• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should cars have built-in speed limit?

Do you think cars should have built-in electronic speed limit

  • Yes, all cars ecxept "special" ones (police, swat, etc.)

    Votes: 11 11.5%

  • No

    Votes: 76 79.2%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 7.3%
  • Total voters
    96

I do not believe that there will ever be a truly, fully-automatic self-driving car, that can be counted on to safely and consistently get you from point A to point B without requiring some occasional human input. There will always be a need for a human being to be paying attention, and to be prepared to take over where the computer errs.

In fact, I think that any attempt at a self-driving car is always going to be more dangerous. As it is now, when you travel by car, you expect to have to be paying attention all the time. The process of driving the car keeps your attention engaged on this task. In an automated car, I think the “driver” will usually not be paying attention, and when a dangerous situation arises, that requires human correction, the driver will not be paying enough attention to provide that correction before a serious mishap occurs.
 

I'll bet that 74 Dart has a 225 slant six.
 

There has been barely a handful of Supreme Court case that directly referenced the Third Amendment in the history of the nation. It is about the worst Amendment to reference unless you're talking about the actual quartering of troops. It is referenced more often as evidence of the intent of the framers to sanctify one's right to privacy than it is the quartering of troops.

The Fourth would be satisfied by the requirement of a warrant or court order -- and don't even bring up FISA, I think that's a legal abomination.

The Fifth doesn't apply for the same reason that the government can obtain the recordings made by cameras or other devices you install in your own home, provided that they have a warrant or court order.
 

We have Bombardier so we don't need muscle cars.
 

How would a an auto-driven car handle this.

I was on a highway coming out of Lancaster. I saw a car on the other side of the highway loose control and come over to my side and just barely miss the back end of my car.

How would an auto-driven car handle a situation like this. I don't think it could, which would make it more dangerous.

I think there will always be too many variables to get this done.
 
SMTA said:
I'll bet that 74 Dart has a 225 slant six.
Click to expand...

Actually I have a 1975 Dart 2 door with the slant 6, stick on the column and air.

The 1974 is a 4 door, 318 V8, which is very rare here, auto and air.

I am trying to find an exhaust manifold for the left side of my 318 and I can't find one. It has to be from a car like mine and almost all of the cars here had the slant 6 so it is very very hard to find
 

Ah, the good old 318.

A quick internet search came up with nothing.

Might be cheaper to put a set of headers on it.
 
SMTA said:
Ah, the good old 318.

A quick internet search came up with nothing.

Might be cheaper to put a set of headers on it.
Click to expand...

I have been looking for those too. I have the same problem, they need to be for a car like mine and not a Dodge truck.

I can't have them shipped to Mexico, they are too big.
 

Wow, that sounds a lot more terrifying because it's so much easier to implement! :shock: You just need a mandatory GPS on every vehicle (old or new). Then the police will know every single speed violation! The bad news is it will also know where you are (or at least your car) at every moment, which is the scariest part. :doh

What I suggest is much less sinister, imho. Like a door stopper - it just keeps the door from slamming the wall, That's about it.
 
If you want scary, look at the permissions your aps already have. You can be voice and video recorded without your knowledge at any time. Notepad/scanner apps have permission to send their contents back to the app's author. Bank aps will snap your picture when you make a transaction. Verizon is storing my making this post (I'm using my phone's hotspot).
 
Carjosse said:
To offend their eyes and ears?
Click to expand...

Ugly? Perhaps. Certainly not sexy like an Aston Martin. But there is nothing quite so manly as the sound of ridiculous amounts of horsepower in an engine that barely idles.

European muscle is smooth, controlled, and swift. American muscle is abrupt, chaotic, and scary.

I suppose it just depends on your taste. :shrug:
 
TurtleDude said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, Turtle. Either cars should be produces as to fit the law OR the law should be made to fit cars (for example, setting different speed limits for different type of cars).
 

Leaving aside the issue of most states not having border checkpoints (California is the only state I've been in that does), all vehicle ECUs (as far as I'm aware) are locked. You can't make changes to the programming on them without the vehicle shutting down, unless you want to completely reflash the ECU software. So the programming would have to be changed so that the speed governor could be altered externally. But then you run into the problem that if it's changeable by the state authorities, anyone with an OBDII scan tool would be able to change it as well. So it would be meaningless.

Plus it would only stop speeding on the freeways. If the governor was a single limit, it would have to be set for the highway speed, so you could still do 70 in a 25, which is far more dangerous than doing 80 in a 70.
 
DVSentinel said:
Inattentive slow drivers are the real danger, not those driving at higher speeds.
Click to expand...

To be fair, some people driving at high speeds are a danger. Mostly young kids driving faster than they can handle. Occasionally it's people who're driving too fast for current weather conditions, like the idiots who think they don't need to slow down when there's snow on the road because they've got 4 wheel drive.
 

Foil-lined cell phone cases would suddenly become extremely popular.
 

Want it or not, it's coming. Cars that can drive themselves on the freeway will be here in 5 years or so. And that will just slowly expand as the technology gets better until driving manually becomes almost unheard of. I doubt it will ever get to the point of people not being allowed to drive manually though.
 

I think this is one of those statements that will look silly in a decade.
 

It is funny you should mention that.

I used to have an Escort GT. I made the mistake of moving to a snowy area.

I had to go down the highway to another town early in the morning so I was driving very slow.

As the sun was coming up, it was snowy that morning, I saw people in the center of the highway sitting on their upside down SUV waiting for tow trucks to get there.

I thought it was funny as hell.
 
I think this is already done on some cars in the EU area.

Speed controls should not be included in cars unless part of an overall automatic driving system, IMO - what if you can't go faster than 80 while a car without speed controls is attempting to run you off the road for some mad reason? Granted it's really unlikely, but...
 

None too soon - it will be quite a few years

The technology it prohibitive now
 
You slow down, pull off the road, stop, and take aim.
 
Even though I am a great believer in keeping to the speed limits and enforcing this with speed camera's and police, I do not believe that the state should have the right to do such a thing. There is a difference between enforcing the law and becoming a nanny-state/dictatorial state. If people want to voluntarily limit their car to 10 miles above the legal speed limit so that they can profit from a reduction in insurance costs, sure, no problem with that. But if someone wants to have a fast car so that he can race on track days, has a great piece of private road where he can speed all he wants or has an emergency in which he wants to get to somewhere just a bit faster (hospital, home in case of an injury of a loved one)? Who are we to limit his speed? Simply put, we don't, the government should not interfere with such minute details of a persons life.
 
No. There should not be a limit. I believe in personal responsibility.
Some have stated the limit would aid in making it safer. I believe the opposite. There are times when added speed is a good thing. Think of passing a vehicle going slightly slower than you on a two lane road. The road is clear as you pull out to start your pass. Then as you get even with the car your passing, someone pulls out into the lane your in from a side road. You can continue to pass or lock up the tires. It may not be the best example, but there are times when extra speed comes into play to aid in safety.
 
Peter King said:
I am a great believer in ... speed camera's.
Click to expand...

I am baffled. Speed does not cause accidents so why punish the act of exceeding an arbitrary number? Speeding is a victimless crime. To claim that a person who exceeds the speed limit might harm someone is akin to claiming that a person who shoots guns might harm someone. Control and intent are required for harm. Beyond that, accidents happen. But accidents happen everywhere and cannot be legislated away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…