Should cars have built-in speed limit?

joko104 said:

I have driven over 100 mph many times and my wife does so routinely. Yet neither of us have been in any accident while speeding and she's never been in an accident at all. How is that possible?!

Click to expand...

Dumb luck.

Phys251 said:

What's the answer to people driving as fast as they feel like through residential neighborhoods? Or urban streets?

Click to expand...

I would refer you back to the Shared Space concept. While there certainly would be a few individuals who would drive recklessly (just as there are people who continue to murder), I think most people would drive at reasonable speeds for the area. In fact, top speeds would have a tendency to decline in most cases because cross traffic would have just as much right-of-way as you. Thus, people would drive a little more slowly in order to yield to crossing traffic which enters an intersection prior to you.

Phys251 said:

Then would you suggest legalizing murder under certain circumstances?

Click to expand...

Murder has been – and will continue to be – one of the most widely acknowledged crimes against humanity. Status of legal or illegal is simply a codification of the underlying social custom. I’m not entirely convinced that the presence of a law making murder illegal changes the attitudes of people with regards to the act. Law or no law, murder is morally and ethically reprehensible.

joko104 said:

How is that possible?!

Click to expand...

Black magic!

Speaking of the wolf...


Wouldn't it be good if that vehicle had speed limiter? :roll:

Canell said:

Speaking of the wolf...

Wouldn't it be good if that vehicle had speed limiter? :roll:

Click to expand...

That's really sad. Though wrong-way driving is pretty rare, it poses a serious risk of life to anyone on that road at the time. I wonder if transportation departments could install those "severe tire damage" devices that enforce one-way driving, every couple of miles:


They're usually bumpy to drive over, but that's nothing that a simple design improvement couldn't fix.

TNAR said:

I would refer you back to the Shared Space concept. While there certainly would be a few individuals who would drive recklessly (just as there are people who continue to murder), I think most people would drive at reasonable speeds for the area. In fact, top speeds would have a tendency to decline in most cases because cross traffic would have just as much right-of-way as you. Thus, people would drive a little more slowly in order to yield to crossing traffic which enters an intersection prior to you.

Click to expand...

Not around here, they wouldn't. You ever seen how insane Georgia drivers are when traffic lights go out?

Murder has been – and will continue to be – one of the most widely acknowledged crimes against humanity. Status of legal or illegal is simply a codification of the underlying social custom. I’m not entirely convinced that the presence of a law making murder illegal changes the attitudes of people with regards to the act. Law or no law, murder is morally and ethically reprehensible.

Click to expand...

Duels used to be legal, or at least, socially acceptable. People treat reckless drivers with considerably less scorn than they treat violent criminals, even though both endanger many human lives.

Just laws form a part of a social contract, whereby individuals give up some of their freedoms in exchange for safety from the elements, from other people, and from each other. One of the single most difficult questions to answer is where that freedom-vs.-safety equilibrium lies--and contrary to what some may say, that is NOT a false choice. I think that's one reason Europe has such law-abiding citizens: They feel that the laws are decided by their rightfully elected people, and thus most of the time, they try to obey those laws. For example, I was in London many years ago and watched an ambulance try to get through one of those narrow one-way streets. No way, I thought to myself, is he getting through any time soon. But I was proven wrong. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE CAR in its way pulled over WITHOUT HESITATION. None of this "I gotta beat the traffic light" or "Why can't he just go in the left lane" crap. No. They pulled over. They gave up a miniscule amount of their personal liberty so that someone that they didn't even know could potentially increase his or her odds of surviving that day. And once the ambulance was gone, they proceeded on their way. See, that kind of attitude is the balance that I want our citizens to desire. Would it really kill us on crowded, urban streets to obey the traffic laws? Is it not true that if people were to choose to all drive 35 mph on an urban street instead of 45 mph, then all other factors being equal, the average stopping distance would decrease? That the rapid change in kinetic energy upon impact would be much less? I think so.

But what about people who feel like they could safely fast here? Again, as I've said before, I'm much more open to this line of reasoning out on the open road and much less so in town. If someone hates their commute because of all the traffic, then they should consider moving closer to their place of work. Why? Because every additional mile you travel creates a little extra strain on the road and, past a certain threshold, on other drivers.

Here's the short version of what I think should be done about speeds. Note that these are general numbers and are subject to exceptions, particularly on windy and hilly roads.

-30 mph on side streets in town and residential streets
-40 mph on urban main streets
-50-60 mph on suburban, multi-lane highways
-60 mph on in-town freeways and rural, two-lane highways
-70 mph on rural, four-lane highways
-85 mph on rural freeways

Also have "no slowpoke" rules, where the speed limit and minimum speed on multi-lane highways are one and the same in the left lane.

One other thing while we're here: Get rid of most stop signs. About 90% of them are unnecessary and could be replaced by a yield sign. Yield signs still require a YIELDING of all right-of-way to anyone in the way.

Should cars have built-in supermodels?

NoC_T said:

Should cars have built-in supermodels?

Click to expand...

I think that goes without saying.

Phys251 said:

I was in London many years ago and watched an ambulance try to get through one of those narrow one-way streets. No way, I thought to myself, is he getting through any time soon. But I was proven wrong. Why? Because EVERY SINGLE CAR in its way pulled over WITHOUT HESITATION.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that this is an example of social norms rather than any particular desire to adhere to law. I witnessed a very similar thing on the Autobahn many years ago. Prior to any emergency vehicles showing up at all, everyone simply pulled to the outside and created a virtual lane in the center of the road which was eventually used by emergency vehicles. However (and this is a very big however), the drivers in general were very cognizant of the lack of a speed limit and, thus, the need to be responsible for one's driving. As a rule, everyone stayed in the right lane without regard to how quickly they were traveling except to pass another vehicle. It is commonplace in the United States to see dozens upon dozens of self-righteous assholes back up traffic for miles because they are "going the speed limit." From my perspective, much more danger is caused by these jerks than someone in a Ferrari doing 120.

Phys251 said:

One other thing while we're here: Get rid of most stop signs. About 90% of them are unnecessary and could be replaced by a yield sign. Yield signs still require a YIELDING of all right-of-way to anyone in the way.

Click to expand...

We're almost in agreement here. I say get rid of all signs and treat every intersection as a yield.

TNAR said:

I would suggest that this is an example of social norms rather than any particular desire to adhere to law. I witnessed a very similar thing on the Autobahn many years ago. Prior to any emergency vehicles showing up at all, everyone simply pulled to the outside and created a virtual lane in the center of the road which was eventually used by emergency vehicles. However (and this is a very big however), the drivers in general were very cognizant of the lack of a speed limit and, thus, the need to be responsible for one's driving. As a rule, everyone stayed in the right lane without regard to how quickly they were traveling except to pass another vehicle. It is commonplace in the United States to see dozens upon dozens of self-righteous assholes back up traffic for miles because they are "going the speed limit." From my perspective, much more danger is caused by these jerks than someone in a Ferrari doing 120.

Click to expand...

Ain't it the truth!!! *disgust*

TNAR said:

We're almost in agreement here. I say get rid of all signs and treat every intersection as a yield.

Click to expand...

Most people don't know how to stop correctly, anyway. I don't know about getting rid of all the stop signs, though. There are many intersections where stopping is the only safe way to negotiate the intersection. Driver's, especially driver's unfamiliar with those intersections, need to be aware of that.