Do cars made for the general public really need to go so fast?

[Leo123]

Democrats think everyone is a reckless driver and a murderous “gun nut.”

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I have been in three different situations where quick acceleration kept me from being in an accident.
Two could have been serious.

 

[Missourian]

And those caught were punished according to the law.

So you think millions of unnecessary deaths at the hands of morons is better then
Got it.

If some irresponsible knuclehead won't buy a car because it won't do 190mph in a 70mph zone then LET THEM WALK.
Thanks for your input.

Sounds like a gun control argument.

Because some people can't be trusted... everyone is punished.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you have ever drove a commercial rental that had a governor on it - you would know why.
It sucked. And to my knowledge, they no longer use them.
Today, many cars have optional governors... including Tesla.

Almost all commercial vehicles and most cars have speed limiters. Most of Ryder's fleet is limited to 65MPH.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I have been in three different situations where quick acceleration kept me from being in an accident.
Two could have been serious.

Same here. A lot of people asked me if I REALLY needed a motorbike that could do 130 mph. I told them that its nice to know i have the acceleration and torque when I needed it, even if I wasn't going to be racing all the time. Matter of fact, there was a situation in Durango CO where that power and acceleration kept me from ending up as a hood ornament on a soccer mom van. Was damn glad I had it when I needed it.

Do I break the speed limit? Usually not but I will keep up with other traffic. Do I need to do 130 mph? No and I usually keep it only 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit but it was nice to know the power was there if needed.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Corvettes (190mph)
Mustang 5.0 (175mph)
1000HP street cars (200mph+)
Teslas (Plaid...9.2 1/4 mile) (175mph)
And there is a plethora of BMW, Ford, GM, Lexus, Nissan etc cars that can easily top 150mph.

WHY ?????

If you really think about it, if our politicians were really concerned about public safety then why allow cars that can exceed posted speed limits by 2x or even 3x ?
Isn't that doing nothing more than putting everyone else at risk?

Can anyone justify why ANY regular passenger vehicle operated on public roads NEEDS to be capable of exceeding the posted speed limits by so much?
Limiting vehicles maximum top speed to say, 10 mph over the posted speed limit (for passing only) would likelt save millions of lives over time. Disagree? WHY?

Police chases often see violent perps in getaway vehicles weaving and bobbing recklessly in and out of traffic at speeds often exceeding 100mph.
Why not limit vehicles to 10mph over the posted speed limits?

Does anyone have a legitimate argument against limiting non-emergency vehicles in this manner?
Is it really your "Right" to be able to exceed the posted speed limit by dangerous amounts?
Driving is not a Right, it is a privilege. As such, no one has the right to put others in danger due to their recklessness.
Your desire to have "Fun" should not ever supersede the safety of everyone else for a privilege. EVER.
I see idiots barrelling down neighborhood streets at 50, 60 and sometimes 70 or more in posted 30MPH zones. WTF ??
What if children are playing?
The Number ONE cause of traffic injuries and death is excessive speed.
I'm sick of imbeciles and their ability to put everyone else at risk over something that could easily be fixed.

Imagine how much safer we ALL would be if idiots were not able to go 100, 150, 200+ on PUBLIC roads and highways or run from the Police.
What possible reasonable argument could be made against this?
This could EASILY be achieved through onboard computer chips. You could still have cars that could accelerate to posted speed limits faster than others for those whose egos need constant stroking. But there is no "need" to go faster.
Then if someone is caught exceeding the posted speed limits by more than 10mph, make it LAW that the vehicle is confiscated and sold and the funds go to families of victims of speeders or to highway and road infrastructure programs.

Only first responder and emergency vehicles should be allowed to go over the speed limit.

Doesn't this just make common sense?
I suppose politicians are too busy accepting gifts from the car manufacturers to give a flying flip about sensible public safety issues.
Want to go fast? Go to the frickin race track.
An NO...this does not extend to Constitutional RIGHTS.

If the US government was concerned with public safety, ignore cars, they would have amended the 2A for starters.

The max speed in the UK is 70 mph on a motorway, so no need for cars to be manufactured to exceed that. If you have sufficient sized private land to go faster on, then you need a faster car than 70 mph. If you live in Germany, there are no speed limits on certain roads.

The technology is there to install GPS speed limiters in cars.

The alternative is, as technology in cars (i.e. EV's) appears, the car should only start when the insurance from the insurance company is sent to the car via wi-fi. Then drive as fast, brake hard, corner hard, as you want. The black box picks this up, feeds back to the insurance company and the premiums increase. As the monthly premiums increase, the driver might think, "WTF", and slow down. But, the cost coming down should be 10 times slower than what it went up by. Say Joe Bloggs pays £50 per month. Speed etc.. over a couple of years means he needs to pay £500 per month. Then he wouldn't get back to £50 a month for 20 years, Joe's fault.

If you want to make things happen, go via the pocket. Also, would you trust someone in your car on your insurance to wreck your premiums!!

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Chicken shit post. The “Does anybody really need …” argument will swallow all of our rights and liberties.

 

[my2¢]

I never thought about the speed itself, but for quite a while have thought speedometers should top out at 90mph.