Tony
M'hael
[F4:1256010066]
Posts: 5,172
|
Post by Tony on Feb 22, 2006 17:18:00 GMT -5
If you look at a car right now you can see that a lot of them go above 100 mph. Why? The fastest anyone can go without breaking the law is 75 mph on major highways. Letting cars go faster than that just insures that if someone gets drunk and start to drive, they can cause worse damage going 100 mph than if they went only 75 mph.
Off the top of my head I cannot think of any reasons why you should be allowed to go faster than 100 mph. You're not racing, you're not trying to beat a land speed record, and you're not following the law. Car companies should limit the speed on personal vehicles to insure that less people will break the law and damage done during accidents cannot be worsened.
|
|
|
Post by Taigikori on Feb 22, 2006 17:52:17 GMT -5
This was done in the 80's. Max any car had was around 85 I believe.
|
|
Tony
M'hael
[F4:1256010066]
Posts: 5,172
|
Post by Tony on Feb 22, 2006 17:57:16 GMT -5
Are you sure? I could have sworn I've seen newer cars that go above that.
You also have the imported cars from Japan and Europe. I think the sport Japanese cars go above 85.
I could be wrong, though.
|
|
Metzgermeister
Wilder
"Who we were is lost to all men, and life is bitter."
Posts: 100
|
Post by Metzgermeister on Feb 22, 2006 18:53:39 GMT -5
People, specifically men, like to know they have power. Besides, you never know..you might have to drive away from a nuclear explosion.
|
|
Tony
M'hael
[F4:1256010066]
Posts: 5,172
|
Post by Tony on Feb 22, 2006 19:13:06 GMT -5
And out of the millions of people that live in the U.S., how many of them will need to drive away from a nuclear explosion?
|
|
Victor
Baijan'm'hael
"...here is a strip based on the entirely fan-created homosexual tension between Flik and Viktor."
Posts: 567
|
Post by Victor on Feb 22, 2006 19:17:32 GMT -5
Assuming there actually is a nuclear explosion to drive away from, potentially quite a lot of people.
Besides, there's always emergency situations. (Because a nuclear explosion isn't an emergency situation, y'know? >_>) What if you need to get somebody to a hospital and can't call an ambulance? What if you need to flee from a person with a gun who is pursuing you?
|
|
Tony
M'hael
[F4:1256010066]
Posts: 5,172
|
Post by Tony on Feb 22, 2006 19:21:24 GMT -5
The rushing to the hospital is a good point, but again, how many people will need to do that? And how many people are going to be pursued by a person with a gun? Not a lot of people. And if all the vehicles have the restricted speed limits, than as long as you don't fuck up driving away from the guy, he won't get any closer than the moment he reached the maximum speed (assuming you are going the maximum and he doesn't take shortcuts and what have you.)
|
|
Metzgermeister
Wilder
"Who we were is lost to all men, and life is bitter."
Posts: 100
|
Post by Metzgermeister on Feb 22, 2006 19:23:18 GMT -5
And out of the millions of people that live in the U.S., how many of them will need to drive away from a nuclear explosion? Considering the state of the world these days...lots?
|
|
Victor
Baijan'm'hael
"...here is a strip based on the entirely fan-created homosexual tension between Flik and Viktor."
Posts: 567
|
Post by Victor on Feb 22, 2006 19:36:42 GMT -5
On the chase point, Tony, you have to remember stop signs or stoplights. You stop, while your pursuer is still chasing you, offering him ample time to catch up.
And as to the hospital point, why wouldn't it be common? I'm sure people go camping, or simply driving, without carrying around cell phones.
And to the "how many..." argument, how many people are stupid enough to kill themselves each year by going at such extreme speeds?
|
|
Tony
M'hael
[F4:1256010066]
Posts: 5,172
|
Post by Tony on Feb 22, 2006 19:50:31 GMT -5
#1. Speeding was a factor in 30% of the fatal crashes in 2001. #2. Excessive speed reduces a driver’s ability to respond to unexpected road hazards, and increases the distance needed for braking. It also increases the severity of a crash. #3. As of 2001 the economic cost of speeding to society has come to exceed 40 billion dollars a year! #4. It has been determined that (in the year 2002) speed, excessive land changing, following too close and running a red light were associated with 1/3rd of traffic crashes and 2/3rds of the fatal crashes. This is from: expertpages.com/news/car_accident_impact.htm
|
|
Silvion
Asha'man
Understanding is a three edged sword. Your side, their side, and the truth.
Posts: 1,059
|
Post by Silvion on Mar 1, 2006 1:48:24 GMT -5
Cars here in the Netherlands have an average topspeed of about 240 kilomteres an hour, that equals 120 miles an hour. The reason for this is that for safety reasons a car should be able to reach high speeds ( hospital, robbery etc). Also, in countries like Germany you have "Autobahns". Their is an unlimited speed limit on it. Cars like BMW and Mercedes come from Germany . The Autobahn regulation works perfectly fine. If everyone drives equally fast there is equal risk of an accident then on a normal road. The flipside however is as follows: An airbag doesn't work properly over 100 kilomteres an hour. When you crash at 240 you are always dead. So the traffic-accidents in Germany or not more then in the Netherlands for example, they have a higher death-toll though.
|
|
Kayci
Soldier
g-g-golly
Posts: 311
|
Post by Kayci on Mar 15, 2006 18:08:19 GMT -5
Yeah, I was going to mention the Germany factor too. Gotta make all cars suitable for the autobahn, didn't you know? Actually I'd contemplated the high speeds myself and never really came to any reasonable conclusions. So I don't know.
Also, I'd like to point out, if everyone in the city was driving away from a nuclear explosion, how fast your cars could go would make little difference, it'd still be a huge panicky traffic jam because no one would be able to cooperate. It's not like we're all going to go on a synchronized flee from the city.
|
|
Metzgermeister
Wilder
"Who we were is lost to all men, and life is bitter."
Posts: 100
|
Post by Metzgermeister on Mar 16, 2006 6:17:55 GMT -5
Europeans in general drive way better than everyone else. Did you know the process to get your license has you have atleast 15 hours with a tutor driving, a 50 question test and 4 hours of driving with a tester? After that, I think you can pretty much handle any situation that would arise. Also, you should see how the Germans do integration into traffic. They ALL know the zipper system, one goes, one come in, and so forth, like one big smooth zipper. This also happens for emergency vehicles. I once saw on the autobahn all the cars move evenly apart to the sides of the road (still going 240 kmh) and let an ambulance speed through, and then come together back as smooth as butter. While I'm at it: Traffic Lights. In Switzerland they have a system called the green wave, when one light turns green all the proceeding lights also turn green. That way you save gas not having to accelerate and then stop a little way on at a red light.
|
|
Tony
M'hael
[F4:1256010066]
Posts: 5,172
|
Post by Tony on Mar 16, 2006 6:53:18 GMT -5
We should have it so that after a certain age (65, for example) people have to retake their driving test and road test to ensure that they are a safe driver.
|
|
Kayci
Soldier
g-g-golly
Posts: 311
|
Post by Kayci on Mar 16, 2006 18:13:59 GMT -5
We really should. Every time I get in the car with my grandmother I just know I'm going to die. She used to be okay, but now she hardly ever signals, she cusses out everyone else that doesn't, and when she actually does remember to signal when switching lanes, she forgets to turn it off. I can't think of a discreet way to tell her that she needs to be more careful...
|
|