• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should cars have built-in speed limit?

Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit

  • Yes, all cars ecxept "special" ones (police, swat, etc.)

    Votes: 11 11.5%
  • No

    Votes: 76 79.2%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Other

    Votes: 7 7.3%

  • Total voters
    96
You cannot have a residential street with no speed limit. Too much chance of someone speeding, losing control and killing a pedestrian or driving into a living room.

A person can still be guilty of negligence even without a maximum speed limit.

People tend to drive at speeds which they find comfortable and safe, regardless of the posted limit. Imposing strict limits simply creates an environment in which drivers are reducing their focus on the road and potential hazards in order to look for speed limit signs and watch the speedometer. This increases the likelihood of accidents.
 
A person can still be guilty of negligence even without a maximum speed limit.

People tend to drive at speeds which they find comfortable and safe, regardless of the posted limit. Imposing strict limits simply creates an environment in which drivers are reducing their focus on the road and potential hazards in order to look for speed limit signs and watch the speedometer. This increases the likelihood of accidents.

I hear you.

If it were me - I would bag speed limits everywhere. But my post you quoted was under the assumption that the masses would NEVER go for it.

I am big on reactive laws in most cases.
 
But my post you quoted was under the assumption that the masses would NEVER go for it.

Oh, must've missed that. Ignore my post then. :doh
 
Oh, must've missed that. Ignore my post then. :doh

No...it was my bad.

My assumption was strictly in my own head when I typed it...I never expressed it as such.

I am now explaining after the fact.
 
I don't agree with him/ her, but, here in the US we are set up as individual sovereign states. The federal government is supposed to have limited power over the states. It's almost like we are 50 separate countries under one flag. kind of like the European Union. But the power of our nation is invested in state rule, even though our present admin is trying to override that.

Putting aside the fact that your states are not sovereign in any way, shape or form (indeed you even fought a civil war over this particular issue), the question I was trying to ask was, why does the level of government matter to you?

Surely you would either object to all government putting breathalysers in your car, or none?
 
Surely you would either object to all government putting breathalysers in your car, or none?

There is a renewed interest in "state's rights" in the United States. The two main arguments are that 1) smaller government is better than larger government or 2) the closer the government is to the people being governed, the better the government it becomes. While there are certainly many points in favor of these types of arguments, the fundamental fact is essentially the same. In this sense, I agree with you. No government should be allowed to dictate these decisions on the people or all should.

However, there is something to be said of competition. If a national government was disallowed to make blanket policies such as this, the states would be able to compete for residents. Of course, as we have discussed at length in other threads, there are a myriad of reasons why people choose to live in certain regions. Taxes and government policy is but a drop in the bucket of reasons and cannot be used as consent for the policy at question.

The logical solution would be to further subdivide the authority of policy determination to the county level. But once we begin to acknowledge the benefits of the freedom of choice and open competition, we must logically come to the conclusion that individual determination is the only morally acceptable method. Thus, no government ought have the power to dictate these decisions on individuals.
 
A person can still be guilty of negligence even without a maximum speed limit.

People tend to drive at speeds which they find comfortable and safe, regardless of the posted limit. Imposing strict limits simply creates an environment in which drivers are reducing their focus on the road and potential hazards in order to look for speed limit signs and watch the speedometer. This increases the likelihood of accidents.

the only accidents I have ever had was going the speed limit or less.
 
We got rid of the Articles for a reason; fought that one little war for a reason...

We WILL take back our rights! You guys would have us in a dictatorship so that your historically flawed and failing policies can be enforced. Not on my watch!
 
Well, it was just a thought. :) The easiest way is to install GPS on every car and fine every speed violation, but I not a fan of that. Just want to make sure the car doesn't go faster than a certain speed for safety reasons.
Are you saying you are driving on a twisty mountain roads with more than 80 mph?

ONLY when absolutely necessary and when safe to do so. But that wasn't the what I was aiming at. Governors reduce the available power no matter what the terrain. If the car is going up a mountain, it reduces gear. When that happens, the RPM's go up. A governor doesn't work off the speedometer, but rather engine RPM's. So the governor wouldn't allow the needed power to go up a mountain at 55 MPH, which is the speed limit. It's a failed system.
 
We WILL take back our rights! You guys would have us in a dictatorship so that your historically flawed and failing policies can be enforced. Not on my watch!

What are you talking about?
What rights have been taken away from you?
What makes you think that people want dictatorships or countries to fail?
 
the only accidents I have ever had was going the speed limit or less.

I have had two; both when I was at a complete standstill. Conveniently, I rarely obey speed limits (and have doubled just about all of them at one point or another).
 
Should cars have built-in speed limit?
They do now.
I can't get my 86 CRX SI to go any faster than 110 mph!
crx-16-1987.jpg
ZOOOOOOOOOOOM
 
Putting aside the fact that your states are not sovereign in any way, shape or form (indeed you even fought a civil war over this particular issue), the question I was trying to ask was, why does the level of government matter to you?

Surely you would either object to all government putting breathalysers in your car, or none?

I object to government control of our lives PERIOD! Our government is supposed to be "by the people for the people". You obviously don't understand the Constitution.
 
What are you talking about?
What rights have been taken away from you?
What makes you think that people want dictatorships or countries to fail?

The fact that you all think the States are not sovereign. That is exactly what the Constitution says. The power is in the states and the federal government has very limited power over the states. The federal government is now usurping the power of the states as it becomes too big. The pendulum will swing back in the other direction.
 
Just want to make sure the car doesn't go faster than a certain speed for safety reasons.

Any speed you come up with is completely arbitrary and will always have an exception.

What maximum speed should be placed on a divided highway with wide shoulders and two well-paved lanes in each direction? There is no single answer. What is the experience and ability of the driver? What is the capability of the vehicle? What are the environmental conditions of the roadway? What is the traffic density? What time of day/night is it?

This thought process applies to each and every road on the face of the planet. Without the consistent intrusion by nanny states the world over, people would constantly adjust their speed and driving style to the situation. Prohibitions on movement (i.e. stop signs, traffic lights, speed limits, etc.) only serve to create the opposite mentality which reduces awareness. When a person sees a green traffic light in front of him, he knows he has the right-of-way and need not observe cross traffic. Yet how many accidents are caused by people inadvertently (or purposefully) running red lights? Without a government implied right-of-way, drivers would necessarily have to adjust to the flow of traffic and treat cross traffic as a potential hazard.
 
This thought process applies to each and every road on the face of the planet.

The speed limit is there for a reason.
For example: it's the perfect weather - the sun is shining (not too much), the road is dry and empty, the car is in great shape, you're in great shape. You decide to go for a spin and punch it. You reach 100mph. And then... a flat tire, dang! Or a deer on the road. Or a car accident around the corner... Are you telling me there is no difference between driving with 60 and 100 mph?
 
ONLY when absolutely necessary and when safe to do so. But that wasn't the what I was aiming at. Governors reduce the available power no matter what the terrain. If the car is going up a mountain, it reduces gear. When that happens, the RPM's go up. A governor doesn't work off the speedometer, but rather engine RPM's. So the governor wouldn't allow the needed power to go up a mountain at 55 MPH, which is the speed limit. It's a failed system.

This is nonsense. What I'm thinking about limits the speed, not the RPM and torque. :peace
 
ONLY when absolutely necessary and when safe to do so. But that wasn't the what I was aiming at. Governors reduce the available power no matter what the terrain. If the car is going up a mountain, it reduces gear. When that happens, the RPM's go up. A governor doesn't work off the speedometer, but rather engine RPM's. So the governor wouldn't allow the needed power to go up a mountain at 55 MPH, which is the speed limit. It's a failed system.


That's not how automobile computers work anymore. They are measuring everything - tire rotation between the tires, indicated speed, engine rpms and transmission gearing. Governors can control available power, rpms, the gear the car is in, speed, torque, horsepower and factor that in to many variables. You're thinking of an rpm-limiter.
 
The speed limit is there for a reason.
For example: it's the perfect weather - the sun is shining (not too much), the road is dry and empty, the car is in great shape, you're in great shape. You decide to go for a spin and punch it. You reach 100mph. And then... a flat tire, dang! Or a deer on the road. Or a car accident around the corner... Are you telling me there is no difference between driving with 60 and 100 mph?

Some cars can handle those road hazard situations better at 100 mph than other cars could at 50. For example, a McLaren SLR has been shown to be capable of stopping in as short a distance at 120 mph than the average car can at 60 mph. And most come with run-flat tires. So in your situations, a McLaren SLR is safer at 100 mph than what you are likely driving at 60 mph.

If SAFETY is the issue, all sub-compacts should absolutely be outlawed. They are proven very deadly in accidents either with objects or other vehicles.
 
Speed limit standards were set decades ago - when cars had crap for brakes, suspension, tires and safety equipment.
 
I don't want his to ever happen.

Computers have been known to go crazy or get bugs and that would put the occupants lives in danger.

The human should always have control of every aspect of the car.

The car companies had better realize this and give back control to their drivers.


Anyone who understand modern technology understands how much danger increases if a person turns off computer controls. Nor do most people want to go back to getting 15 mpg. Eliminating computers from cars is as likely and desirable as eliminating PCs, cell phones and the Internet.

Old guy lamenting for the good-ole-days when cars has carburetors, drum brakes and nylon tires. :lamo
 
Speed limit standards were set decades ago - when cars had crap for brakes, suspension, tires and safety equipment.
Thing is, I don't trust other drivers in my area enough to support letting them drive much faster on the highways then they already do (anywhere between 65 and 90 MPH in the 65 MPH zone, for example).

Hell I don't trust myself to drive safely at speeds around the upper limit of that range.
 
This would not be a good time to shut down the auto industry. When they put in 85 speedometers and most cars limited to under 100 it did massive damage to the auto industry.

Massive damage? How many people do you think regularly drive over 85? Do you think being limited to 85 would make you decide not to buy a car? The need for a car would just evaporate?

No, the auto industry suffered "massive damage" because they couldn't keep up with cheaper, more efficient, nicer looking foreign cars.
 
I object to government control of our lives PERIOD! Our government is supposed to be "by the people for the people". You obviously don't understand the Constitution.

Look, you've got to have some government. I reject out of hand any proposal that people do not need to be governed -- one only needs to look as far as Somalia to show how quickly that turns into warlords and ruin.

Why would a federal government, for the people and by the people, not be able to put a breathalyser in your car, in your mind?
 
This is nonsense. What I'm thinking about limits the speed, not the RPM and torque. :peace

You don't understand what I'm saying. Unless they have found a new way to govern an engine, that is how it's done. I used to drive a truck that was governed. The fastest it would go is 55 on level ground or even down hill. When I had to climb anything more than a slight incline, the truck would drop to 35 to 40 MPH. The governor would not let me use the engines power to overcome the hill. So, again, if they haven't come up with a new way of doing it, it won't work.
 
Back
Top Bottom