View Poll Results: Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit

Voters
116. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, all cars ecxept "special" ones (police, swat, etc.)

    14 12.07%
  • No

    93 80.17%
  • I don't know

    2 1.72%
  • Other

    7 6.03%
Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 384

Thread: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

  1. #351
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,706

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    I was thinking the same of you.
    I make no apologies for calling out beliefs that enable life-threatening behavior. Not so much yours as, despite what you are persuading me of, others' who would significantly increase the risk of dangerous travel.

    My stance from the very beginning has been that individuals, when given the opportunity, will more accurately determine the proper and safe speed/manner in which to drive and there is ample evidence to support this proposition. As I mentioned very early in this thread, the frequency of accidents in Montana decreased significantly with higher speeds. Similarly, when traffic signs are removed accidents decrease and traffic flow increases.

    Shared Space
    No Traffic Signs/Lights
    Signs Make Driving Dangerous
    Shared space is an interesting concept, I'll give you that. But it would need some testing here in the States for me to take its merits more seriously. And where is your source that Montana's subjective speed limit--which is what it was--significantly decreased the rate of accidents?

    How does indifference enable road rage?

    Most of the road rage I perceive comes from people who believe themselves to be in a great hurry and cannot get around slower moving traffic which stays in the left lane. Right or wrong, this is a primary cause of road rage. We all know these people: they sit two inches off your bumper, make gestures, swerve around cars, and generally act recklessly.

    There is an enormous difference between driving swiftly and driving recklessly. I would much prefer that cars in front of me pull over to the right lane so I may pass (I myself stay in the right lane – which, oddly enough, tends to be less congested – unless I am passing) and continue on my merry way. However, being stuck in the Middle East for a couple of years has given me a renewed sense of patience. So I either wait for a safe opportunity or give a friendly reminder that there are other people on the road by flashing my headlights.
    I'm getting the sense that your claim to the right to speed is largely on low-density, rural highways, particularly interstates. Am I right? Because if so, then you and I are not as far apart here as I initially thought. For example, a few of Utah's rural interstates have speed limits of 80 mph. And Texas has a rural tollway that has a top speed of 85 mph. On any rural freeway that can support that with no statistically significant increase in fatality rates from the lower speed limit, I'm open to the change. I'm actually a lot more concerned about what goes on in towns and cities. If you could make this differentiation, it would help a lot. Just--don't claim that being able to drive as fast as you want is a right. Because it's not. Not in the US Constitution, not in any state constitution. It doesn't exist.

    I have no issue with people driving any particular speed they choose. What I do have issue with is other people telling me what speed to drive. Stay the hell out of my car and I will stay out of yours. Furthermore, I have no desire to allow an ignorant mob to tell me how to live my life, let alone how quickly I may drive.

    But hey, I've been driving for over two decades and have a grand total of two fender-benders (both of which occurred while my vehicle was not moving). So what would I know about road safety?
    We probably have good reflexes as well. The thing is, not everyone who decides to drive really fast can handle it. Some can, others cannot. The human brain excels at deceiving its owner that he or she is capable of doing the impossible. That's why we need at least some kind of traffic laws, so that there will not be utter anarchy out there on the road. For example, you do agree that pedestrians should generally have right-of-way over cars, and that drivers should not drive the wrong way, right? I'm not asking if there are specific pedestrian ROW laws or directional flows that need to be changed. I'm asking if you believe that such laws should exist at all.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  2. #352
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by TNAR View Post
    See, we're arguing two different things. I agree that all of those things I mentioned potentially only harm myself. However, the same goes for speeding. Where we are having a major disconnect is that you are assuming that after I speed I suddenly hit someone. You are irrevocably associating speeding with hitting someone. This is a disingenuous assumption.

    I could set myself on fire and then tackle an innocent bystander. I could drink gasoline and punch someone in the face. I could jump out of a plane without a parachute and land on someone. I could punch a grizzly bear in the face and then escape certain death by throwing someone else into the path of the charging bear.

    The nanny state thrives on "what if" scenarios. I am arguing that speed by itself does not cause accidents. Period. There certainly becomes a speed at which operating a vehicle becomes dangerous, but this speed cannot be determined prior to the act. As many of us have said repeatedly, there are simply too many variables to derive a single limit.
    I'm saying that if you **** up while speeding, you have a much higher chance of harming or killing someone else than if you **** up while punching a bear in the face or jumping out of a plane without a parachute.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #353
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Federal? No.

    State? Only if the people vote for it.
    Right, because a state passing a law rather than the Federal government makes a bad idea good.

  4. #354
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal View Post
    Right, because a state passing a law rather than the Federal government makes a bad idea good.


    No, because I believe this should be up to individual states...not the federal government.

  5. #355
    Almost respectable

    Cardinal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    34,934

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post


    No, because I believe this should be up to individual states...not the federal government.
    Would it be acceptable to be hit by an iron bullet instead of a steel bullet? Or for the mother to gamble away the kid's college savings instead of the father? A bad idea is a bad idea, regardless of whether the state or the Fed has it.

    "Oh my god, the government just passed a law that we're all going to be turned into mulch and used as fertilizer! This is horrible!"
    "No guys, relax, it's cool...it's a state law."

  6. #356
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post


    No, because I believe this should be up to individual states...not the federal government.
    That is not practical. While there are CA only emission standards those apply only to CA registered cars. Can you imagine any state (even CA) mandating that these extremely costly modifications be made to all vehicles and roadways?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #357
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    That is not practical. While there are CA only emission standards those apply only to CA registered cars. Can you imagine any state (even CA) mandating that these extremely costly modifications be made to all vehicles and roadways?
    Yup, it would.

    I retract my statement...I have a feeling I was thinking of seat belt laws when I typed my original post.

  8. #358
    Educator Soupnazi630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-08-14 @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    855

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Canell View Post
    OK, fellas, here is the issue: after having a speed limit of, let's say 80 mph, why are cars made to drive up to 140-200 mph? Obviously it would be illegal to drive beyond the speed limit.

    Question: Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit, i.e. the computer limits the speed of the car to what is legal to drive?

    No doubt this could save thousands of lives annually and will prevent criminals from escaping the police (if we presume police cars will not have that electronic speed limit).
    What do you think?
    First of all such criminals in high speed pursuits never really escape the police even if the police let them go to avoid the dangers of such a pursuit they can easily be intercepted and picked up later.

    I understand the point about speed limits in cars and it seems to make sense but then it ignores the consequences.

    There are in fact legitimate times where the speed limit needs to be violated in emergencies. The status quo is fine

  9. #359

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by JumpinJack View Post
    Which means that if I need to speed to get away from someone chasing me in an old car, I'm outta luck.

    Or if someone needs to speed someone else to the hospital in an emergency.
    Autonomous cars are supposed to be coming out (Nissan has made statements towards 2020ish) these could be made to travel the speed limit usually. They could put an emergency mode in to get people to a hospital, police, or fire station as quickly as they can. If you frequently run from the police, you would probably be better off in an older car.
    Using Tapatalk

  10. #360
    Revolutionary
    TNAR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,018
    Blog Entries
    17

    Re: Should cars have built-in speed limit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251
    I make no apologies for calling out beliefs that enable life-threatening behavior.
    Perhaps you should reconsider. A person going 56 in a 55 zone is speeding. Most law enforcement and traffic engineers would admit that in most situations this speed is just as safe as traveling 55. The limit is arbitrary and attempts to create a precise answer to a fluid question. Obviously I will never convince you of your errors, but perhaps I can plant a seed of doubt by simply suggesting that speeding (e.g. 55.1 mph in a 55 mph zone) does not suddenly create “life-threatening behavior.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251
    Shared space is an interesting concept, I'll give you that. But it would need some testing here in the States for me to take its merits more seriously. And where is your source that Montana's subjective speed limit--which is what it was--significantly decreased the rate of accidents?
    There are many different approaches to this idea, but Shared Space seems to be one of the most widely studied. If you check out their website you will find that it has been applied in a limited fashion in three U.S. states.

    You and I discussed the Montana issue to quite some degree in this thread. Here is a report about the so-called 85th percentile as has been discussed a few times in this thread and also mentions the Montana paradox.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251
    I'm getting the sense that your claim to the right to speed is largely on low-density, rural highways, particularly interstates. Am I right?
    Not at all. In dense urban areas I typically find that the traffic conditions and presence of pedestrians cause me to drive at or below the limit. My suggestion is not that everyone should be able to speed recklessly to and fro to their heart’s delight. Rather, I am trying to convey the idea that when the responsibility for safety is placed on the actor – as opposed to a government engineer – they will very quickly determine the proper speed for the conditions. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule. Under the current system of direct punishment there are still thousands of cases of people driving insanely and causing wrecks. But this behavior cannot be legislated away; no behavior can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251
    Just--don't claim that being able to drive as fast as you want is a right. Because it's not. Not in the US Constitution, not in any state constitution. It doesn't exist.
    The funny thing about the Constitution is that it bequeaths no rights to the citizens. It seems like a very minor thing to many people, but I am convinced that this is a major reason behind the massively intrusive government we have today. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what rights the people have or do not have. Instead, it states what rights the government has. For example, the First Amendment does not give people freedom of speech or religion, rather it prohibits the government from restricting the pre-existing right. The Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that governments derive their powers from the people, not vice versa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Phys251
    The thing is, not everyone who decides to drive really fast can handle it. Some can, others cannot.
    We are in absolute agreement. Humans excel at overestimating their abilities, especially in their younger years. But what scientists have discovered is that humans want to do what is in their best interest. They most certainly could be wrong, but as a rule they try to do what they view to be the most desirable means for a particular end. When the responsibility for making decisions is removed from a person, they begin to act irrationally.

    Consider alcohol. Underage consumption of alcohol is a pretty big issue in America. For years there has been a concerted effort to protect children from the evils associated with alcohol and they have, in general, been a complete failure. Alcohol consumption by minors is driven underground and is given a “cool” aspect because of its illegality. Contrast American teenagers with foreign teenagers where drinking is legal and not viewed as something exciting to do to express one’s rebellion. Do these areas still have young people abusing alcohol? Of course they do. But no place on earth is devoid of grown adults who abuse alcohol.

    My point is simply that removing the responsibility of a person’s actions from that individual and placing it on a government regulation (i.e. legal age, traffic sign, etc.) creates problems. If a driver is no longer worried about looking for cops hiding behind signs or constantly checking his speedometer, he will have more time to look for potential hazards on the road and judge a proper speed based on these fluid external factors.
    Last edited by TNAR; 02-09-14 at 12:20 PM.

Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •