What should be penalty for 20mph+ over limit speeding?

Dr. Chuckles said:

No, there is clearly an assumed risk of things falling on your head in rock climbing. That is why rock climbers often use helmets



No, my theory is that someone traveling at 170 miles/hour on public roads, without warning lights, is not something people normally consider when driving on them.

hence, it's not part of the assumed risk. This is in contrast to rock climbing where a standard piece of gear is a helmet and various safety precautions to prevent people from falling

Click to expand...

No, the rock climber is endangering others below who are not climbers.

Skydivers endanger people too. They have limited control who they might land on. Something might slip out of their hands, just like a rock climber could drop a pick and it lands on some non-rock climber below. There is no assumed risk when you are outdoors that someone will fall on you from the sky or drop something from the sky accidentally that hits you.

Rocketman said:

ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Nothing ridiculous about it.

Rocketman said:

I would feel much more safe if your car would not start when a cell phones was in it.

Click to expand...

You would be mistaken, see link:

U.S. Census Bureau: Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009

Accident numbers have not fluctuated greatly for several years, which means they have declined per mile driven. Number of deaths were lowest for decades in 2009, about 10% less per mile driven than the next best year.

According to the following site the number of fatal accidents increased from ~30,000 in 2009 to ~32,000 in 2010, remained ~32,000 in 2011, then plummeted to ~26,000 in 2012. Also, speed is cited as a factor in 31% of fatal accidents, while distraction is cited in only 16%, and keep in mind cell phones are only one of many forms of distraction.

Car Crash Fatality Statistics

Of course cell phone use has been rising steadily for years. Therefore there is NO basis in the data for considering cell phones to be a more serious driving hazard than speed.

Furthermore, nowhere near as many drivers go 100 mph over the limit as use a cell phone while driving. No one in his right mind could possibly prefer 10s of millions of 120 mph-plus drivers a day to 10s of millions of cell phone users.

USViking said:

Nothing ridiculous about it.



You would be mistaken, see link:

U.S. Census Bureau: Motor Vehicle Accidents—Number and Deaths: 1990 to 2009

Accident numbers have not fluctuated greatly for several years, which means they have declined per mile driven. Number of deaths were lowest for decades in 2009, about 10% less per mile driven than the next best year.

According to the following site the number of fatal accidents increased from ~30,000 in 2009 to ~32,000 in 2010, remained ~32,000 in 2011, then plummeted to ~26,000 in 2012. Also, speed is cited as a factor in 31% of fatal accidents, while distraction is cited in only 16%, and keep in mind cell phones are only one of many forms of distraction.

Car Crash Fatality Statistics

Of course cell phone use has been rising steadily for years. Therefore there is NO basis in the data for considering cell phones to be a more serious driving hazard than speed.

Furthermore, nowhere near as many drivers go 100 mph over the limit as use a cell phone while driving. No one in his right mind could possibly prefer 10s of millions of 120 mph-plus drivers a day to 10s of millions of cell phone users.

Click to expand...

thanks for proving my point, cell phones have not been around long enough for good data. I drive 60k plus miles per year, A texter scares the hell out me,way more that a speeder.

Shadow Serious said:

Given that speeding tickets are a citation and at worst a misdemeanor that would be a big step upping it to felony. Not only would this require a trial by jury but could be a burden if the accused decides to not waive having a Grand Jury for indictment. Also the OP has it going 100mph over the speed limit.



Our prisons and jails are overburdened already and you suggest that we should add to their number for a first time offense. And BTW if it is a felony it would most likely be more than a year punishment since by definition a felony requires more than a year sentence.



The vehicle that was used can be impounded but not the vehicles that were not used in the offense. And the law cannot assume that if the accused/convicted would violate any suspension on his license. The person could after all have a friend drive him in his car so it also not that the cars could not be of any use to him.



This is extreme since the OP doesn't have a history of the driver and I can assume that this is a first time offense, she cooperated by pulling over immediately after she knew she was caught. A suspension would be reasonable but not a lifetime ban. A draconian penalty for an offense that does not involve harm to people or damage to property (actual harm) is likely to ratchet down on what is required to receive such a penalty, since there is no quantifiable standards that the penalty is weighed against.



This then would violate the equal protection clause as well as the excessive fines clause. Fines of this extent are almost certain to establish an Authoritarian Rule over the people by the government. Most people who are not wealthy and even many of the wealthy would not be able to afford such a fine and this can be used as a means of control over them to whatever the State would allow itself. This means giving the people who run the State would be granted enormous power than has been granted to the State so far.

I see that you list yourself as Conservative. Perhaps a reevaluation of your lean should be made since this does not seem like anything a conservative would be for.

Click to expand...

The word "conservative," like liberal, libertarian or progressive do not have a universal meaning and certainly not on this forum. For some, "conservative" means totalitarian fascism. To others, it means pure socialist. For others, it means strict governmental behavioral control of the citizenry. Such leaning terms are all over the place in application.

CanadaJohn said:

Hi Lady P - it's pretty cold here today, compared to the last couple of weeks, but I haven't heard anything about snow - still well above freezing here.

There have been some high profile cases - one in particular involved an older lady who claimed she was just trying to pass a truck - she actually got off too.

I'm not really all that concerned about people losing the cars and licenses for a period of time - with people like this, their cars are very important to them and teaches them a lesson that a loss of money doesn't seem to do. I don't drink, except on rare occasions - I have an older car, although I do drive fast and hate slow drivers - but I just putter around the neighborhood now so it doesn't affect me much.

Click to expand...

So what most annoys you is that person enjoys their car and driving, and the purpose of government is to make certain people are unhappy and punished for anything that matters to them the government doesn't like.

Of course, you are presuming that taking away the license and car stops the person from driving, just like presuming taking away someone's drugs will stop them for using drugs.

Most people whose license are suspended do not stop driving. If the person wealthy, he'd just get another car. If not, he'd just let the ZR1 be re-possessed and finance another car before it was. It likely will be fast, but may not be as well built for it or in as good of condition.

A more likely reality to your goal of teaching the person the illegally of doing what he likes is that next time he doesn't stop from the police. Losing his license could cost him many times more than the ZR1, that he's paying for but doesn't have. He definitely learned his lesson to not stop for the police more than anything else.

And that time then there is a 180 mph chase. Those tend to not end well for anyone, particularly others, though a lot of patrol officers in pursuit cruisers live for them. If a fleeing car broadsides an innocent car in an intersection, generally those in the broadsided car do worse. Front engined cars do better for those inside in a frontal impact than being being broadsided. Then you REALLY have reason to imprison the person. SUCCESS!

The problem with government control freaks - in and out of government - is they actually believe everyone will let the government control and constrain them in any and every way. Rather, it makes many people see the law, law enforcement, the court system and the government as the enemy of their life - and that actually might be accurate too as the number of local, county, state and federal laws and regulations continues to grow a million pages a day with ever more reasons to condemn people doing what they want or being less than perfect and perfectly submissive sheep.

And then if it goes badly because the government can't yet put mind-control in people (though would like to), even if innocent people are harmed or die as a result - they justify it anyway blaming the person in the situation they put the person into in the first place. For such government control freaks, although the USA has the largest prison population on earth, many times more people with criminal records, restricted citizen's rights and paying fees to ongoing government monitoring (probate and fees), it will NEVER be enough.

Just look at this forum's messages on any topic with any criminal punishment consequences. About 40% of the members want more laws, more severe punishment, even punishments beyond any that exist now, even beatings and torture, to totally destroy the person's life - in this instance for driving really fast across an empty desert on an empty highway. Put 100,000,000 people in jail and it wouldn't be enough.

Remember, lots and lots of people supported Maos and Stalin's death camps and summary brutal executions and imprisonments. Americans are made of the same dna and mindset. RABID xenophobia, all FEAR based, and fear leads to hatred - wanting all your fears addressed by imprisoning anyone who even in theory makes you afraid.

joko104 said:

The word "conservative," like liberal, libertarian or progressive do not have a universal meaning and certainly not on this forum. For some, "conservative" means totalitarian fascism. To others, it means pure socialist. For others, it means strict governmental behavioral control of the citizenry. Such leaning terms are all over the place in application.

Click to expand...

I understand that but it does annoy me when someone chooses a lean and then posts something that would be way outside of what is considered the normal definition. Such terms should have an approximate meaning else they become meaningless, and since he lives in the US I did not have to think that he was using the term with respect to another country.

joko104 said:

So what most annoys you is that person enjoys their car and driving, and the purpose of government is to make certain people are unhappy and punished for anything that matters to them the government doesn't like.

Of course, you are presuming that taking away the license and car stops the person from driving, just like presuming taking away someone's drugs will stop them for using drugs.

Most people whose license are suspended do not stop driving. If the person wealthy, he'd just get another car. If not, he'd just let the ZR1 be re-possessed and finance another car before it was. It likely will be fast, but may not be as well built for it or in as good of condition.

A more likely reality to your goal of teaching the person the illegally of doing what he likes is that next time he doesn't stop from the police. Losing his license could cost him many times more than the ZR1, that he's paying for but doesn't have. He definitely learned his lesson to not stop for the police more than anything else.

And that time then there is a 180 mph chase. Those tend to not end well for anyone, particularly others, though a lot of patrol officers in pursuit cruisers live for them.

The problem with government control freaks - in and out of government - is they actually believe everyone will let the government control and constrain them in any and every way. Rather, it makes many people see the law, law enforcement, the court system and the government as the enemy of their life - and that actually might be accurate too.

And then if it goes badly because the government can't yet put mind-control in people (though would like to), even if innocent people are harmed or die as a result - they justify it anyway blaming the person in the situation they put the person into in the first place.

Click to expand...

thank god officers around here use common sense. I could not stand to live in one of those regulatory heavy states or cities.

Rocketman said:

thanks for proving my point, cell phones have not been around long enough for good data.

Click to expand...

You have a real talent for slinging some real ****.

There were 55 million cell phone subscribers way back in 1997. See link:

2007: 82% of Americans Own Cell Phones

Rocketman said:

I drive 60k plus miles per year, A texter scares the hell out me,way more that a speeder.

Click to expand...

Get back with me as soon as you see someone doing 100 over the limit, in accordance with the OP premise.

Summerwind said:

Really? Then that needs to change right there. My dad used to get access back in the day back in TX, and here in SoCal the autocross still does, so do the gokarts, I know cuz I video 'em. I don't go into the roundyrounds but I assumed if they lease out their parking lots, they'd lease that out still also.

Click to expand...

Depends on the track. Some are booked up, others one can book a session. Just depends on the time of the year and the racing schedules. Nevada opens up a 90 mile stretch of HWY 318 for the Silver State Challenge. There are stretches of the course were the average speeds are 180mph. I brought my Pontiac Trans Am and cruised an average of 120 and go it up to 150. In an upcoming year I intend to bring an LS6 powered Triumph Spitfire. It should be bitching gnarly awesome carving some of the stretches with that bad boy. Its a go kart on steroids. Its the place to go besides Bonneville if you want to go really fast and have it sanctioned.

Shadow Serious said:

Given that speeding tickets are a citation and at worst a misdemeanor that would be a big step upping it to felony. Not only would this require a trial by jury but could be a burden if the accused decides to not waive having a Grand Jury for indictment. Also the OP has it going 100mph over the speed limit.

Click to expand...

100 mph over the limit should be a big step up.

Shadow Serious said:

Our prisons and jails are overburdened already and you suggest that we should add to their number for a first time offense.

Click to expand...

Not enough people drive 100 over the limit to make a significant difference in our prison population. However, if there were enough to make a difference then all the more reason to lock up as many as possible for as long as possible.

Shadow Serious said:

And BTW if it is a felony it would most likely be more than a year punishment since by definition a felony requires more than a year sentence.

Click to expand...

One year actually served naturally assumed a much longer original sentence.

Shadow Serious said:

The vehicle that was used can be impounded but not the vehicles that were not used in the offense.

Click to expand...

We can change that any time we want as long as not too many libertarians get elected or appointed judge.

Shadow Serious said:

And the law cannot assume that if the accused/convicted would violate any suspension on his license.

Click to expand...

I don't see how this addresses the point. What the law assumes is that violators will be liable for increased punishment.

Shadow Serious said:

The person could after all have a friend drive him in his car so it also not that the cars could not be of any use to him.

Click to expand...

Whose car do you mean by "his car"?

Shadow Serious said:

This is extreme since the OP doesn't have a history of the driver and I can assume that this is a first time offense, she cooperated by pulling over immediately after she knew she was caught.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant due to the seriousness of the crime.

Shadow Serious said:

A suspension would be reasonable but not a lifetime ban. A draconian penalty for an offense that does not involve harm to people or damage to property (actual harm) is likely to ratchet down on what is required to receive such a penalty, since there is no quantifiable standards that the penalty is weighed against.

Click to expand...

By that reasoning someone who shoots but misses should not be subject to draconian penalty just because he was lucky. We should not have to wait until someone gets hurt to impose such punishment.

Shadow Serious said:

This then would violate the equal protection clause

Click to expand...

No it would not. It would only be selecting a different factor, namely percentage of personal wealth, upon which to base equality.

Shadow Serious said:

as well as the excessive fines clause.

Click to expand...

I am not sure the cutoff point has ever been established for this. I do not think a year's pay would be excessive.

Shadow Serious said:

Fines of this extent are almost certain to establish an Authoritarian Rule over the people by the government.

Click to expand...

Bull****.

Shadow Serious said:

Most people who are not wealthy and even many of the wealthy would not be able to afford such a fine and this can be used as a means of control over them to whatever the State would allow itself. This means giving the people who run the State would be granted enormous power than has been granted to the State so far.

Click to expand...

The state must have enormous power over those who are convicted of serious crime. Orderly society could not be attained otherwise.

Shadow Serious said:

I see that you list yourself as Conservative. Perhaps a reevaluation of your lean should be made since this does not seem like anything a conservative would be for.

Click to expand...

I am a responsible conservative, but the measures I advocate should also be agreeable to responsible liberals. Libertarians I am not sure about.

joko104 said:

A highway patrol car on a good condition 4 lane divided highway with a 70 mph speed limit, no other cars on the highway in a remote area picks up a sole car doing 170 mph heading his way on the other side empty and flat open area 2 lanes. A new Corette ZR 1 designed to go 200 mph. When the officer pulls across the center medium, the ZR1 driver (no passenger) pulls over anticipating being stopped.

What should the officer do and what should the penalty be?

Multiple choice, public vote.

Click to expand...

The car should be confiscated so that I can buy it at the next auction and show this dip**** how to not pull over.

Arizona like most western states has a lot of open road with miles of nothing. The state patrol will generally spot you 10 miles over. With a speed limit of 75 you can general roll at or just under 85 - unless you are driving between Tucson and Phoenix.

I have gotten stopped twice for criminal speeding - doing 20 mph over the speed limit: once in Ajo coming back from Mexico and once in Verde Valley coming back from Flagstaff. Criminal speeding means they can handcuff your dangerous driving self and take you in to jail, where you can receive jail time and a hefty fine and more. In fact in Glendale, law enforcement is required to cuff you and take you in if you are arrested for criminal speeding.

In my Ajo situation the officer was a fine guy. He recommended I go to court in Ajo. He wrote a ticket and I assured him I would be in court. The judge in Ajo was one heck of a good person. The brief lecture he gave me was personal and he asked me not to speed in the town where his family and friends lived. He asked me to come back to Ajo and spend some time and spend some money too. He wanted me to know his neighbors and said that once I did I would never think of endangering their lives. I gave him my word that I would. He told me he believed me and said that if I attended traffic school that he would be satisfied. I did and now when I drive through Ajo on the way to Mexico I drive the speed limit through Ajo. I always stop and get gas or have lunch or buy bread at "Eat My Buns".

My 2nd criminal speeding adventure was in the mountains south of Flagstaff. The state patrol guy was a hell of fine guy. We ended up leaning up against the hood of his car talking for about 20 minutes. We had a lot in common. He dropped the 20 mph over the speed limit in a construction area and wrote me up for "in excess of 15 mph over the posted limit". I never speed up their again either. Doing so would disrespect him if he had to stop me again. He deserves my respect.

joko104 said:

A highway patrol car on a good condition 4 lane divided highway with a 70 mph speed limit, no other cars on the highway in a remote area picks up a sole car doing 170 mph heading his way on the other side empty and flat open area 2 lanes. A new Corette ZR 1 designed to go 200 mph. When the officer pulls across the center medium, the ZR1 driver (no passenger) pulls over anticipating being stopped.

What should the officer do and what should the penalty be?

Multiple choice, public vote.

Click to expand...

I would like to point out to all reading this thread I have a unique perspective on this in that I have been a professional driver and am still licensed as such and occasionally work as such. I have more miles and experience driving backwards than many people going forwards. I have been an instructor, safety man, and supervisor of professional drivers. I now own a logistics company.

So allow me to be blunt. Most people driving in the US got their licenses from a Cracker Jack box, or may well have. They are not taught properly with ANY longevity. They as compared to most of the rest of the world except maybe the Germans are decent drivers. Most people in this country think our drivers are bad. They are quite polite and tame to be honest, even in New York. Most of the rest of the world drives like rabid baboons high on coke and meth. That said, this doesn't mean US drivers have a real clue of what they are doing. On the contrary, they surely don't. They are under trained. Period.

If I were king for a day, I would say that if you want a license you need to go to a real driving school and learn to REALLY operate a vehicle. This means taking school for a couple of months and taking vehicles on the skid pad and obstacle course and driving at speed and testing the limits of the vehicle and learning how to induce and recover form various problems. Real training from real drivers like the Bondurant school which is famous though in my opinion not the very best, just pointing them out as to the proper course intensity. Any Blackwater style driving training. The training must include extreme maneuvering in various vehicles and sizes while under duress.

My main problem with drivers in this country is they don't really know quite what they are doing, they have a basic gist and that's it. They can past the state tests which accommodate the lowest common denominator. That is inadequate to create a truly safe driving environment. The serious lack of REAL training especially for younger drivers is a primary cause of accidents more than anything. Most people don't know how to truly use and maneuver their vehicles properly. Many start with bad habits and get lots of experience driving with bad habits and get into trouble without ever knowing it until its too late.

My idea of a proper course would include

The parts and their function on an automobile in detail.

The how's and whys of maintenance in detail, with emphasis on tires and their function, how to deal with a blowout, and practice on a skid pad dealing with sudden blowouts concentrating on various vehicles and configurations with special emphasis on steering tire blowouts and trailer blowouts.

Driving time in various configurations and speeds in unusual attitudes.

Obstacle course driving at speed.

Backing through an obstacle course.

Off highway driving techniques and how to deal with various situations. Practice off road techniques.

Winter driving techniques. Practice of such.

High speed driving and maneuvering.

Emergency driving procedures. On and off highway emergency procedures.

Defensive driving techniques, and borrowing from the motorcycle crowd offensive driving technique, and when to transition from one technique to another.

There's more but I think you get the gist.

PirateMk1 said:

I would like to point out to all reading this thread I have a unique perspective on this in that I have been a professional driver and am still licensed as such and occasionally work as such. I have more miles and experience driving backwards than many people going forwards. I have been an instructor, safety man, and supervisor of professional drivers. I now own a logistics company.

So allow me to be blunt. Most people driving in the US got their licenses from a Cracker Jack box, or may well have. They are not taught properly with ANY longevity. They as compared to most of the rest of the world except maybe the Germans are decent drivers. Most people in this country think our drivers are bad. They are quite polite and tame to be honest, even in New York. Most of the rest of the world drives like rabid baboons high on coke and meth. That said, this doesn't mean US drivers have a real clue of what they are doing. On the contrary, they surely don't. They are under trained. Period.

If I were king for a day, I would say that if you want a license you need to go to a real driving school and learn to REALLY operate a vehicle. This means taking school for a couple of months and taking vehicles on the skid pad and obstacle course and driving at speed and testing the limits of the vehicle and learning how to induce and recover form various problems. Real training from real drivers like the Bondurant school which is famous though in my opinion not the very best, just pointing them out as to the proper course intensity. Any Blackwater style driving training. The training must include extreme maneuvering in various vehicles and sizes while under duress.

My main problem with drivers in this country is they don't really know quite what they are doing, they have a basic gist and that's it. They can past the state tests which accommodate the lowest common denominator. That is inadequate to create a truly safe driving environment. The serious lack of REAL training especially for younger drivers is a primary cause of accidents more than anything. Most people don't know how to truly use and maneuver their vehicles properly. Many start with bad habits and get lots of experience driving with bad habits and get into trouble without ever knowing it until its too late.

My idea of a proper course would include

The parts and their function on an automobile in detail.

The how's and whys of maintenance in detail, with emphasis on tires and their function, how to deal with a blowout, and practice on a skid pad dealing with sudden blowouts concentrating on various vehicles and configurations with special emphasis on steering tire blowouts and trailer blowouts.

Driving time in various configurations and speeds in unusual attitudes.

Obstacle course driving at speed.

Backing through an obstacle course.

Off highway driving techniques and how to deal with various situations. Practice off road techniques.

Winter driving techniques. Practice of such.

High speed driving and maneuvering.

Emergency driving procedures. On and off highway emergency procedures.

Defensive driving techniques, and borrowing from the motorcycle crowd offensive driving technique, and when to transition from one technique to another.

There's more but I think you get the gist.

Click to expand...

I have heard is it difficult and costly to get a license in Germany. Any idiot can get one in the USA. I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.

Carjosse said:

The closer to Munich you get the faster the cars are, I would love to take a top of the line Mercedes and see how fast I could truly go.

Click to expand...

It is safer to watch Top Gear but not as fun.

KevinKohler said:

I don't care what sort of road you are on, short of a closed course...170 mph is too fast in the US. You'd be hard pressed to get a ZR1 up to 170 on road Atlanta, let alone a PUBLIC highway. At 170 mph, you travel almost 280 feet per second. Each second. There is a reason why many German autobahn cruisers are governed to 155mph. Past a certain speed, you're just not safe for others around you, even if you're Mario Andretti. The ZR1 is a fast car, yes. But does anyone here know what starts to happen to the rubber in tires after 145mph? Or have any clue what happens when you touch the brakes at 150mph or higher?



This guy should have his license revoked for a while.

Click to expand...

I don't think the roads are in good enough condition to drive that fast. Aren't politicians always crying about fixing the infrastructure? The roads should be redone from scratch.

calamity said:

Yank the car away. This person obviously does not deserve it. Only a fool stops at 170mph simply because they saw a cop.

There's a video on youtube of a motorcycle doing 170 on an interstate as he passes a trooper in the median. The bike never slows down and makes a quick exit a minute or so later. That's how you do it.

Click to expand...

You are absolutely, the person does not DESERVE his car because he was speeding.

What is your criteria for who deserves their car and who doesn't?

Mason66 said:

It is safer to watch Top Gear but not as fun.

Click to expand...

I really like the UK Top Gear. The USA one is weaker.

Lord of Planar said:

These cars are designed to go that fast and have tires on them that make such speeds safe, as long as the road itself is safe for these speeds. I'm a firm believer in the basic rule, and so are some judges.

I have never seen a freeway here in the states that I would trust going over 130 MPH.

Click to expand...

But to be fair the car could have picked up a nail in one of the tires on the way to the highway.

In the real world you just never know.

joko104 said:

A highway patrol car on a good condition 4 lane divided highway with a 70 mph speed limit, no other cars on the highway in a remote area picks up a sole car doing 170 mph heading his way on the other side empty and flat open area 2 lanes. A new Corette ZR 1 designed to go 200 mph. When the officer pulls across the center medium, the ZR1 driver (no passenger) pulls over anticipating being stopped.

What should the officer do and what should the penalty be?

Multiple choice, public vote.

Click to expand...

Maybe my world view is skewed by having only driven Hondas and Toyotas, but 170MPH? WTF?

joko104 said:

I have heard is it difficult and costly to get a license in Germany. Any idiot can get one in the USA. I'm surprised there aren't more accidents.

Click to expand...

The reason there are not as many accidents as could be in my opinion is that in general US drivers are actually quite polite. They not especially skillful in general just have better road manners than other countries. Drivers here are not near as willing to swap paint as say an Indian or Kuwaiti driver.

Mason66 said:

You are absolutely, the person does not DESERVE his car because he was speeding.

What is your criteria for who deserves their car and who doesn't?

Click to expand...

In an ancient and rapidly becoming forgot era, he deserves his car because he paid for it.

Now the question is how fair was that to everyone else that he had a car like that AND how can the government get it for the government to sell and pocket the money or it to be a toy for ranking detectives to drive?

Maybe to answer the OP I need to tell the driver's life history, his economic circumstance and how he came to afford the car before people can decide how much he doesn't deserve his ZR1.

For example, if he is a super wealthy evil businessman, hell no he doesn't deserve it. BUT if he came up with the money because he sued a Home Depot store he claimed he slipped and fell in, then hell yes he deserves it and more, more, more. Only victims of life's unfairness "deserve" a car like that.

DVSentinel said:

Don't know on Japanese cars. Never had one do it, but then the only ones that I have had up to high enough speeds was a MRII Turbo and a Honda Prelude. Both manual and both sports cars. Also the only time I have ever owned a Japanese make was when I was stationed on Okinawa, not many places where you can get high enough to check it out.

On American cars that I know of, type of trans doesn't matter. Most GMs require you to get the upgraded suspensions and tires also. My Z-28 doesn't have it, but then, it is a Z-28 with top of line, for stock, suspensions system and tires and is a manual. It can go above speedometer reading but available torque limits it to around 4200 rpms in 5th gear (approx 155) (prior to exhaust upgrade). When I looked at newer ones, suspension/tire options not trans options governed it. My 06 Monte Carlo SS with the V-8 and an auto didn't have it. Or if it did, it was set above 145.

Click to expand...

My '94 Z-28 Convertible was limited to 106 MPH. Maybe it was becvause it has R rated tires or because it was a convertible.

My fathers Cadillac STS had no limiter, and I thought I had the sports car. He left me in the dust.

Mason66 said:

It is safer to watch Top Gear but not as fun.

Click to expand...

Top Gear is awesome well the British version.

I see two issues being discussed here: speed limits, and the enforcement of speed limits.

We need to consider that establishing speed limits is not a cut-and-dry issue. There are multiple kinds of roads, all the way from rural interstate highways to residential streets. What speed a given type of road may need may vary from road to road. It can depend on a number of factors--number of lanes, lane width, typical visibility, 85th percentile speed, road curvature, etc.

Some of you have mentioned the Autobahn. While Germany may have speed-limit-free limited access highways, keep in mind that they have a number of other, strictly-enforced laws on the Autobahn. One such rule is that passing on the right is strictly verboten. It does not matter how fast you want to go--you are not allowed to pass on the right, period. Also in Germany, most of the in-town roads have speed limits of 50 km/h, which is about 30 mph--quite a bit slower than the 40- and 35-mph zones we have in the States. And several of their residential neighborhoods have successfully lobbied for "30 zones," where the speed limit is reduced to 30 km/h, which is less than 20 mph.

I think there needs to be a thorough review of our speed limits--urban, suburban, and rural. The key needs to be balancing the need for safety vs. the desire for shorter trip times. Specifically, I see no reason that four-lane urban roads should have a speed limit of 35. I think they would work fine with a 45-mph speed limit. And interstates should have a per-lane speed assignment, which can be signed every mile or so. And make minimum speeds actually make sense--a 40-mph speed minimum on an interstate highway is ridiculous.

For example, they could try the following speed setup on a 4-lane-per-direction in-town interstate (numbers are maximum and minimum speeds, respectively):
Right lane: 55-45 mph
Center-right lane: 60-55 mph
Center-left lane: 65-60 mph
Left lane: 75-70 mph

And on a two-lane, straight, flat, rural interstate, they could try:
Right lane: 70-50 mph
Left lane: No posted speed limit, but any driver driving under 75 must move to the right lane as soon as safely possible.

Compromises need to be made between those who want to get from Point A to Point B about as fast as their car will take them, and those of us who want to survive the trip in one piece. Let's extend some freedoms without sacrificing too much safety.