Why So Fast?
As you’ve probably noticed, there’s just about nowhere in the United States where you’re allowed to drive faster than 80 miles per hour. And yet cars can drive much faster than this:
And of course the reason you’re not allowed to go super-fast is that it isn’t safe. A large proportion of car accidents are related to people driving too quickly. Thus, via Ezra Klein comes Kent Sepkowitz’s suggestion that we design cars so as to make it impossible for them to drive over, say, 75 miles per hour. This seems reasonably sensible to me. Ryan Avent adds his endorsement. I don’t think I’ve yet recommended Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) which is an excellent and engagingly written introduction to a lot of good driving-related issues. Judging on my past week’s excursions, it’s also on sale at every airport in the United States which I hope/think means it’ll be getting a lot of readers.
124 Responses to “Why So Fast?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I would say you have about ZERO chance of this. Where I live in Ohio, there is a lot time spent fixing up/tuning cars.
Even if you did pass the law, it would be simple to circumvent; there is already a whole industry that will tweak the chip in your car to change the gas/air mixture, timing etc. to get more HP out of your engine. Quick change to the chip and off you go.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
This, on the day someone released a study showing that the sound of expensive (really expensive) and fast cars is a major turn on for women. Safety over sex with pretty women?
September 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Building a car with no reserve performance is just stupid, as it won’t be able to keep up with freeway speeds in all conditions.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Sure, it would take us longer to get from here to there. But thousands of deaths a year are too great a cost for so adolescent a thrill as speeding.
It’s like liberals want everyone to hate us.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Written by a guy who doesn’t drive much. There are times when you need to drive quickly, in particular to pass someone if you’re in the left-hand lane and you’ve got someone behind you. I generally don’t go much over the speed limit, but I’m glad I have the capacity to floor it if necessary.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sepkowitz seems a little dishonest with his numbers; it may be true that in 30% of auto-related deaths speeding contributed to the deadliness of the accident, but it doesn’t mean that speeding was in any way responsible for the accident in the first place. I would wager that the number of fatalities that were caused by speeding alone are more like 3%.
I’d rather see time and effort spent to reduce the number of accidents that are occurring, instead of trying to make the accidents themselves less deadly. Being maimed is better than being dead, I suppose, but I’d rather have half as many accidents each year (and hence roughly half as many deaths) than half as many deaths from the same number of accidents.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Actually, accidents are caused by differences in speed. 30 cars going 75 is less dangerous than 10 cars going 75, 10 going 65 and 10 going 55.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
As several commenters pointed out in response to Ezra, limiting maximum speed will do nothing to prevent accidents caused by speeding below that maximum, e.g. driving at 50mph on a road with a posted limit of 30mph. I strongly doubt that speeding above 75mph is responsible for more than a small fraction of speeding-related accidents.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
A car that’s limited to 75 can still go 75 in a 20 or bomb around a 35 corner at 50. Speeding is relative to the speed limit and not all those accidents happen with people going 90 on a freeway.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
September 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Seems to me the real problem is that cars engineered to run at speeds they will never actually reach tend to require design decisions that reduce efficiency at the lower speeds that people actually drive at.
Putting a mechanical or software limiter on speed would just get you a bunch of inefficient cars that, as noted, can be easily modified to remove the limitation.
It would be far better to use strictly enforced high mileage standards to push automakers to stop building cars with useless excess engine capacity, and instead to focus on producing cars that are more efficient at 75 mph.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
You’ve read the book and I haven’t, so I’m just throwing this out there… but I’ve always heard that driving fast isn’t inherently unsafe. It’s the speed difference between drivers on the road that contributes most to accidents on highways — meaning that it’s safer to match the speed of the flow of traffic than it is to fixate on 55mph. Does Vanderbilt’s book address this?
I’m not opposed to a speed cap on cars, but I’d put it around 90mph. The problem here is that there are legitimate reasons why I may want to go 80mph — on a desolate highway at sunrise, if the speed limit’s 70 and I’m passing someone, etc. To borrow a line from the geek world, you can’t take away users’ ability to do stupid things, because that’d also take away their ability to do clever things.
I feel we need to change the way we design our highways. On Interstate highways, there should be full-width shoulders on both sides, wide enough so that a motorist can change a flat tire. After that, about all we could do is minimize forced merges on highways in order to decrease “churn.” But then we’d be much better off focusing on making surface roads safer, since they’ve got far more “churn” and the added problems of intersections/cross-traffic and undivided roads.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Uhm,
I have yet to see a study that shows that speeding causes accidents. We only saw statistics that say there are a lot of accidents that happen when there is speeding. Correlation is not causation last time I checked.
Europe has higher speed limits and lower rates of accidents. So how do you argue that speeding causes accidents?
September 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
“Building a car with no reserve performance is just stupid, as it won’t be able to keep up with freeway speeds in all conditions.”
Oh bullshit. At best that justifies a max speed of 100 mph or so. An engine going to 150 or higher is just stupid.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Only after you pry my cold dead foot off my gas pedal. As someone who drives around Texas alot, passing people safely requires horsepower, and driving fast on some of the open roads is quite safe and 75 would be really restrictive. Yes, I admit when I am stuck in traffic my extra horsepower is wasted, but driving for hours it is much appreciated.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
I don’t think your commentary about driving is very well informed. As many, many people have already pointed out in these comments, sometimes it’s safer to drive 85. Sometimes, the right move to avoid an accident is accelerating. Then there’s the fact that it’s fun to drive too fast, and in many situations (an empty, straight highway), it’s not that dangerous. Liberals have this reputation for wanting to ban everything that’s fun and unsafe: smoking, drinking, shooting guns. Don’t be one those liberals.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
At best that justifies a max speed of 100 mph or so. An engine going to 150 or higher is just stupid.
Sometimes you need a car that can go really fast, like if you’re trying to capture a terrorist so you can torture him to find out how to defuse the atomic bomb before it goes off.
Therefore we need fast cars.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
It’s the speed difference between drivers on the road that contributes most to accidents on highways
Well, there’s the vector component too. But I’ll go out on a limb and say that I can’t imagine a highway accident where “speed difference” isn’t a major factor.
“Speed difference” is also a factor in fatalities resulting from falls from high places–if there wasn’t such a large “speed difference” between the faller and the ground, jumping off buildings would be much safer.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Re speed limits
Before the gas crunches of the 1970s, the State of Nevada had no speed limit at all. I recall on a trip east driving in Nevada being passed by almost every car and then observing that my speedometer read 105 mph. Ah, he good old days when real cars traveled the highways.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
… is because we haven’t worked our way up from ‘adagio’ and reached the point where we can shake our whole bodies.
.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
If everyone drove slower, you wouldn’t need to drive faster to pass them. Moreover, you almost never need to pass someone for safety’s sake. There is no honest argument for higher speed cars leading to greater safety. Maybe if we had flying cars, and lift was taken into account…
That said, the idea of governors in cars has been around for a long time, and there are many reasons why it hasn’t been implemented. Foremost among them is that people don’t want them. If you wanted a regulated (and effective) way to improve automobile safety, every car would be equipped with a breathylizer-starter. I’m neither endorsing that idea nor suggesting that it will happen, but its a better safety measure than governed engines.
There are clever ways to improve automobile safety. Narrowing lanes, roundabouts, impedences on smaller roads to prevent people from driving 80 MPH in a 30 zone like the drunk driver who plowed into my house last Monday….
Of course, you could just enforce the already existing laws, which is currently done rarely, if ever.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Matt,
It seems like you have a deep seated hatred of anything related to cars and driving.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
What you don’t seem to understand is that on certain roads in Nevada driving 85 MPH is not unsafe. On freeways that go straight on flat terrain driving fast is fine. It isn’t legal to go 85 but it probably should be.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
There are good reasons to build cars that are capable of high top speeds. An engine that is powerful enough to reach high speeds also means a car that is more responsive at lower speeds. Gearing that is tall enough to allow for high speeds also allows for low engine speeds and good fuel economy at highway speeds. Aerodynamics that allow for high speeds also reduce drag at lower speeds.
If you want to limit top speeds, the solution is an electronic governor. My car is governed to 112mph, though it would reach nearly 130mph otherwise. That’s fine with me, as I don’t have much need to go that fast. The Nissan GT-R sold in Japan has a governor limiting top speed to 180kph. However, when the GPS detects that the car is at a racetrack, the car is de-restricted. It’s a fairly elegant solution.
That said, I don’t think that even high speeds are dangerous, given the right conditions, vehicle, and driver. I would prefer to make driver education better and licensing tests much harder.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
As I said chez Ezra, ensuring that people can drive safely at highway speeds before they hand out licenses might be just a bit of a start, if you please.
The German learning process is famously long (and expensive) but it does make provision for extended training on long drives that cover winding two-lane roads and dual carriageways. In Florida, you can just drive around the parking lot and walk away with a license.
To pick up on what others have said: having a car where you can accelerate between, say, 60 and 80mph with a degree of responsiveness — the classic ‘drop down to fourth gear’ passing situation in a five-gear manual — is an useful safety provision. I’ve driven in underpowered cars that get asthma attacks at 65, and that’s not safe on a road with a 70mph limit.
I feel we need to change the way we design our highways.
I’ll agree here. Compare the typical interstate to the Autobahn/Autoroute/Motorway, and you have a crazy system. Or, no system at all. Exits on the left as well as the right. Constantly changing speed limits. Four-lane traffic with no restrictions on which lane trucks can drive, so you’ll see (speed-limited) semis playing NASCAR side-by-side.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Has Matt ever met a pointless nanny-state for-your-own-good regulation he didn’t immediately want to give a big ol’ bear hug to?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Awful, awful. I would hope that this is tongue-in-cheek, but I remember a post along these lines a few months ago (limiting horsepower).
September 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
If everyone drove slower, you wouldn’t need to drive faster to pass them. Moreover, you almost never need to pass someone for safety’s sake.
Oh, bullshit. Let’s say you’re driving on a two-way rural highway, one lane in either direction, 55 mph limit. The semi in front of you is doing 50. You pull into the passing lane, but there’s a car approaching you head-on 1/8 of a mile away. You really think 55 mph is the safe speed in that situation?
Echoing what all the other commentors have said (differential causes accidents, east-coast/non-driver bias, suggestions like these are why people hate liberals, driving fast is fun and often quite safe), I just wanna add that the reason we have high-end speed limits is to conserve gas, not safety. Shouldn’t “the market” take care of that, oh neo-liberal pal o’ mine?
September 8th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
JonH wrote:
Here we go again. The point that speeding is relative has been made by many other commentators so far, but there is the false dichotomy between efficiency and power that pops up on this blog from time to time. A more efficient engine is necessarily a more powerful engine all things being equal, that’s basic physics. There are two things that can be done as engines become more efficient, one is to keep making engines of the same capacity which means the more efficient engine will produce more power with the end result that a vehicle powered by that engine will be able to go faster, or use a smaller engine with the newer more efficient technology to keep the power output equivalent. For a variety of reasons the former is the usually the choice made, although not always, Volkswagen for one is offering newer models in the same price class that have smaller, more efficient engines and thus roughly the same overall power as their outgoing models.
Aside from the ignorance of physical reality that statements about increased power meaning decreased efficiency, mandating a top speed capacity for vehicles is as naive as Sarah Palin’s attempt to censor library books. Automobiles are used under a variety of circumstances, from the relatively easy transportation of a single commuter to work, to hauling an obese family of five while towing a camper over the Rockies on a family vacation road trip. A vehicle incapable of exceeding 75mph in the first case may be incapable of handling the latter, admittedly rarer case, and since people buy cars with the expectation of filling a variety of needs with one vehicle the sales success of an underpowered automobile is guaranteed to be limited at best. Other countries generally take a less naive approach to making consumers consider less powerful automobiles. Japan is probably the most successful, by simply taxing large capacity engines severely. Germany has a more modest social compromise wherein manufacturers electronically limit the top speed of their cars in exchange for no draconian Japanese style limits. The movement in the ’80s to make speedometers ding whenever they registered more than 55mph is similar in spirit, but much less effective than the German compromise.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Oh, and fuck you for making me agree with Mixner. The end.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
If everyone drove slower, you wouldn’t need to drive faster to pass them. Moreover, you almost never need to pass someone for safety’s sake. There is no honest argument for higher speed cars leading to greater safety.
I don’t think anyone has argued that higher driving speeds in general would improve safety. The argument is that higher driving speeds on certain kinds of road, in particular interstates/freeways, would not necessarily reduce safety. The accident rate on German autobahns, which have only an advisory speed limit, appears to be lower than the accident rate on U.S. interstates.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Matt, please stop commenting on automobiles. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Oh, bullshit. Let’s say you’re driving on a two-way rural highway, one lane in either direction, 55 mph limit. The semi in front of you is doing 50. You pull into the passing lane, but there’s a car approaching you head-on 1/8 of a mile away. You really think 55 mph is the safe speed in that situation?
—-
Or you could just fucking wait for it to be safe to pass. Or you could just deal with going 50 MPH, since my argument was entirely about safety. So get off your high ass and get over yourself already.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I think this sentence:
A large proportion of car accidents are related to people driving too quickly.
Was supposed to read
A large proportion of car accidents are related to people driving.
More cars + more miles traveled = more accidents. Less cars + less miles traveled = less accidents.
Now, if you wanted to argue that the severity of the accident is tied into the absolute speed, then that would be correct. The amount of energy released in a collision goes up with the square of velocity (roughly), so a 60 mph crash is 4 times as energetic as a 30 mph crash. But as far as I can tell, the impact of absolute speed on the number of accidents is smallish.
In fact, a first-cut statistical study would likely show the opposite effect. Freeways with high speeds have low numbers of accidents, and freeways with low speeds have high accidents. But it’s likely that low speed freeways are low speed because of high occupancy (traffic) and vice versa, so really its travel demand and occupancy that’s driving both speeds and accidents.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Political non-starter. The only reason libertarians remain a fringe movement in this country is because they know they can generally get away with breaking the laws they feel like breaking (assuming they are white, of course). Remember when Dukakis tried to make an issue of better IRS enforcement? What rational person could be against that? Well, Bush Sr. said the IRS agent would be in your kitchen, and that’s what stuck. Large numbers of people simply do not consider cheating on their taxes, or speeding, immoral and they can live with laws against these things as long as they can continue to actually do them.
One of the little hypocrisies that make life possible in a diverse nation.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
As everyone has pointed out this idea is dumb on the merits and suicidal on the politics.
Limiting max speed only really effects highway driving. Highways were engineered to be driven faster than current speed limits. I speed probably over 90% of the time I drive on highways. I think this is pretty typical. The fact that 40% of fatal accidents involve speeding tells us very little. This proposal would, however, be monumentally unpopular.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
We’ve already covered this ground once before, during the Carter Administration. Remember 85 mph speedometers? It was a good example of a penny ante, manini safety regulation whose utility was, IMHO, outweighed by the degree it unnecessarily pissed off a percentage of voters with visions of the Nanny State micro-managing everything.
My daily driver could do 130, but I’ll never go anywhere near that, unless I find myself crossing Montana and get REALLY bored. But, put a speed governor on the thing, and chop the speedo, and the limitation would be on my mind whenever I drove. Which party did this to me?
I think there are better things to spend political capital on.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Probably should point out why we can’t do the Autobahn here in America….
That said I easily do 100 going through South Dakota on my way to Des Moines on I29. There is literally nothing there. Even I35 from Minneapolis to Des Moines has more interesting stuff.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
For those who think that driving 70 mph does not require a car with the power go 110 mph, I say you are clearly flatlanders. My much beloved 1989 Honda Civic (RIP) once upon a time hit 125 mph (we were young and stupid and it was a really straight, really empty stretch of road). This same car struggled to maintain 60 mph with two people in the car driving uphill the mountains on I-77 in WV. So, a car that only had the power to go 70 mph in the flats is likely to be worthless driving uphill.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
But I’ve always heard that driving fast isn’t inherently unsafe.
Who from? People like the people on this thread, ex recto?
There are two reasons why fast driving is intrinsically dangerous: the driver has to react faster if anything happens, and the impact is much greater if there’s a crash. (A car driving 80 mph is driving 33% faster than one at 60 mph, but the impact is not linear — it’s much, more more than 1/3 greater, and I wish I knew the math.
There are cultural reasons why Matt’s suggestion is unrealistic — as manifested by the virtual unanimity on the thread, where not a single person noted the simple facts I just mentioned. These facts aren’t enough to decide the question in themselves, but they at least need to be recognized.
People like to drive fast and are willing to take risks when they do so. The story’s there.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I’m not interested in the debate over what percent of accidents are related to excessively high speeds. What I am interested in is how an absolute limit on top speed at a mechanical level would affect car design. If the government forbade cars to be able to go faster than, say 80mph on flat, straight road with no other significant environmental factors, how would that change car design and cost? Is our desire, unconcious or concious, for cars which are at least capable of high speeds negatively impacting certain other aspects of the car’s design? I’m openly not a car expert, so if anyone’s got good answers, I’d love to hear it.
And just as an aside, if you’re in a two lane highway and you want to pass a car going five miles below the speed limit, you wait until there aren’t any cars coming in the oncoming lane or until any oncoming cars are far enough away that they don’t require you to go excessively fast to complete your pass. If something or someone jumped out into the road while you’re attempting to pass a semi at extremely high speeds with cars coming in the oncoming lane you could very well cause a huge, fatal wreck. “More convenient” does not mean “safest.”
September 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
So, a car that only had the power to go 70 mph in the flats is likely to be worthless driving uphill.
You are confused. It is definitely possible to design a control system that would not let you pass above 70 mph even if the amount of power that the engine is capable of generating on the flat surface is much more than what is required for this speed. Of course people may try to tinker and override the limit, but most people won’t.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
They key to improving safety is not speed restrictions, but technology. The safety of cars and driving have improved dramatically since cars first became available. The basic design of vehicles has changed to provide better protection to the passenger cabin in the event of a crash. Seatbelts are now universal, and air bags and ABS brakes increasingly common. Increased automation will provide further dramatic improvements in safety. Volvo thinks it will be able to build an injury-proof car by 2020.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
One day you’re going to be pursued by a car full of professional killers or Godzilla or have 20 minutes to get to a hospital 40 miles away. On that day, my friend, you’ll be glad your speedometer says you can go 120 mph.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Well Jim, I suppose the hill problem probably militates us away from my idea of cars which are mechanically unable to go over X speed on flat terrain and pushes us towards chips which regulate maximum speed. So, you car would be able to achieve 75mph on a hill but as you reached the top of the hill the chip would regulate your engine so you stayed at 75mph. Others have said that this would be rather simply overcome by modifications, but such a device would be law, right? Tampering with your regulator, which I’m imagining is checked on a regular basis like pollution control systems, would be punishable by some kind of fine deemed steep enough to discourage modification.
This all seems to politically unpopular that I don’t think we’d get anything like it if we were stupid enough to try, but it also strikes me as one of those areas where people are in love with something that is clearly dangerous and which costs the country in both lives and dollars. Just because people people like driving fast doesn’t make it something that’s good.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I rented a van a few years ago for an interstate move, and it was equipped with a speed “governor” which would not allow me to go faster than some low amount of speed (I think 55 mph). I outfoxed them though and drove in reverse for the whole trip, which I’ve heard is actually safer than driving forward.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Or you could just fucking wait for it to be safe to pass.
Fuck it, I’m bored. Let’s play:
Let’s say the semi is 48 feet long. You’re following at a safe distance, universally agreed to be 2 seconds. 50 mph is approximately 73.3 ft/sec. So you’re 146.6 feet behind. You need to get to that same safe distance before you re-enter that lane. So 146.6 + 48 + 146.6 = 341.2 feet to cover.
You pass at 55 mph, a 5 mph differential. 5 mph is approximately 7.33 ft/sec. To gain that 341.2 feet, you need 46.5 seconds.
Under what conditions is it safe to spend over 45 seconds heading the wrong way onto incoming traffic? Bare roads?
So get off your high ass and get over yourself already.
Homie, I’m not the one advocating modification of other people’s behavior. Check yourself, please.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
*into oncoming, haha! Maybe we all need to check ourselves.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Dude, I don’t think you could even win city-wide election in NYC favoring crap like this. Move to Singapore.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Volvo thinks it will be able to build an injury-proof car by 2020.
Unless everyone buys this car, I think this would make driving less safe, not more.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
John Emerson,
There are two reasons why fast driving is intrinsically dangerous: the driver has to react faster if anything happens, and the impact is much greater if there’s a crash.
On that argument, high-speed rail is also “intrinsically dangerous” for those same reasons.
But it’s a stupid argument. All else being equal, a collision at a higher speed is likely to cause greater injury than a collision at a lower speed. But all else is not equal, and you cannot gauge the degree of “danger” simply by considering absolute speed. With respect to driving in particular, as others have noted the degree of variation in speed between the vehicles sharing the road may be a greater contributor to the risk of injury among their occupants than their average speed. The larger the variation in speed, the more passing and lane-changing is likely to occur, and the higher the risk of collisions as a result of those maneuvers.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
You win the thread for the Little Einsteins reference (we’re apparently the only parents of young kids here or something).
As far as the topic goes — no offense or anything, but this is a clinically stupid idea. Just. Plain. Dumb.
Others have already pointed out that it’s the difference in the speeds people drive that cause more accidents, not just sheer speed itself.
But the real problems with American drivers (myself included at times) are actually:
1. Few people pay attention — Many are talking on a cell phone, changing a CD, putting on makeup, etc. They just don’t watch what’s around them.
2. Few people care — Many more just don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves and think they own the road; thus, they don’t let others merge, cut folks off, or zoom ahead in a lane they know is closed in order to get a whopping two cars further ahead in line. This causes most of the accidents I see each week.
3. Fewer driver’s education classes in high school — Districts all over the nation have scaled back or eliminated driver’s education. This leads to few people who actually know the rules, and a decline in good driving habits from an early age. This should change.
4. We see driving as a right, not a privilege — Too many people think they have a Constitutional right to drive however the hell they want. If we had laws that were more harsh to remind people of this fact, perhaps some folks would chill the hell out. Just look at Britain, where they’ll yank a license in a hearbeat. We should do the same.
These are just four reasons off the top of my head, and all would be easier to fix than installing a governor on every car sold in America.
But I guess if one had barely driven, one would think that forcing everyone to slow down would fix the problem when, in reality, it’d cause even more problems.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Unless everyone buys this car, I think this would make driving less safe, not more.
Well, don’t keep us in suspense. Why do you think that?
I’m guessing that your argument would be that the drivers of such cars would be more likely to drive recklessly and thus increase the risk of injury to others. That may be true to some extent. But the same argument could be made about any new safety feature — seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, etc. I believe there is some evidence for this effect, but it is much smaller than the improvement in safety attributable to the new feature.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
One of the most striking changes in the American highway over the past 40 years has been how much faster people drive in much more congested traffic, but driving is actually safer than it used to be.
When the freeways were first built, there were a fair number of drivers who wouldn’t go over 50. Not a bad choice, really, because in those days American cars had a tendency to fall apart or just veer off the road at high speeds.
Back then, you really needed to be able to pass. A truck doing 50 on the flat would slow to 25 on any kind of a hill, and you might be needing to go 20 or 30 miles on two-lane road behind him if you couldn’t pass. Today, most ‘civilian’ drivers don’t actually keep up with the big rigs and tandem dumps.
I’m guessing that most of the bloggers endorsing this ’speed limit under your hood’ idea don’t even own cars. Irony- it’s not dead, just resting.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Mixner,
Yeah, exactly. I see this a lot with SUVs, in particular.
I believe there is some evidence for this effect, but it is much smaller than the improvement in safety attributable to the new feature.
Not gonna belabor the point, but I think it would depend on the ratio of cars with/without this feature, as well as the types of driver these cars would be distributed to. Adding this safety feature to Camaros, for example, would likely be a very bad thing.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
This sounds like an idea that would be soooooo unpopular it would take liberals generations to recover from it.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
There are two reasons why fast driving is intrinsically dangerous: the driver has to react faster if anything happens,
Fair enough, but the chances of something untoward happening are determined by a variety of factors, of which velocity is only one. Doing 50mph around a ninety degree corner on a residential street on a rainy day then swerving to avoid a child in the road has a higher chance of a loss of control and damage than having 2 miles of visibility on an empty straight Nevada highway while doing 100mph.
and the impact is much greater if there’s a crash. (A car driving 80 mph is driving 33% faster than one at 60 mph, but the impact is not linear — it’s much, more more than 1/3 greater, and I wish I knew the math.
Also true, but you have to hit something first. In many parts of the American West the most likely thing that would happen should you go off the highway is you’ll rumble through some scrub brush before coming to a stop. At more modest velocities in a city you can hit pedestrians, telephone poles and buildings.
As for the math, kinetic energy goes as 1/2*m*v^2, m is mass, v is velocity. So at 33% greater v you have energy 1/2*m*(1.33*v)^2 which is about 1.77 times greater.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Deutschland Uber Alles!
September 8th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Matt, why do you hate America? You’re the kind of liberal that brought us 30 years of conservatism.
Maybe we should take most of the alcohol out of beer too? Or criminalize ribs, boobs and doughnuts?
You seem to know almost nothing about the country in which you live. I think you should quit your job and spend a couple of year criss-crossing this country to get a clue. Since you dislike cars, you might have to ride your skateboard or walk on your hands. But get out there man!
Maybe in some alternative Yglesias universe, Americans spend their weekends going to NASBIKE or NASTRAIN rallies. Bit it just ain’t happening in the real world.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
scythia,
Do you think it was wrong to introduce seatbelts, airbags, ABS brakes, etc., on the grounds that drivers of vehicles equipped with those safety features drove more recklessly and therby increased the risk of harm to others?
September 8th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
More evidence that new yorkers who use their passport as their primary ID, rather than a drivers license, should consider refraining from bloging on driving.
Or, you could decide to blog in favor of my proposed amendment to the Constitution excluding driving the speed limit in the left lane from the ban on cruel and unusual punishments.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Repost from EK. The problem isn’t the cars, it’s the roads. If the roads feel safe to drive at 90 (as a six lane divided highway with 13′ lanes does) people will drive at 90. You want slower traffic? Then make roads feel less safe (fewer signs, tighter lanes, no shoulders).
- g
September 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Then make roads feel less safe (fewer signs, tighter lanes, no shoulders).
Why stop there? Why not have some big rocks, huge ass potholes, downed trees, maybe some lose electric cables sprinkled along the way? Not sure it would necessarily make roads safer but it would sure as hell make them more fun!
September 8th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Mixner: No, you’re stupid!
I mentioned two factors which no one else had mentioned, and I specifically said that these weren’t the only two factors. Yes, if there are differences between the speeds of different vehicles on the road, that’s dangerous. But the faster the two vehicles are going, the more dangerous it is. Apples and oranges.
And yes, high-speed rail is intrinsically dangerous — it takes forever for trains to stop even at moderate speeds. You have to keep people off the track. As for the impact, though, the size of the train tends to buffer the impact much more than a car would.
This is one of the stupidest threads I’ve seen on Matt’s site, and that’s saying something. It’s like a tobacco and cancer discussion among smokers. Yes, there are lots of factors that cause accidents, but speed is one of them. (High speed is also an enormous factor increasing gas consumption).
I agreed already that Americans, like many other people, like to travel fast and are willing to take their chances. I should have added that not only are they willing to take their chances, they’re also want to ignore the risks.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
This subject always produces entertaining threads.
As everyone else has pointed out, this would be political suicide. The 55 MPH speed limit rated highly in the liberal nanny-state demonology of the Reagan Revolution, and it led to collective civil disobedience on a scale that dwarfed even Prohibition. Most states rolled speed limits back to 70, or even higher, as soon as they had the opportunity. Because people like to drive fast.
It’s also true that anything which reduces horsepower is going to adversely affect performance at lower speeds when going uphill or merging onto a freeway. I’m sure it’s technically possible to put a speed governor on a car that feeds back from the speedometer to cut rpm if and only if the car is travelling at or above 80 MPH, but any such governor would surely be easy to tamper with. Most states don’t have mandatory inspections, so the law would be effectively unenforceable.
That said, most of the rationalizations in this thread for why it’s safe to drive fast are pretty much just self-serving bullshit. There are situations where it’s safer for an individual to drive 70 than to drive 55, but these situations only exist when everyone else is driving at an unnecessarily high speed. Let’s be frank. Restrictions against driving fast are not a violation of our individual liberty. We don’t oppose speed limits because we believe it’s safe to drive fast. We oppose speed limits because we’re impatient, we like fast cars, and we act childish and immature when experts tell us to change our behavior for our own good even when (or especially when) they’re right.
Hell, I’d vote against this proposal, too. But let’s not kid ourselves about WHY it’s a bad idea.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
John Emerson,
It is not just about being impatient. You also have to take into account that if everyone drove slower, it will take them more time to get to their destination (duh). What is less obvious is that this will also increase the number of cars on the road at any given time. Simply put, slower roads will reduce the number of people that can effectively move along them. And, of course, everything else being equal, getting to where you are going sooner rather than later is a good thing.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
That was to LaFollette Progressive, not John Emerson.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
John Emerson,
Mixner: No, you’re stupid!
You’re a moron.
I mentioned two factors which no one else had mentioned, and I specifically said that these weren’t the only two factors.
You specifically said that “fast driving is intrinsically dangerous” because of those two factors. And as I said in response, that claim is stupid. Absolute speed alone is not a meaningful indicator of “danger” with respect to either car travel or other modes of transportation. The fact that accident fatality rates on interstates and freeways are much lower than rates on slower types of road, not to mention the fact that flying is both the highest-speed and safest form of transportation, demonstrates the stupidity of assuming that higher speed implies greater “danger.”
Both speed and “danger” (risk) are a continuum anyway, not discrete characteristics, so “fast driving” and “inherently dangerous” are not terribly meaningful categories to begin with.
And yes, high-speed rail is intrinsically dangerous
Hey Matt, do you agree with John Emerson that high-speed rail is intrinsically dangerous?
September 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Follette,
We don’t oppose speed limits because we believe it’s safe to drive fast. We oppose speed limits because we’re impatient, we like fast cars, and we act childish and immature when experts tell us to change our behavior for our own good even when (or especially when) they’re right.
Speak for yourself. I doubt that most Americans oppose speed limits, period. What people seem oppose is speed limits they consider to be unjustifiably low. Even where reducing the speed limit would produce a benefit in terms of fewer accidents, it would obviously also incur a cost in terms of increased travel time. If the speed limit on all urban roads were reduced to 10mph, the accident rate might well fall significantly, but that obviously doesn’t mean the benefit from fewer accidents would be worth the cost from longer travel times.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Ditto to whoever up there said f you for making me agree with Mixner.
There are plenty of highways out there with design speeds above 70 mph. You might know this if you drove out here in the West, or, like, drove at all. Here in L.A. I was doing 85 mph on the 210 once and was passed by a highway patrolman with nary a glance.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
An engine that won’t propel a car more than 75 mph also probably won’t propel the car from 0 to 20 fast enough to safely make a left turn from a stop sign onto a road with heavy traffic, a not untypical experience for the 80-some percent of Americans who drive outside of big cities.
Matt, since you’re candid enough to say you don’t know squat about things you don’t know about (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), why do clueless postings about driving?
September 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
To be fair to Matt, there are other ways to limit a car’s speed other than reducing the engine’s horsepower. For example, install a device that shuts down gas flow after the car has reached some threshold speed.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Speed is the 5th leading cause of accidents. The amount of effort spent on speed limit enforcement is not logical, as a safety measure. It is however enforceable. You can’t force or enforce driver attention. Sometimes you can spot a drunk who isn’t speeding. Poor driving skills cannot usually be identified much less punished, until after a accident and often not then. You can’t stop the rain snow or fog.
Speed enforcement is intended to catch drunk drivers as much as just speeders, setting aside revenue motivations.
Mechanically limiting speed to 75 would have very little impact on traffic fatalities. It would have some.
98 Honda Civic HX 115hp
02 Kawasaki ZZR1200 150hp
September 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Matthew,
Please, please, please join the Obama campaign as a transportation policy expert.
Sincerely,
John McCain and Sarah Palin
(Slightly OT, but I miss the days when the limit in Montana was no specific speed, but rather “Reasonable and Prudent”. No traffic, dry roads, daytime light, and I was comfortable going 90. In fact, the Montana Supreme Court overturned a speeding conviction of someone going 85.)
September 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I am sorry Matt, but this has got to be the dumbest post I ve ever read from you.
Speed limits are not there for safety. They re there for fuel economy.
There’s no conclusive proof that speed kills. There’s a lot of circumstantial evidence by concerned trolls.
And of course the policy proposal espoused here is unrealistic; a source of ridicule for decades to come were it someone to propose it.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I’m willing to consider the idea that 30% of traffic deaths are caused by driving too fast for conditions, but that’s not the same as saying they’re caused by driving over some (usually arbitrarily and politically decided) speed limit. In addition, a governor limiting speed to, say, 75 mph would, I’m guessing, be addressing the smallest part of the problem. It would potentially slow down drivers on Interstate highways in daytime (about the safest form of driving there is), and do nothing about the morons who drive 70 through a rainstorm or 60 on a snow-covered highway or 65 on a winding two-lane road with traffic entering from the sides.
And no, limiting horsepower to limit top speeds would be a terribly bad idea. The amount of power that would limit top speeds to 75 wouldn’t allow enough power to accelerate to highway speeds by the end of a normal-length entrance ramp. If you want dangerous, a bunch of cars trying to merge into 70 mph traffic while going 45 or 50 would be just the ticket. If you think I’m joking, try driving an average mid-70’s car. These cars had top speeds probably around 85-90, and were dangerously slow at accelerating onto freeways.
As MS points out, it would be trivially easy to design a governor. Cars these days generally have rev limiters to reduce the possibility of blowing up the engines from over-revving. It wouldn’t be too tough to vary the rev limits based on the gear the car is in and the revs that would equate to 75 mph in that gear, but as I say it would be spending money to address the smallest part of the problem.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
A large proportion of car accidents are related to people driving too quickly.
Careful there, Matt. 30% of accidents being related to speeding does not say anything about the speed the cars were going. I could speed down the university lane here, bowling for undergrads, doing lots of harm, and fail to break 50 mph. ‘Too fast for road conditions’ can mean going 35 in a 25 zone on a rainy night around a bend.
So you can’t just assume that capping the speed limit at 75 would reduce accidents by a large percentage.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I’d hate to have to rush my pregnant wife to the hospital in a car that only reaches 70.
Or, outrun a tornado.
I drive through the Mojave desert at least a few times a year. I generally go about 100mph, and there’s noone in sight for hour after hour.
Patently stupid idea, unblogworthy.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
As far as I am concerned, speed limits are in place as a funding mechanism for police.
- g
September 8th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
You also have to take into account that if everyone drove slower, it will take them more time to get to their destination (duh).
Over time they’d arrange their lives to travel less far, the same way they’re already doing as gas prices rise. That would be a good thing, over and above the fact that by travelling slower, they’d use less gas per mile travelled. Double savings.
You’re a moron
Neener neener, Mixner. All other things being equal, faster driving is intrinsically more dangerous than slower driving, which is what I said. You won’t understand, but I may be able to communicate with others here.
What people seem oppose is speed limits they consider to be unjustifiably low.
That tells us a hell of a lot lot.
As I said, Americans like to be able to drive fast, because of all the tornados and terrorists they have to outrun.
Matt did a good job of stirring up the anthill.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
John Emerson,
Over time they’d arrange their lives to travel less far, the same way they’re already doing as gas prices rise. That would be a good thing,over and above the fact that by travelling slower, they’d use less gas per mile travelled. Double savings.
The authoritarian arrogance of the left is never far from the surface. You’re not in a position to tell other people that rearranging their lives to reduce their amount of travel and travel more slowly would be “a good thing.”
All other things being equal, faster driving is intrinsically more dangerous than slower driving, which is what I said.
No, that’s not what you said. What you said was: “There are two reasons why fast driving is intrinsically dangerous: the driver has to react faster if anything happens, and the impact is much greater if there’s a crash.” That claim is stupid for the reasons I explained.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
The authoritarian arrogance of the left is never far from the surface.
Easy, buddy. No side has the monopoly on stupid ideas like this one. If they can figure out a way to make a ton of money on it, or get votes from rural rubes, hard-coded speed limits in cars will be a central plank in the Republican platform.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
You’re not in a position to tell other people that rearranging their lives to reduce their amount of travel and travel more slowly would be “a good thing.”
My job, on the other hand, is to tell other people that living in sprawling hell is the fricking American dream, and that smelly people within ten feet are a blight on my existence. So there.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Speak for yourself. I doubt that most Americans oppose speed limits, period. What people seem oppose is speed limits they consider to be unjustifiably low. Even where reducing the speed limit would produce a benefit in terms of fewer accidents, it would obviously also incur a cost in terms of increased travel time. If the speed limit on all urban roads were reduced to 10mph, the accident rate might well fall significantly, but that obviously doesn’t mean the benefit from fewer accidents would be worth the cost from longer travel times.
Somebody is too enthralled with cost-benefit utilitarianism here.
Safety is generally considered a more important value than efficiency, you know.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:28 am
Somebody is too enthralled with cost-benefit utilitarianism here. Safety is generally considered a more important value than efficiency, you know.
Somebody here doesn’t seem to know that “benefit” doesn’t mean the same thing as “efficiency,” or that safety is a type of benefit.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Oh my lord, this would be a horrible idea.
Plays into every “nanny-state” meme the Repubs can throw out.
Tickets for people going more than 20 mph over the limit should be very harsh, but governors on cars — no thanks.
And when we’re all driving plug-in hybrids in 10 years, this idea will seem really quaint.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:51 am
jeez, no wonder why normal people hate liberals.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:05 am
I’m kinda embarrassed to even be commenting on something so grotesquely brainless.
Having spent more than a few hours cruising around at 120-145mph quite safely, I have to wonder Mr Yglesias has ever even driven a car.
Now, mind you, with the third-world road quality and highly uneven standard of driving that obtains in most of the US that wouldn’t be practical here, but the notion that we should have a 75mph speed limiter is something right out of the Dark Ages that were the Carter era.
I haven’t read Mr Vanderbilt’s book but what I’ve seen in reviews sounds pretty thin.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:16 am
It may not be legal to drive over 80 MPH in many places in the US, but there are quite a few places where everyone does this and no one is arrested for it (interstates 5 and 15 between San Diego and LA come to mind for me).
September 9th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Just FWIW, many cars do actually do have governors limiting their top speed. It’s usually still pretty fast (110 mph+ plus), but they are there.
Although in some cases, they can be gotten around simply by setting the gauges to metric (that worked on ’90s eras Fords)
September 9th, 2008 at 2:24 am
JeremyR – many vehicles have speed limiters to restrict the top speed of the vehicle to the maximum speed rating of the tires originally sold with the car.
Some vehicles have other mechanical limitations – such as ’90s Thunderbirds and Lincoln Mark VIIIs where Ford cheaped out and used a one-piece driveshaft, the vehicle’s speed is limited to some ridiculously low number (108mph?) due to driveshaft whip issues.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:42 am
As someone who drives regularly and for long distances on the Autobahn, and who has in the past driven regularly and for long distances on the US Interstate System, I have to disagree with the idea that US highways are somehow inferior. They are not. There are certainly irregularities, but the same is true of the Autobahn. Every factor you describe above (constantly changing speed limits, places where trucks jockey for position, etc.) exists on the German highway system. Frankly, driving on the Autobahn was something of a letdown for me the first time I did it: I was expecting something extraordinary, with broad lanes and perfect roads with vehicle whisking along at brisk 100 mph+ speeds. The reality is, it looks pretty much like the US Interstate system, with strange-looking signage, automated speed cameras, and an 80 mph speed limit along much of its length (50-60 in when going through cities, and an absurd 30 when going through work zones).
September 9th, 2008 at 2:42 am
One is wrong to assume that an increase in speed causes more accidents. This has been proven a fallacy in numerous studies.
If such a law were enacted, there would be rampant re-chipping of cars. Porsche speed governed my Boxster S to 155 mph. So far, I haven’t had the need to exceed that, but should the need ever occur, It’s an easy modification.
September 9th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Matt,
This is the 1st time I’ve visted a “Think Progress” site. If this is the kind of “thinking” “progressives” spend their time on I “think” “progressives” are wasting a whole lot of time “thinking”.
Here’s one my old man told me when I was a young tike. Question: “What is the opposite of progress?”
Answer: “Congress”
If you have any sharp knives in the house I suggest you safely dispose of them. I worry you may hurt yourself with one.
Also, don’t run with scissors.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Is this blog sponsored by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety? That corporate nanny state institute that imposes more and more requirements on drivers to increase auto insurance industry profits. Pretty soon our children will be in booster seat until they can drive themselves.
I’m a very liberal guy and that includes loving fast cars. I’m very much against limiting max speed.
I’m also against raising the driving age to 17 from 16.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
80: OK, Mixner, you’re a rightwing ideologue, living in an imaginary world in which government never tries to influence people’s behavior. Gotcha. I imagine that you’re a libertarian except when you’re an authoritarian, because these days that’s the way wingers swing.
My original statement was correct, and my restatement (motivated by your imbecile attempt to spread confusion) was also correct. All other things being equal, the faster you drive, the more dangerous it is. You’ll never understand that, much less admit it, but I’m speaking to the others here. (By the way, do you think that smoking causes cancer? What about second hand smoke? Global warming? Evolution?)
September 9th, 2008 at 10:20 am
I’ve always had this crazy idea. If you were to permit greater speeds on the interstates, might people drive more slowly everywhere else? It’s probably a pipe dream.
I’ve recently made much more of an effort to drive the posted speed limit, with the exception of the highway. I drive in a lot of areas with parallel parked cars and residential areas, so that’s not an unreasonable chance I’m going to have to avoid a ball or small child (or moronic adult) dashing out in front of me. I came to the realization that speeding in these areas doesn’t get me anywhere more quickly, and I’m greatly increasing my chances of seriously hurting somebody.
On the highway, exceeding the speed limit actually can impact how quickly I get somewhere, and with much less additional risk than speeding in crowded urban/suburban areas. I’d really like to see more enforcement of speeding/red light running on surface streets, while rising speed limits on the highways.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
The reason speed limits are set the way they are – highway speed limits, anyway – isn’t even so much to promote safety as to promote a passive fuel economy. Why is drafting such a big deal in NASCAR? Because the cars are going fast enough that wind resistance takes a huge bite out of gas mileage, so having a lead car bear most of the brunt can save significant amounts.
DOT data suggests that your average car has fuel economy fall off sharply after about 55 or 60 MPH, just on account of wind resistance. 5% per 5 above 60, pretty much.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:06 am
This seems reasonably sensible to me.
Speak for yourself. It would probably make sense to raise the limit to 80-85 on many rural interstates. Cars are a lot safer than they used to be and are capable of safely traveling at higher speeds. That’s something the car companies primarily did that on their own.
Anyways, as has been mentioned, it’s not speed that’s usually the problem, but speed differential.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Seig Heil!
September 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Resolved: Matt’s idea is totally asinine, unworkable in a free society, faintly fascistic, and evidence of an out-of-touch elitist.
Good work, Matt
September 9th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
It’s really official: Yglesias is an imbecile.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Even if one accepts your dubious assertion that speed = death with no mitigating factors, what would give you the right to tell auto makers that they have to limit their cars’ ability to go over your arbitrary threshold?
September 9th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I used to read Matt years ago, and even then he was clearly a naive individual. Fast forward years later, and he appears to have cemented his legacy as an imbecile.
Is this what Ivy league schools are churning out? If so, I know of Community College students who have a greater grasp of reasoning than Matt does.
What a totally ridiculous idea. More importantly, as has been stated repeatedly, there is no clear connection between speed alone, and increased deaths.
This is why Liberal thought is mocked by the average American. It’s so often out of touch with basic reality that it instills fear in those who are presented with it. Where do the proposed regulations stop? We’re talking about an obvious slippery slope here.
And no, I’m not a Republican, although I play one on TV.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
This is why Liberal thought is mocked by the average American.
I’d just like to point out for the record that a lot of the rest of us criticizing Matt for this dumb idea are also liberals.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
And by both Libertarian, and Republican standards, I’m a Liberal too. However, I find the Liberal fetish for regulations grotesque, which is why I’m a registered Independent.
All parties have important discussions, but that’s about it.
There are sensible Liberals, and there are the cartoon types that are obsessed with safety over liberty. It’s pathological.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:14 am
It isn’t going over 75 that is causing so many accidents. It is going too fast for the road you are on. Most of these aren’t highway accidents but thruway accidents inside of city limits. Going 50 in a 25 mph zone is much more dangerous than going 75 in a 55, or even 100 in a 75. Your statistics aren’t clear enough. What is the posted speed limit in the majority of speed related deaths? I’ll bet they aren’t on open highways with a 75mph.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Motorcycles have electronic governors already, at least some of them do. They don’t kick in ’till high speed, though. I think one BMW and a Kawasaki were limited to 130 0r 140 mph.
Both of these bikes were insanely fast up to that point. Electronic limiters have nothing to do with the rest of engine design. Make a 600 horse mustang and you could limit it to 85 mph. Stupid, but easily do-able.
That said, the utility of these governors would be limited by the existence of what is know as the “aftermarket.” This is where folks go to buy performance parts, such as exhaust systems and re-mapped EFI/engine management chips. So now we would have a freeway system where all the old cars are faster, all the new fast cars’ limiters are defeated, and a smattering of late model mini-vans and sedans can’t go fast. Same old problem of speed differentials.
Also, when folks who know little and understand less about internal combustion culture try to regulate it, hilarity often ensues. Aprilia made a big bad super bike, and it ran OK. Then word was leaked that you had to cut these two wires to defeat some emissions device, and bingo! amazing performance. So they built the bike to pass, but made darn sure the wires were easy to get to. Some bikes have had similar easy-defeat features. Can’t you just see the little governor chip,with the big red arrow saying “disconnect here” and “for off-road use only.”
Another unworkable attempt to regulate behavior. Keep trying.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I think enforcing high mileage standards is the only politically palatable way to go or just have a national gas tax that is really huge. Obviously, neither a gas tax or a speed limiter in cars is a political starter. It took decades to get rid of home assault weapons. If people want to drive fast, though, why not follow the Germans and adopt their licensing strategy. Half of Americans will not be able to pass the test and will be off the road….that is a guarantee!!! Do you realize how many early Alzheimer patients continue to drive? The other half will get out of the left lane when they are driving 80 so the BMWs and Porsches can move at 140. Since half of Americans will be off the road in buses we will save a ton of gas.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
And I’ll confess…..I’ve had my BMW up to 150 on the autobahn and I have driven a CBR right up to 140…..what a rush and a sure death if anything went wrong………but I would love a national gas tax of ten dollars per gallon and a German style licensing system.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Astoundingly, appallingly, incredibly stupid. For all the reasons listed above, and some in the comments I didn’t read (109 is just too many).
So, let’s make the governor tamper-proof. Not really possible, but we can make it a criminal offense. And then we’ll add GPS, so we can adjust the governor based on the road — 75 on the highway outside of Bakersfield, 55 on the beltway, 25 in suburbs, 5 in parking lots.
And then, when somebody notes that if we lower all those numbers just a little we can save still more lives, or limit injury, or save fuel, or something else, we can then lower those numbers. Because what politician is going to come out for killing 16 kids a year instead of lowering the enforced speed limit by 5 mph?
But you know, what we should really do is not let the car move at all unless there’s at least four people in it. Eight, if it’s an SUV. And then we should limit it to the manufacturer’s stated optimum for safety and efficiency. Then we could save lives, eliminate global warming, and ensure a bright, happy future for all.
(*) and don’t give me “what if there’s an emergency?” You call for the appropriate emergency response unit, of course.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
panthan, I note that you don’t raise any objections to requiring road-legal cars to use unleaded gasoline. Why is that?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Tailgaiting and/or following too closely is a major, if not THE major cause of accidents. What we need is a magnetic car separator. It’s as good an idea as speed regulators
September 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Best reason why this should never be implemented — the government has no right to do so. Instead of adding more and more layers of traffic laws, the roads should be completely privatized and any regulation should be left to the new owners.
September 11th, 2008 at 6:19 am
You’ve obviously never had to drive mountains regularly. That power that can be used to make a car go 120 is absolutely necessary to get a car to 55 or 60 up a steep hill.
September 12th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Lord, save from the liberal nanny-statits! Would you douchenozzles kindly quit telling the rest of us how to live? I’m sick of your drivle infecting every aspect of life STFU, already.
February 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pm
What is captcha code?, pls provide me captcha code codes or plugin, Thanks in advance.
March 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:49 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:49 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 6:31 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra