• 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
The one irreplaceable commodity a person has it time. That is one thing think that can not be bought. But apparently time is irrelevant to you, that you put no value on your time whatsoever. If you have to sit in a box for 1, 2, 5, 10 hour, an extra 100 or 1000 0r 10,000 hours of your life so you are safe and poise no danger to others, you're all for it.

So, then, you now have justify anyone leaving their home without a compelling reason to do so. If they say in their homes they endanger no now. Endangering others is intolerable to you, right? Thus, a person leaving their house unless truly necessary should be considered criminal reckless endangerment to others.

You may dispense with the strawmen and argumenta ad hominem. When you do, we can resume our debate. :)
 
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Highways outlaw pedestrian traffic, so that isn't an issue there.

Well, then this whole topic is irrelevant since there also are speed limits. Therefore no speed limiters on cars would ever have any relevancy. No pedestrians are ever on highways because it is illegal and no one never exceeds speed limits because it is illegal. Problem solved as obviously there is no problem.
 
You may dispense with the strawmen and argumenta ad hominem. When you do, we can resume our debate. :)

If you don't like the actual issue why are you even on this thread? And if you see anyone disagreeing with you as a personal attack then debate forums may not be the best place...


But I will give you a clue as you may have missed.

1. Contrary what you may think, people have limited life spans.
2. The slower a vehicle is going the longer it takes to arrive at a destination.
3. The longer a person is prohibited from doing what they want or need to do because they are in a vehicle, the less effective lifetime that person has.

Slower speed limits reduce people's effective lifetimes.

May not matter to you. You may prefer to sit and stare at a wall in an empty room for all I know. But some people actually have places to go and things to do when they get there.
 
I was thinking along the lines of preventing such - I would think a crash more likely at higher speeds because less time to react.

Why do so many people live in such constant fear of everything? Do they just stay in their houses because statistically it is safer than going into public and being safe is the singular purpose of life or something?
 
If you don't like the actual issue why are you even on this thread? And if you see anyone disagreeing with you as a personal attack then debate forums may not be the best place...


But I will give you a clue as you may have missed.

1. Contrary what you may think, people have limited life spans.
2. The slower a vehicle is going the longer it takes to arrive at a destination.
3. The longer a person is prohibited from doing what they want or need to do because they are in a vehicle, the less effective lifetime that person has.

Slower speed limits reduce people's effective lifetimes.

May not matter to you. You may prefer to sit and stare at a wall in an empty room for all I know. But some people actually have places to go and things to do when they get there.

If you would just tone down the rhetoric, there is actually an interesting point somewhere in that post. It has to do with the fact, as I have already alluded to, that establishing and enforcing traffic laws has to do with balancing the freedom to travel vs. the right to life. And the answer is not straightforward.
 
Well, then this whole topic is irrelevant since there also are speed limits. Therefore no speed limiters on cars would ever have any relevancy.

Yes, they do. They keep you from involving in accident with other vehicles at high speeds. Pedestrians are a different story. :)
 
Right. I'm honestly curious as to whether this percentile is taken to be fixed (which I'm guessing it is) or if they ever readjust it it.

I'm talking about the responses to said law. I've been all over the country, and some places such as Arkansas have amazingly slow drivers. For others, such as many Atlantans, the speed limit is only a concept.
The speed limit is adjusted by trail and error. It starts out at whatever the design speed of the project is, which determines many things about the road like radii of horizontal curves, differences in beginning/ending slopes of vertical curves and their length, side-street visibility or ramp length, signage placement, etc, etc. Then the amount of traffic, pedestrian traffic, number of side-streets, etc. are factored in and that's what's originally posted. As the road gets used, police accumulate statistics on speeding and accidents. If the results show a lot of speeders (more than the standard 15%) and not a lot of accidents then the speed limit is considered again and maybe a traffic study is done to gather data on actual, instead of theoretical, traffic volumes. Sometimes the limit is raised (if possible by state/city laws), sometimes it isn't. In places where they decide not to raise the limit, they often reduce enforcement.
 
Well, then this whole topic is irrelevant since there also are speed limits. Therefore no speed limiters on cars would ever have any relevancy. No pedestrians are ever on highways because it is illegal and no one never exceeds speed limits because it is illegal. Problem solved as obviously there is no problem.
I see lots of people speed every day. I haven't seen someone walking on a highway where pedestrians are illegal in several years.
 
I see lots of people speed every day. I haven't seen someone walking on a highway where pedestrians are illegal in several years.

I see people walking and riding bikes along state and county highways all the time. Nor do I have any idea where he concluded it is illegal to walk on highways? I know of NO highway around here where it is illegal to walk or ride a bike. The only one I can think of are Interstates. Its quite a distance to the nearest Interstate.
 
Why do so many people live in such constant fear of everything? Do they just stay in their houses because statistically it is safer than going into public and being safe is the singular purpose of life or something?
You didn't really address my point.
 
Well, almost 80% of people in this poll think that the OP is not a good idea.

Good.
 
Well, almost 80% of people in this poll think that the OP is not a good idea.

Good.
Frankly, it seems kinda dumb.
The main issue that causes crashes is not speed, but inattention. Overly high speed contributes by reducing reaction times, but you still have to lose focus to crash (unless we're talking really high speeds).

The only reasonable reason I could see for putting speed controls in cars would be if you wanted everyone going the same speed as part of some kind of automatic traffic control system.
 
Do you realize how immature it sounds to bring up nullification as an attempt to enable people to drive however dangerously they want?

What I find immature is the pompous righteousness of complete strangers telling me they know how I should live my own life. Immaturity is the belief that a rule will somehow magically make everything uncomfortable disappear. Nullification is the way for liberty-loving people to throw the chains of servitude from their ankles emplaced by pretentious do-gooders.
 
What I find immature is the pompous righteousness of complete strangers telling me they know how I should live my own life. Immaturity is the belief that a rule will somehow magically make everything uncomfortable disappear. Nullification is the way for liberty-loving people to throw the chains of servitude from their ankles emplaced by pretentious do-gooders.

Exactly, because nobody should tell me to turn on my lights at night, stop for trains, or do anything else that might reduce the risk of a collision. Give me a break.
 
Exactly, because nobody should tell me to turn on my lights at night, stop for trains, or do anything else that might reduce the risk of a collision. Give me a break.

You're exactly right. Nobody has to tell you those things because you are fully capable of recognizing the merits of each. It is not against the law to set yourself on fire, drink gasoline, jump out of a plane without a parachute, or punch a grizzly bear in the face, and yet nobody is in a hurry to outlaw them. Why not? Because it is obvious that everyone can make these decisions. Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?
 
Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?

Yeah, like this guy. :roll:

 
You're exactly right. Nobody has to tell you those things because you are fully capable of recognizing the merits of each. It is not against the law to set yourself on fire, drink gasoline, jump out of a plane without a parachute, or punch a grizzly bear in the face, and yet nobody is in a hurry to outlaw them. Why not? Because it is obvious that everyone can make these decisions. Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?

Your rights end where my face begins. You do NOT have the right to participate in any activity that directly harms my safety. Like the ones I mentioned above.

Geez, dude. Can you not see how your attitude enable road rage? Like, seriously, with attitudes like those, I WANT to see more cops out on the streets enforcing traffic laws. I'd rather have to drive a little slower if it means driving a lot safer.
 
I wonder what the country will look like once we have equipment that prevents all illegal activity, not just that which we deem to be bad in our own personal world.

It's not that I approve of speeding but rather that I'm afraid of big brother and the disparity of opinion across the country about what should be illegal.
 
I see people walking and riding bikes along state and county highways all the time. Nor do I have any idea where he concluded it is illegal to walk on highways? I know of NO highway around here where it is illegal to walk or ride a bike. The only one I can think of are Interstates. Its quite a distance to the nearest Interstate.
There are a couple here that are not interstates where pedestrian traffic is illegal but when I talk about it I generally mean interstates.
 
Your rights end where my face begins. You do NOT have the right to participate in any activity that directly harms my safety. Like the ones I mentioned above.

Virtually every driver in America exceeds the speed limit on a daily basis. It is common knowledge that law enforcement generally allows a “leeway” above the legal limit. This directly proves that the speed limit itself is primarily arbitrary and does nothing to promote safety or any excess of this limit would be punished. A person driving ten miles over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway is endangering nobody. To claim that every instance of speeding “directly harms [your] safety” is a flat out lie. The vast majority of accidents involve poor judgment and ability, not speed by itself.

Geez, dude. Can you not see how your attitude enable road rage?

My motto is lead, follow, or get out of the way. The biggest problem with most roadways in America is ignorance and arrogance. My attitude is one of indifference. Go faster than me, go slower than me, it makes no difference. However, there are many drivers who seem to have no understanding of proper road etiquette. Get your butt in the right lane and stay there unless you’re passing. This more than any other reason causes traffic flow problems and decreases the safety of other drivers. It is this action coupled with other drivers’ poor judgment (i.e. tailgating, weaving, etc.) which creates an unsafe environment, not speed.
 
Virtually every driver in America exceeds the speed limit on a daily basis. It is common knowledge that law enforcement generally allows a “leeway” above the legal limit. This directly proves that the speed limit itself is primarily arbitrary and does nothing to promote safety or any excess of this limit would be punished. A person driving ten miles over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway is endangering nobody. To claim that every instance of speeding “directly harms [your] safety” is a flat out lie. The vast majority of accidents involve poor judgment and ability, not speed by itself.

Will you please tone down the rhetoric and stop the lies and false dichotomy? It is very difficult to have a rational discussion when you do this. Now, I have been very clear that I am open to reviewing speed limits on a case-by-case basis. Now, getting back to the discussion, we must consider speed limits' effects on all kinds of roads, not just rural highways. For example, Europe is commonly known for rather high speed limits on its rural freeways--and I'm not just talking about the Autobahn--but far less commonly known for their low speed limits in town. My belief is that speed-related fatalities are a much more common problem in town than on the open road, and I'm willing to accept clear evidence to the contrary.

My motto is lead, follow, or get out of the way. The biggest problem with most roadways in America is ignorance and arrogance. My attitude is one of indifference. Go faster than me, go slower than me, it makes no difference. However, there are many drivers who seem to have no understanding of proper road etiquette. Get your butt in the right lane and stay there unless you’re passing. This more than any other reason causes traffic flow problems and decreases the safety of other drivers. It is this action coupled with other drivers’ poor judgment (i.e. tailgating, weaving, etc.) which creates an unsafe environment, not speed.

And this, sir, is an attitude that enables road rage. People like you are why I have to spend as little time in the left lane as possible when passing. When you choose to intimidate law-abiding drivers via aggressive driving habits, YOU ARE TAKING AWAY THEIR CHOICES. YOU ARE VIOLATING THEIR FREEDOM, THE FREEDOM TO ATTEMPT STAY ALIVE. In that moment, you pose a greater danger to that person than a serial killer does. It is you, not they, who are in violation of the law, provided they are at least going the speed limit (the only concession I am willing to grant here). You don't like someone driving 60 mph in a 60-mph zone? Then use the democratic process and lobby to get the speed limit raised. In the meantime, stop acting like a whiny child who can't get his way.

But hey. I've been driving for nearly two decades and have a grand total of one fender-bender (which was not my fault) and one ticket (which was my fault). So what would I know about road safety.
 
Phys251 said:
Will you please tone down the rhetoric and stop the lies and false dichotomy?

I was thinking the same of you.

Phys251 said:
My belief is that speed-related fatalities are a much more common problem in town than on the open road, and I'm willing to accept clear evidence to the contrary.

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

Phys251 said:
And this, sir, is an attitude that enables road rage.

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.

Phys251 said:
You don't like someone driving 60 mph in a 60-mph zone?

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?
 
You're exactly right. Nobody has to tell you those things because you are fully capable of recognizing the merits of each. It is not against the law to set yourself on fire, drink gasoline, jump out of a plane without a parachute, or punch a grizzly bear in the face, and yet nobody is in a hurry to outlaw them. Why not? Because it is obvious that everyone can make these decisions. Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?
Because setting yourself on fire, drinking gasoline, jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and punching a grizzly bear in the face are all actions which in the vast majority of cases only cause harm to yourself.

However, driving really fast and hitting someone causes harm to someone other than yourself, which is why speed limits. Because, frankly, slower travel means more reaction time, thus less chance of accidents. Of course other factors can cause accidents, so it's not foolproof. And it can be taken too far, I suspect.

Edit: Also, your local law enforcement needs the money for new bumper-mounted miniguns.
 
Because setting yourself on fire, drinking gasoline, jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and punching a grizzly bear in the face are all actions which in the vast majority of cases only cause harm to yourself. However, driving really fast and hitting someone causes harm to someone other than yourself, which is why speed limits.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom