Almost always, if a car speeds past me when I’m doing the speed limit, maybe slightly more, that car is a BMW, Mecedes, Sports car of some discription etc. Occassionally, not a top end car. So the manufacturers, the marketers, the buyers are all aware that people buy these cars because they go fast. In fact, they are all aware that the majority of people who buy them are going to break the law as far as speed limits go. So, if speed kills, why are we allowing cars that are made to speed (that’s standard road cars) to be manufactured? Is this revenue generation at the cost of lives?
I don’t know the answer but I have a few close friends who own exotic high end cars and who trust me enough to let me borrow them.
It’s one thing to drive an SUV to the grocery store. It’s quite another to experience the rush of a precision engineered single purpose sports car that responds precisely to your every input.
If you have a passion for driving and speed, the purpose of why they make those kinds of cars is self evident.
Does speed kill?
Why are we allowing incompetent morons to drive? Is this petty political vote-grabbing at the cost of lives?
Why do we allow drivers to be distracted by radios, CD-players, mobile phones, billboards and so on? Is this revenue generation at the cost of lives?
You probably have a fair point, and in some countries cars do indeed have speed limiters (in germany they are limited to 155mph). However I’m pretty sure that the speed capability of cars is a pretty tiny factor in the overall road death discussion, to the point where it really doesn’t feature much in the debate.
Nope. It’s the sudden stop at the end.
That’s odd. I drive well over the speed limit quite often and I drive a Pontiac. I also get passed by Toyotas, Volkswagons, and cars of every other model and make.
The reason that cars are sold that will go over 100 miles per hour?
Because cars that can’t go that fast won’t sell as well as cars that can.
Back in high school a friend’s mother asked him why he was working so hard to make his Camero go faster (he bored the engine, added a Holly carb, etc) since the speed limit was 55. Sure, he replied, but he wanted to get there as quickly as possible.
I haven’t got time to find the stats to back up the arguement, but I’m pretty sure that most road death is due to speeding - so, compared with other causes of road death, yes, speed does kill.
I understand the arguements for having a precision instrument designed for speed, however, it has been specifically designed to break the law.
Every car I have ever had has been perfectly capable of going well over 100 and I am pretty sure most cars can. My BMW did have a speed limited in it that used to kick in at 118 MPH. That thing used to piss me off.
When you are elected, what is the top speed of the speed limiter proposed to be?
BTW, there are private tracks and roads where people can drive as fast as they want legally. Their Ferrari could never reach 65 except on track weekends for all you know.
That doesn’t mean it has to be used to break the law. The speedometer in some cars made between the imposition of the US 55 mph national speed limit and it’s repeal had spedometers that only went to 85, yet it was (and mostly still is) illegal to go 85. So what’s the point of THOSE cars? By your definition they are specifically designed to break the law. The same cars have sufficient horsepower to cross the median and drive into oncoming traffic, doesn’t mean you HAVE to do it.
I have friends who drive their cars on the track, at very silly speeds, completely legally. You can go as fast as you want as long as you aren’t on public roads.
Really? I was under the impression that the link between absolute speed of traffic and road deaths was debateable, at best. Otherwise Germany would have a population of about 17 by now.
This PDF (warning) lists speed as a contributing factor in 40% of all fatal crashes, but that’s all tangled up with other factors such as drinking, having testicles, being under 40, and all sorts of other things. Even though they use a quite conservative measure of ‘speeding’ I’d be very surprised if it was in reality a cause of ‘most’ road death.
Yes, but that’s why I said, manufacturers and marketers know that the people who buy their cars are buying them because they go very fast.
Perhaps they are buying them because they can go from zero to 35 or 40 or even maybe 55 mph in something less than two whole days, though.
Also, perhaps they are buying them because these cars also usually have superior suspensions and are enginered so as to be responsive to the driver’s input.
(I understand that my use of the term “driver” automatically eliminates 85% of the folk in the USA from consideration, but what are you gonna do until we have real driving tests here?)
Do you really believe that their ability to go very fast is not a consideration for buying them?
Here in my part of PA, usually it is an SUV or a pickup - and god help us - tractor trailors. All of these passed me at ungodly speeds today. It doesn’t have to be sports cars. The only solution would be to make sure that none of the cars can go over the speed limit.
So let me see… if you limit all cars to say, 70mph, what’s going to stop people from doing 40mph in a 25mph zone?
Is alcohol another conspiracy. I mean, there are rules about it’s consumption when driving. Is alcohol sales a conspiracy as well?
Cigarettes and Big Macs? Big health industry conspiracy to generate revenue for doctors and pharmaceuticals?
Yeah, but I think it is fairly obvious that the higher the speed the more carnage you produce if an accident occurs.
So what’s your solution? Back to horse and buggy? Walk everywhere?
Why are you trying to create a huge problem where only a minor one exists. Everyone drives a car capable of speeds near or above 100 mph. An overwhelming majority drives at or damned close to the speed limit. It’s been stated that carnage can occure when a tired driver falls asleep and veers into head on traffic at or below posted speed limits. A drunk drive can cause similar problems. So can a person distracted by a cell phone while driving.
What point are you trying to make? Cars are dangerous? Sure. There’s a calculated risk associated. There is also a tremendous benefit that far outweighs the risk by a very significantly large margin.
How much convenience and personal freedom are you willing to give up to mitigate marginal risk?
And again… where is the conspiracy?
And just exactly how many people do you see on a daily basis doing 150? Me, not very many. Not any to tell the truth. I don’t think in my entire driving lifetime I’ve seen a single car doing 150 on a public highway.