoop993)
05/10/2017 at 00:55, STARS: 0
Wow it’s like you’ve never passed someone who was going 80 mph.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/10/2017 at 01:47, STARS: 0
Citing speed in accident reports is probably the single biggest scam currently perpetrated on the largest number of people. Of course an accident wouldn’t happen if all cars were stationary. Short of that, accidents will happen and motion of the vehicle will be a contributing factor.
Stop obsessing about speed limits. They’re an arbitrary thing often set by people that are actively clueless about why or how they should be set. The safest roads have people driving close to the same speed and the limit set right around the fastest the middle 85% of people drive on it. The people in the 7.5% above it account for only 3% of accidents, so enforcement should actually focus on the 7.5% below the low end of that range that cause a disproportionate number of accidents along with those that do just plain stupid shit that has nothing to do with speed.
The problem is the misguided obsession with something that most people could figure out on their own. The engineered speed is usually close to what the limit would end up being after uncontrolled speed testing.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/10/2017 at 01:58, STARS: 0
You don’t think big picture. When self driving cars are perfected, most of us won’t own cars because there will be no point in it. You hail one and it takes you where you need to go. The cost will be less than driving yourself and likely less than a bus fare with door to door service.
The problem will be finding depots for them and that built infrastructure is designed for our highly inefficient existing system. The big problem will be the transition from the old system to a new one.
"gmctavish needs more space" (gmctavish)
05/10/2017 at 02:39, STARS: 0
Meh, I mean from a purely reasonable perspective, you’re probably right. But I’m not sure how much of a difference it would make. I don’t imagine there are enough fatal accidents where the main factor was speeds in excess of 160km/h for it to be worth all the hassle of making it into reality. It depends on the highway, too. On the new sections of Island Highway, and the Coquihala, I can comfortably do 140-150km/h, not be the fastest person on the road, and not feel remotely unsafe. Mostly due to those highways being designed for those speeds, but then limited to 120 and 110. So while there is no real need to go faster, I don’t know what would be gained with that governing.
"Tekamul" (tekamulburner)
05/10/2017 at 07:36, STARS: 0
I (and you, and CB) will be long dead before something like that comes to fruition.
You’re possibly only thinking big picture. Who owns and runs these depots, private companies? How do they foot the bill with shrinking revenue? A system like that encourages less use over time. How would the road system be maintained with a significantly lowered sense of ownership by tax payers? There are a lot more gaps between here and there than most people think about.
"fintail" (fintail)
05/10/2017 at 09:37, STARS: 0
I don’t know if the solution is a somewhat arbitrary speed governor (why 100? why not 90 or 110 etc?), however. I think what is needed most is consistent logical enforcement (if the powers that be would go after phone yappers, non signalers, and crosswalk violators, we could pay the national debt), and consistent regulations that can actually be explained and defended. People feel limits are low and laws are unjust because the people with their finger on the button can’t and don’t put up data to defend them. Want to go on the greatest exercise in futility in your life? Contact your local transportation engineers or similar, and ask them to explain local speed limits and road designs. You’ll either be deafened by silence, or hear crickets. Dumbo traffic law enforcement and goofy regulations breed (and earn) disrespect and suspicion for authority as much as the unpunished abuses of authority.
I sincerely doubt the praetorian warriors are going to accept job cuts in the name of autonomous cars. If anything, they can be put on more relevant assignments, but the money has to come from somewhere, not to mention the money to fund massive public sector pensions and perks. Even moreso as population continues to increase.
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/10/2017 at 09:39, STARS: 0
Likely private companies that compete. Most of our transit systems are private. Why do you think all the ride hailing companies and big tech companies are obsessed with autonomous cars? Because they want to position themselves to be major players in the market.
I wouldn’t be so sure. I have at least 50 years left and when autonomous cars hit a certain critical mass, they will kill:
- Long haul truck driving. This should fall first, as it’s the lowest hanging fruit with almost zero union protection and the highest incentive to implement.
- The taxi/towncar/shuttle/etc industry. These will be the second to fall as the vast majority are independent or loosely organized by medallion owners. People will appreciate a prompt ride, no need to tip, no fear of death at the hands of someone that probably shouldn’t have been licensed, etc.
- Parking garages, since they won’t be needed. The first adopters will likely be those in cities where these types of expenses will make the decision easier. Think NYC, where owning a car is extremely expensive, car lovers join clubs so they can occasionally drive one, and most people just use a combination of public transit and taxis.
- The final nail in the coffin for human-driven cars will be the insurance industry, which will also collapse when a certain critical mass sufficiently reduces their customer base and premiums go through the roof (as you will always be at fault in an accident with an autonomous car).
There are so many more effects, but it’ll ultimately come down to money. It will be cheaper to go autonomous at some point and that’s when average drivers will transition. It’s not a matter of “if”, it’s a matter of time and development.
I have already said that unless my car gets totaled, it’s likely the last car I will own. I expect to trade it in for an autonomous car subscription in 20 years unless some major unforeseen event sets development back. At the current rate, we could potentially see widespread adoption within a decade.
"AfromanGTO" (afromangto)
05/10/2017 at 10:00, STARS: 0
Eventually, but it won’t happen overnight like people are expecting. I’d say 10-15 years at the earliest to 20 in most parts. Except for rural areas which will even then be longer.
"AfromanGTO" (afromangto)
05/10/2017 at 10:02, STARS: 1
That’s the exact mentality you have to be on the lookout for.
The only real thing keeping speed limits down is the condition of the roads. If everywhere had the roads maintained like Germany, then you could go as fast as you want. But you can’t do that with massive pot hole and roads falling apart.
"MarquetteLa" (marquettela)
05/10/2017 at 10:22, STARS: 1
I think you’ve answered your own question. Most people won’t ever go that speed, legally or illegally. Thus it isn’t really a significant issue to spend time & money on. Most ‘fast’ cars these days do come with a speed limiter from the factory anyway. The limit may not be as arbitrarily low as you would want, but it’s there, limiting the car’s full potential.
Educating people about proper multi-lane highway usage would have so much of a bigger effect on these statistics than limiting cars to 110 mph. Speed doesn’t kill, but large speed differentials do.
"dogisbadob" (dogisbadob)
05/10/2017 at 16:36, STARS: 1
since wages are so low and that’s all a lot of people can afford
"dogisbadob" (dogisbadob)
05/10/2017 at 16:38, STARS: 0
aaah ok ok ok
I was mainly thinking about the full-size trucks and the SUV’s that are the same frame and shit with a different body.
"Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer" (smallbear94)
05/10/2017 at 18:36, STARS: 0
I’m doing my best to send them somewhere else. I just want Texas to send us some of their speeds
"Eric @ opposite-lock.com" (theyrerolling)
05/11/2017 at 09:32, STARS: 1
I probably live in a different universe. The plebeian new car of the moment where I live is the Kia Soul, which is a pretty nice car.
The Mirages and Sparks are so rare here that I actually notice them.