Should cars have built-in speed limit?

I don't understand why people would advocate limited choices, limit freedom and restrict liberty. We need fewer but more intelligent laws that protect people without restricting the rights of others.

sawdust said:

I don't understand why people would advocate limited choices, limit freedom and restrict liberty. We need fewer but more intelligent laws that protect people without restricting the rights of others.

Click to expand...

Especially someone who claims to be a Libertarian. I think that, for him, it may be a personal issue brought on by some incident in his life.

auto enthusiast Helix : my Cooper already does have a top speed : 140 MPH. if you limit me to 80 MPH, i will subversively find a way to disconnect the device.

pragmatist, adult Helix : we'd be a lot better off if cars just drove themselves and were controlled by a central travel computer. example : next time you're stuck at a stoplight, watch how inefficient it is. drivers only take their foot off of the brake when the car in front of them does. imagine how much time would be saved if every car started moving forward the second the light turned green. i think that we're heading in this direction. we also need a lot more public transportation.

summary of the double Helix :

sawdust said:

I don't understand why people would advocate limited choices, limit freedom and restrict liberty. We need fewer but more intelligent laws that protect people without restricting the rights of others.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem, especially with traffic safety, is that people believe skewed data generated by agencies with an agenda other than actual safety and finding out the truth of the matter.

Here's one of the problems with the data they use. If someone is exceeding the speed limit, then speed is automatically entered as a causal factor in an accident regardless of whether speed actually played a part. If you are doing 45 in a 35 zone and someone pulls out in front of you and an accident occurs. Speed is listed as the cause of the accident, even if you could not have stopped in time if doing 25. Once it is established you were exceeding the speed limit, no other factors are even looked at most of the time and speed goes in the statics record as the cause.

Cars? One of mine is a rocket. Things happen when I depress the accelerator. Love it. I also know when it's safe to use that speed, and when it isn't. If you're not capable of making that judgement, you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place. Speed does kill, but it's the stupidity that precedes it that's the real culprit.

I am not sure about "built in", but how about this.

But I could see some accoutrement added to a car for a repeat offending speeder that does the same.

anonymous polls suck

this is a no brainer. Of course NOT. There are times when you may have to go faster than the speed limit for legitimate purposes. what we really need to get rid of in this country are the nanny state control freaks who want more and more laws and controls on people. It is already illegal to speed in most cases. That's enough

nota bene said:

"Fellas"?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting or patronizing (insulting again) to you. :3oops:

nota bene said:

And NO. Absolutely not. I want horsepower and speed and regard this as a safety issue. (I also dig it.) And I don't need the nanny state telling me how to drive/putting controls on me either.

Click to expand...

There is no absolute freedom. Well, at least in this world. Nirvana is a different story.

TurtleDude said:

anonymous polls suck

Click to expand...

I know your attitude about this but voting in a poll in not mandatory, TD. You could just discuss.

Canell said:

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting or patronizing (insulting again) to you. :3oops:



There is no absolute freedom. Well, at least in this world. Nirvana is a different story.



I know your attitude about this but voting in a poll in not mandatory, TD. You could just discuss.

Click to expand...

i want to see who the control freaks are and the inconsistencies. For example, a "libertarian" who is in favor of the government mandating this is akin to someone who claims to be a pro gun rights activist demanding registration

TurtleDude said:

i want to see who the control freaks are and the inconsistencies. For example, a "libertarian" who is in favor of the government mandating this is akin to someone who claims to be a pro gun rights activist demanding registration

Click to expand...

Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want. I don't want to see cars in my mirrors driving 100+ mph like there is no one on the road. There is difference between suicide and murder.

Canell said:

Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want. I don't want to see cars in my mirrors driving 100+ mph like there is no one on the road. There is difference between suicide and murder.

Click to expand...

a silly argument. You confuse POSSESSION with USE. People like you tell us there is no reason to own a weapon that can fire 30 rounds.

ttwtt78640 said:

Speeding is an operator (moving) violation not a registration or vehicle safety violation.

Click to expand...

Yes and why not remove the ability of the operator to do that violation by limiting the speed? Plus then there would be no need for powerful cars that can go 200 km a hour, when 120km an hour is the max allowed.. this means less petrol consumption, fewer accidents, less hospital expenses, and so on and so on.. Win win no?

Too many jurisdictions rely on speeding tickets for large sums of revenue. As such there is no political incentive to have vehicle speeds limited - but rather just the opposite, there is incentive to NOT have them limited.


Plus, just because you have something that is capable of being used to break the law, does not mean that that thing itself should be made illegal prophylactically.

And the last argument is that there are exceptions where the ability to go over the speed limit is desirable. Rushing someone to a hospital in an emergency, or fleeing from someone that intends to do you harm are examples.

So, omitting the "others" , todays its
30% favor the speed limit on the automobile its self.
70% favor the status quo
This question has been asked before ....maybe 10 years ago on this very forum ?
The trend seems to be favoring the limit, it would be most interesting to see if this is true.
I voted NO this time; 20 years ago, it would have been a "hell no !" .
I do NOT wish to see the day when individual responsibility is removed from man....Most of us are behaving ourselves....but not all...including me...

Another point to add, over time the maximum speed limit has changed - and it is quite possible that it will again in the future. Upper speed limits vary from state to state, some at 65, others at 80 and even 85 in select areas in Texas. How are you going to determine what the top speed is governed at? pick a lower limit? That is no good, then i get to a highway that has a speed liit of 80 and the best i can do is putter along at 65. Pick an upper limit? no good, this defeats the purpose - you can still speed if you happen to be driving in the right state. Tailor the governed top speed for each state? no good for several reasons.. 1) car makers would have to do specific manufacturing runs to tailor the cars to the state they are being shipped to. 2) it is ludicrous to assume that just because a car is sold in state X that it will never leave that state to go to state Y with a higher speed limit.

I have a '91 MR2 that I drive at times, at the time it was manufactured the top speed allowed on highways was 65 - now the top speed is higher depending on where you live. I am in Florida, which is still only 70 MPH top speed, but I still would not be able to even go the speed limit (and driving on I-75 you do NOT,want to be driving at 65 - it aggravates a situation that is already relatively hazardous) and if I decided to drive out west - say to parts of Texas or in Utah - I would only be able to go 15 miles BELOW the speed limit. And these speed limits are liable to all change again in the future.. I would hate to have a car that was built in the '70's or early '80's that was governed to the speed limit standard of that time (55 MPH) - Imagine a car with a top speed of 55 putzing along on a freeway out west where everyone was allowed and able to go 25 miles faster than you.

Um, you know that there is a set top speed in most production cars, right? And that there are programmers available to alter or disable it? It's just a function within the engine controller.

He'll no.

First of all no, and second they could be removed easily.

PeteEU said:

Yes and why not remove the ability of the operator to do that violation by limiting the speed? Plus then there would be no need for powerful cars that can go 200 km a hour, when 120km an hour is the max allowed.. this means less petrol consumption, fewer accidents, less hospital expenses, and so on and so on.. Win win no?

Click to expand...

There was a study I read in the Globe a few months ago those guys who rive really fast cars get in less accidents than those who go slower, also what stops people form removing them? What about race enthusiasts who race their cars on tracks? You live near Germany where that is rather popular and is also home to the autobahn.

Canell said:

Freedom doesn't mean you can do whatever the hell you want. I don't want to see cars in my mirrors driving 100+ mph like there is no one on the road. There is difference between suicide and murder.

Click to expand...

Then take back roads.

Canell said:

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?

Click to expand...

NO! Because LE wouldn't have it, and criminals would by-pass it, and once again we would be inviting just more layers of control.

Summerwind said:

Some already do have governors. Is that what you mean, or one's that will respond automatically to the speed limit of each stretch of road?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

We're not talking about governors here, we're talking about speed controllers - a totally different thing.

Those who drive too slow and are too dense to make sound decisions on the road, i.e. gauge traffic appropriately, worry me almost as much as those who are driving aggressively and too fast. Learning how to maneuver around both is key, always expecting the unexpected.

humbolt said:

Speed does kill

Click to expand...

This is what most people get wrong. Speed doesn't kill, difference in speed does.

Even though I know to expect it, I am always disheartened by the seemingly large number of individuals who have a desire to restrict the actions of complete strangers. Why do so many people fear freedom?

Here is my answer: