You shouldn't be driving over 100 MPH-and your car shouldn't let you

https://www.fastcompany.com/90985257/you-shouldnt-be-driving-over-100-mph-and-your-car-shouldnt-let-you

by kayfox • 3 years ago

45 131 3 years ago

kayfox• 3 years ago

This is interesting, but if not done well it could have considerable safety and security implications:

1. If the databases are not kept up to date well, there would be a lag when highway authorities change the speed limit in an area, which could lead to traffic traveling at mixed speeds, which is a common cause of car crashes.

2. For an attacker this presents a juicy and new DoS vector: You could break into an automaker and set the speed limit to something low and hold the automaker's customers hostage. This vector already exists for automakers who do OTAs of their vehicles.

3. The above DoS vector could be more subtly used to target individual vehicles in furtherance of other crimes.

4. Theres also the unanswered question of road cars which are also used in various types of races. A friend of mine uses her primary car in rally races, would the restrictions be lifted on private property? Would the databases be updated properly when a public road is used as a race circuit?

nullindividual7• 3 years ago

What happens when the vehicle leaves the US?

What happens when GPS provides an erroneous location or cannot contact satellites?

LewisVerstappen• 3 years ago

What happens when overzealous bureaucrats want to extend this to other areas?

(Convicts must have cars monitored, You pay an extra carbon tax if the GPS tracker sees you drove over 40 miles in a single day, yada yada)

free_bip• 3 years ago

I'd be far less charitable and say that even if it's done well (Which let's be real, it wouldn't), it would still be useless in preventing reckless speeding. You could simply disable one or both of the internet / GPS connections and the car would function as normal ("oh no! My GPS module recieved some water damage, how inconvenient!").

The article also links to a ford article that claims "Speed limit signs may be a thing of the past", as if they plan to enforce having every single car in the US to be made post 2024 and have a mandatory always on internet DRM determining exactly how fast you're allowed to go. Ridiculous idea.

RaceWon2• 3 years ago

If that is in the snow, with 4 winter tires then yes, I tend to agree.

RaceWon2• 3 years ago

I really have driven that fast on snow covered roads. I also attended most of the formula car racing schools in the US and One in Canada, I also have extensive skid pad and slidecar training and experience I have numerous wins in both dry and rain and I have beaten professional racing instructors... I was also offered a professional racing contract. So for me that was safe to do.

konstancja2• 3 years ago

I'll drive my car however fast I want on track day, thanks

coffeecloud• 3 years ago

Cool, park it at the track.

cooper_ganglia• 3 years ago

"No, thank you."

progman32• 3 years ago

Curious to hear your reasoning why.

lll-o-lll2• 3 years ago

What? What is the problem with having a daily ride you take to the track on weekends?

Personally, I have no interest in this, but I know plenty of people who do. I don’t know many people that want more government intervention over what they can and can’t do.

nullindividual7• 3 years ago

Plenty of Civics, Subarus, et. al. that are dual purpose.

konstancja2• 3 years ago

Why would I park my daily driver at the track, I can't afford two cars

Or is track day only for the rich?

choppaface• 3 years ago

155mph should be enough for anybody https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2006/12/by-thy-speed-limit...

quantified• 3 years ago

Don't limit the top speed of my 3.5L turbo V-8. Give me a choice of the 1.4L engine that won't make 90 on flat ground

mattlondon5• 3 years ago

In ye olden days of the late 90s a 60bhp 1.0l little could get up to just over 100 on flat ground, and about 110 going down hill on a motorway.

I did not like the feeling of being in that sort of car when being driven at those speeds!

readthenotes1• 3 years ago

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Just because you shouldn't doesn't mean you always shouldn't.

imgabe5• 3 years ago

Webpages should not show autoplaying video ads and your browser shouldn’t let them.

lwhalen4• 3 years ago

Oh they want to install a geo-locating tracking device in my car 'for the children'. Haha, how about not only 'no', but 'hell no'. I'd rather die free than live 'safe'.

esoterica9• 3 years ago

You realize the government already does not recognize your freedom to drive at 100mph right? They will ticket you or throw in prison if they catch you. A speed limiter doesn't further restrict your freedoms, it just increases enforcement of existing restrictions on your freedoms.

WalterBright5• 3 years ago

If I'm faced with:

1. obey the law and crash

2. break the law and not crash

I choose option 2.

For example, if a kid darts into the road, and I can miss him by swerving into the oncoming lane (if it is clear).

seanp2k23• 3 years ago

Ageee when Google, who has been in the maps and software game much longer and with many billions more invested than any car company, can’t even tell that I’m on US101 on the HOV ramp and not on a surface street under the highway for that ramp where that Tesla driver using Autopilot fatally crashed into the barrier in Mountain View ( https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY18FH011.aspx ). When I drive there, Google Maps via CarPlay consistently tells me to make a U-turn, not knowing where I am, as if it doesn’t have access to accelerometers or speed data or vehicle heading information such that it could reasonably conclude instead that the GPS is a bit inaccurate and/or there are multiple ramps in an area and without reliable elevation data, the vehicle could be in a couple of different spots, so go with the most likely guess of “the vehicle did NOT jump over the barrier while traveling 65mph+ and end up on a surface street (supported by accelerometer and compass data) and is just on another ramp”. It blows my mind that they’ve had this bug for at least a decade. I actually keep a list of Google Maps bugs that they could fix and have been thinking of applying there specifically to go fix them, since somehow everyone else at Google seems unwilling or unable to address these for reasons that I can only assume are ~corporate complacency.

rkuodys2• 3 years ago

Interesting that instead of addressing real problem - incompetence in driving, is solved by making world slower instead of forcing to learn to drive. In Germany it normal to drive way faster and noone has any problems

Gibbon1• 3 years ago

I think the problem is someone has a 'technology' they want the government to force people to pay for.

hn_throwaway_993• 3 years ago

What I would give for an eyeroll emoji. Yeah, I'm sure that the story outlined in the article of a guy that killed 9 people in a single accident while on PCP and cocaine could have been avoided if he just had a few more drivers' ed courses...

TheFattestNinja• 3 years ago

I agree with your comment but otoh would a guy on pcp no be just as deadly at 90 mph?

If we doing this we should rather do automated reaction speed/sobriety tests. Had a friend almost die bc he drove the day after being drunk bc he fell asleep from being sleep deprived even if he was "sober" by then

mattlondon5• 3 years ago

People regularly drive way faster than 100mph through towns and through junctions at red lights and everyone is fine? I doubt it.

Doing over 100 on the motorway/highway/autobahn is a totally different proposition.

devjab• 3 years ago

I think it’s a weird issue. On one hand the governments probably shouldn’t do this, on the other hand we had 1902 vehicles permanently confiscated by our government between 1. April 2001 and 20. March 2023 for our “Insane Driving” (vanvidsbilisme) law here in Denmark, so it would also sort of make sense to find a limit a little above our maximum speed limit.

In one “hilarious” case some Norwegian rich guy went to Germany to buy a Lamborghini (or maybe it was some other super car, but I think it was a Lamborghini) and then proceeded to drive through Denmark at 100 km/h above the highest speed limit we have. Then got caught and lost his brand new car before he reached the ferry to Norway.

Of course a maximum speed limit in your car also wouldn’t solve the most dangerous of these cases. Since they occur when people drive more than 100 km/h through cities, and since our speed limit on the highways goes up to 130 km/h a car limit would probably need to be around 140-150 km/h. I’m Which wouldn’t solve the dangerous driving in cities at all. So unless you can regulate the top speed by location, it won’t save that many lives.

It would be sort of cool if you could regulate car top speed by location, but I’m not sure that’s really feasible. I think it’s far more likely that we’ll do it through mass surveillance. We’re already doing that with the diesel cars that are now illegal in certain city zones, where you’ll automatically get a ticket when your plate is registered by the city surveillance cameras. Once they can monitor speed, and the legalisation moves forward we’ll absolutely start doing this with speeding drivers. I’m not really a fan of the increased surveillance, but it’s not really like it’s going to stop.

fragmede• 3 years ago

It would be sort of cool if you could regulate car top speed by location,

They do that in Japan on the GTR, where the top speed limiter is removed when you're flying down the track.

https://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/22/nissan-gt-r-recognizes-t....

anarazel• 3 years ago

Getting a driver's license in Germany costs well over an order of magnitude more than in the US and takes quite a few weeks. And speed limits are much more enforced in the Germany compared to the US.

esoterica9• 3 years ago

Do you think Germans get to drive at 100mph on city streets? They have speed limits too where necessary.

jnsaff2• 3 years ago

In Germany it's also controversial.

There is car manufacturers and petrol heads lobby to not touch the unrestricted speed limits on the autobahn but there are also people who lobby for sensible speed limits as most people drive at about the speed a speed limit would be at anyway (120-130km/h) and the added energy used at speed along with dangerous situations coming from very high speed deltas are not good. A truck is always going to be 90-100 km/h and when a thrill seeker whizzes past them at 250 then the reaction time available and potential energy is killer.

rasz• 3 years ago

So "dangerous" Autobahns are right in the middle of the pack suggesting speed limits have nothing to do with it https://www.statista.com/chart/25098/fatality-rate-and-speed...

adapiz3• 3 years ago

You could lock it away so people start messing with their cars to unlock it again. Yes. I wish people would realize how dangerous it is to be so much faster than the adjacent lane.

Already__Taken• 3 years ago

people only drive 120/130 now because that's what seems right. have this conversation 50 years ago and 60/70km/h seems right. oops we'll never increase it and now everyone speeds anywhere because there's clearly no research put into it. trucks are limited purely on economics €/kmh we do not want the industry racing to use more fuel.

OrderlyTiamat• 3 years ago

In Germany the speed limit is frequently much lower that that, and driving faster than about 80 mph (130 kmph, called richtgeschwindigkeit) incurs increased liability even on the autobahn without any speed limits.

In my experience not many drivers cruise at speeds of 100 mph (160 kmph). The richtgeschwindigkeit is much more common.

adapiz3• 3 years ago

I see that, too. It's not even 130 km/h it's often between 100 and 130 km/h. Depending on the speed limit, traffic, lanes available and routing I would say that there are about 5-10% of cars that go faster and maybe 20% that want to go faster but cannot because of traffic. I would agree with a general speed limit of 160 km/h. If you drive around conurbation area "Ruhrpott" you rarely have the chance or aren't allowed to go faster than 100 km/h. Personally I've set my car to alarm me on 200 km/h, just to remind me, that I'm about to do something stupid. When someone is with me, they are also alarmed because it's the usual cockpit beep that tells you, something important popped up like engine failure or tire pressure. I once drove a Ford Focus with an electrical speed limit of 160 km/h in place because it was a company car. But because of this I ended up in a dangerous situation where I was overtaking a slower car that started accelerating. With enough engine power I could accelerate faster up to the point where the limit kicked in and we were at the same speed. As usually I've monitored the situation behind me and I've noticed that there were faster cars approaching. In conclusion I was mislead by the engine to have enough power to handle the situation with ease but the electric limit just cut it of. My foot said: There's more available, but the car suddenly locked it away. Stupid situation. yes. In driving school they teach not to accelerate when someone is overtaking you. Of course this rule changes a bit on the Autobahn, but in this case, speculative driving forced the cars behind me to hit the brakes which is weird when you think that everything will be fine because the slower car just accelerates and overtakes. Stopping the maneuver of all sudden and let the car on the right lane pass you again is is the worst outcome for everyone behind you.

That's why I suggest to not limit the car's acceleration curve so the driver notices that the engine is on its limit. Rather I would implement an audible signal at 160 km/h and a repeating signal for over 190 km/h. Because to be honest: It's rarely possible to drive that fast for just a minute. I would also suggest to get these street legal racing machines like Audi RS-models off the road. There's absolutely no sane use for such overpowered cars on public roads. And finally: Company cars should be limited or regulated in some way. Most aggressive and fast drivers seem to be representatives. They don't pay the high prices for fuel and don't care about wear of the car (especially brakes).

rkuodys2• 3 years ago

Well that's kind of my point. People opt for what is right rather what is maximum allowed

sumuyuda• 3 years ago

Yeah that’s not true in Berlin. There are regular crashes where people race through the city and end up killing people.

seanp2k23• 3 years ago

Also interesting that the first paragraph cites 103mph as the speed in a deadly accident. Would 3mph have made a difference here?

Volvo already limits top speed to 112mph in all their models since 2021 https://www.goodwood.com/grr/road/news/2020/5/does-volvos-ne....

Then there’s the time-honored tradition of car mods and the legacy / grandfathering problem. Plenty of cars out there today can hit 160mph or more easily, even pretty modest vehicles like a V6 Honda Accord. Is a 6000# Tesla limited to 100mph much safer than an Accord that weighs a little more than half as much going 160?

It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but the problem is much bigger than what limiting vmax on new vehicles will solve. 100mph is still many tons of force depending on vehicle weight, very much enough to do a lot of damage. Politicians love fixing the easy problem instead of addressing the cultural issues at play here in our society. Listen for how many cat-less exhausts you hear in California as evidence of how effective CARB and inspections have been. Again, it’s not that it’s a bad idea, just that there are too many ways around it and too much will to avoid the law. The best laws are the ones people want to follow. How do we steer society to a place where reckless driving isn’t so appealing?

torstenvl• 3 years ago

I get really mad about stuff like this, because it's so easy for bureaucrats to unilaterally decide that utilitarianism should trump deontology when that isn't how human morality works at all.

Things like this kill people and agency officials justify it to themselves with the comforting thought that it's okay because it's fewer people than would have died otherwise, never stopping to appreciate the difference between throwing the switch between trolley tracks and pushing a fat kid in front of the trolley.

mattlondon5• 3 years ago

How would preventing cars from going over 100mph kill people?

injeolmi_love• 3 years ago

Emergency situations. For instance someone has a stroke, no ambulance, and driving to hospital. Happens frequently in rural areas.

WalterBright5• 3 years ago

Your friend is bleeding out in the passenger seat and you're taking him to the ER.

avalys• 3 years ago

One of the world’s most advanced economies has a huge highway network where a substantial fraction of has no upper speed limit. Fuck off with this nanny state bullshit.

Arainach2• 3 years ago

Those countries have much stricter requirements to obtain and maintain a driver's license and much higher penalties when the laws are broken.

015a3• 3 years ago

This effort feels like another example of the government's desire to push law enforcement into the private sector. Mandate speed limiters > car companies have to pay for it > cars get more expensive > consumers have to pay for it. That's been the USG's go-to for years now, and its frankly unsustainable.

California has issued 3,000 speeding tickets to drivers going over 100mph, per month. Do these people still have their license? Why?

I think there's so many perverse incentives in speeding tickets that its hard to have an objective discussion about it. Speeding tickets represent a massive portion of county budgets in rural areas of the country; they're not going to be happy automating that income away. Its also interesting to think about how this impacts punishment today; they can't make the punishment too high, because then their revenue is impacted. Nationally, we can't set punishments at levels which actually impact behavior because we're too dependent on cars, and removing peoples' access to them is, reasonably, a cruel punishment.

oivey3• 3 years ago

Almost certainly adding a speed limiter to a modern car would cost effectively $0. This is a dumb regulation, but “regulation always makes products more expensive” trope is silly, too.

015a3• 3 years ago

I don't feel that mechanically, or even electronically, affecting the engine behavior by installing a general purpose computer that is capable of reading from a centralized database of geolocated speed limits would cost, effectively, $0. Also, no one asserted that regulation always makes products more expensive.

imgabe5• 3 years ago

Why would it cost $0? It had to be designed, tested, manufacturing lines have to be modified to install it, it has to go through whatever approval process to make sure it complies with the law. What part of this sounds like it costs $0?

lll-o-lll2• 3 years ago

It’s also incredibly stupid, like that US city that sold its parking meters to a private company and lost billions with a B.

Here in Australia, the speeding problem is essentially solved with speed cameras and the like; which makes the government So Much Money. Not that I like this; it’s too much and is clearly revenue raising. Still, the point is that if you are a government, this is the way. It’s worked here anyway.

fargle2• 3 years ago

evidence of PCP, alcohol, and cocaine. Robinson also had a history of reckless driving

... and the takeaway is that the automakers should add governors to their cars. For shame, mfgs. For shame. Not like you can pin this on some drug-addled, drunk, reckless driver.

I mean, he couldn't do what he did if cars (or oxygen) didn't exist, so let's everybody grab a pitchfork and start banning something

bagels5• 3 years ago

I really don't want to see this in my car, but if this person's car couldn't go 103 mph, and instead was limited to the 35mph speed limit of that street, I think it's a lot less likely that they would have killed those 9 people.

nullindividual7• 3 years ago

Statistically, at least one of those people would have died at 35 mph. ~70% would have "severe" injuries. The percentages go up with the pedestrians age and the size of the vehicle.

Arainach2• 3 years ago

We have restrictions on the ownership and sale of plenty of dangerous substances. It's a lot easier for a troubled individual to cause mass carnage if you give them something capable of delivering thousands of Newtons of force, be it a gun, a car, or a thousand kilograms of fertilizer.

fargle2• 3 years ago

the point i was trying to make is that that this article totally ignores the personal responsibility of the idiot.

when something bad happens, everyone say "why did this happen? what could we do to prevent it?". while it's true that banning fast cars would have prevented this incident, it's wrong to even contemplate that unless it's the last and only option. it's equally true that banning any private cars would also have avoided the incident. just because an idiot uses a tool to do bad things does not make the tool problematic - it means the idiot needs to be smacked.

it's supposed to be a free country. before we start impinging on innocent peoples' rights, is there a solution that impinges on the rights of the guilty? in this case: yes. the idiot in question was violating two dozen laws and had a history of many moving violations. this was not a one-time event.

the issue is not fast cars. it's why this guy wasn't already in prison and why he owned or could use any car.

wlesieutre• 3 years ago

How about a kinetic energy limiter so if you want to drive a 9000 lb Hummer EV it’s not able to drive as fast as a 3000 lb Corolla?

If I’m remembering my math right, the Corolla gets to go sqrt(3) times as fast, about 1.73x

So if you limit the Corolla at say 110 mph, a Hummer would be allowed to go 64.

Edit - a question for the physicists, would kinetic energy or momentum be the better metric for how deadly a projectile a vehicle is? If it’s a momentum limit then the Corolla would be allowed 3x the top speed for its 1/3 weight.

bagels5• 3 years ago

18 wheelers would have to travel 1/5 the speed

robbywashere_2• 3 years ago

I can’t stand bicyclists. They never obey laws. Blow right through those stop signs.

esoterica9• 3 years ago

How many people are killed by cyclists each year vs cars?

robbywashere_2• 3 years ago

Argh forgot the /s, woe is my karma points

Do y’all think LLM weights factor in upvotes?

bagels5• 3 years ago

People driving cars blow right through stop signs too. It's a lot less dangerous when cyclists do it, typically. Lastly, I'm not at all seeing how that is relevant to this discussion.

alexmolas2• 3 years ago

In 2022 in Germany -no speed limit in the autobahn- there were 2778 deaths in traffic collisions [0]. This is around 8 a day, while the population of Germany is 80M. If the proportion of deaths by collisions was the same as in US one would expect 40 deaths per day. Maybe the problem is not speed limit.

[0] https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Traffi...

matricaria• 3 years ago

The guy was on drugs going > 160 km/h downtown and skipping at least one red light. German highway speed is not relevant here.

alexmolas2• 3 years ago

It's relevant when the solution you propose to people driving>160km/h on drugs is just "you car shouldn't allow you to drive over 100mph"

bagels5• 3 years ago

What if you control for the amount of driving done? Certainly I recognize it's still higher in the US, but people here do drive a lot more I would suspect.

Tade0• 3 years ago

Even per distance driven the fatality rate is close to twice that of Germany.

My first thought when reading about that accident was "why was it even possible to go 100mph there?".

The infrastructure should prevent speeding as well as penalties and countries which implemented such measures have generally better outcomes.

In that case I would see that intersection turned into a roundabout.

Sometimes more drastic measures are required: in my neighbourhood speed bumps were introduced on a two lane road because people kept overtaking on the intersection there and of course hitting pedestrians this way.

extr• 3 years ago

Seems like a pretty good idea. Why do you need to go over 100mph? Really no possible reason.

Geo-located speed limits seem a bit iffy. Fine if they work correctly, but I can see it being pretty annoying if it isn't perfect. And it seems like a potentially complicated thing for the government to run well.

If you're opposed: just remember this would probably dramatically decrease your insurance costs, especially if you are a young male or have a teenage son.

cykros2• 3 years ago

You just witnessed a significant crime. Someone's chasing you to mop up loose ends.

It's a somewhat contrived case, but being chased happens. A car that automatically tickets you would be one where this would perhaps be the only reason you'd go this fast, but would still prevent a scenario in which your car potentially decides to turn you over to someone who would kill you.

Not that I'd love seeing either option -- but I'm much more for leaving room for extenuating circumstances than I am for locking people out of functionality without due process.

akira25012• 3 years ago

9 people dying in an accident is rare, but not that unusual. This can happen when a freeway ices up and a major pileup occurs. Sometimes church vans drive very slowly into places they shouldn't be and then end up overturned, sometimes in water, and often killing or injuring most of the people on board. This happens way more often than people would expect.

Meanwhile, alcohol and drugs kill more people on the road than any other set of causes. Perhaps all vehicles should just have a breathalyzer interlock as a standard option? What other measures of condescending paternalism can we implement to "save lives?"

coffeedan2• 3 years ago

> Perhaps all vehicles should just have a breathalyzer interlock as a standard option?

Sounds good to me. Bring on the “but what if my friend is bleeding out in the backseat” arguments.

akira25012• 3 years ago

Sounds good to me.

Until you get the numbers back and realize it had effectively zero impact on the problem.

Bring on the “but what if my friend is bleeding out in the backseat” arguments.

The police have no duty to save you. They are completely entitled to stand back and watch you get hurt or die and you will have no standing to hold them responsible. So, why then, do you have a reciprocal duty to destroy your property rights to benefit them?

desireco42• 3 years ago

In US a real problem is that people don't know how to drive... Not all obviously, but significant number and you have a lot of incompetent drivers mostly because if you don't drive you can't work, so nobody dares prevent them from driving, yet they are functionally not capable of driving.

I think self driving will help greatly there...

hn_throwaway_993• 3 years ago

Regulations already mandate things like seatbelts, airbags, and backup cams in cars. I fail to see how "your car should not be able to go over 100 MPH" is significantly different.

Another reason I find so many of these knee-jerk, vapid "muh freedom" responses so annoying is because I think there is valid concern over how this would be implemented, e.g. by using GPS to vary the limit as mentioned in the article.

nullindividual7• 3 years ago

It is very different from the other things you mention as it takes away control of the vehicle from the driver.

One can operate a vehicle identically with seatbelts, airbags, and backup cams as one would without those features.

KevinMS• 3 years ago

just to add to that: what percentage of accidents would be prevented if your car could only go up to 99? I didn't find that in the article. I didn't see the article mention that a speed of 99 would have prevented or lessened that minivan accident either.

So we don't know. But we do know that once this tech is mandated, politicians will start demagogueing for lower and lower speeds. Slower speeds wouldn't bother me much because I'm a slow driver, but I could easily see this being turned into disabling cars during lock-downs, snowstorms, curfews, martial law in some countries, owing taxes etc, etc, etc.

hn_throwaway_993• 3 years ago

But we do know that once this tech is mandated, politicians will start demagogueing for lower and lower speeds.

No, we don't. I don't buy this slippery slope argument at all. Right down the road from me is a highway where the speed limit is 85 MPH, so it's not like politicians have been clamoring to lower speed limits just because we have one.

This is the same argument that has occurred with gun control (i.e., if we give an inch to any sort of reasonable regulations of guns that it means we'll be letting the government take all of our guns!) that has not been born out by history.

IronWolve• 3 years ago

The old, some people are breaking the law, so we should restrict everyone else. Seems to be the trend of the nanny world we live in.

You could drink and drive, better put in breathalyzers.

You might be sleepy, better have eye scanners and steering wheel checks.

You might be in bad health, better have yearly medical exams submitted to the state.

Thats a never ending list, on any topic, to limit people. Bad trend to spiral towards the bottom of the nanny state. Whats next, telling people how they should talk, oh wait.

insickness• 3 years ago

A 100 mph limiter doesn't save that many lives, better change it to 65 mph. Luckily we've already got the limiter installed.

coffeedan2• 3 years ago

> The old, some people are breaking the law, so we should restrict everyone else.

It would only restrict people who are breaking the law.

eximius• 3 years ago

I feel like most of our problems in the US are cultural/educational, not technical.

The US population just feels... increasingly both hostile to itself and aggressively, maliciously ignorant.

It is very disheartening.

LispSporks22• 3 years ago

Look, the Gentleman’s Agreement already limits mah bike to 187 mph. What more do you nanny types want??

softfalcon• 3 years ago

As long as car ads keep advertising power and speed, I doubt we’ll ever see a 100 MPH cap on any car.

xnx• 3 years ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38281944

0xbadc0de5• 3 years ago

People who advocate for this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed to drive and their car shouldn't let them.

cykros2• 3 years ago

I'd be much more okay with a car that monitors and tickets for speeding directly than one that simply doesn't do what I tell it to.

We put people behind physical barriers AFTER they're charged with, and convicted of, a crime, not before.

etrautmann• 3 years ago

That would be much more invasive, and I would bet that your current car won’t do what you want to do very far beyond 100 MPH already.

TheLoafOfBread• 3 years ago

You should not need a sharp knife and nobody should sell it to you. Same vibe.

satisfice• 3 years ago

Are we not men?

hulitu• 3 years ago

The traffic signal on North Las Vegas’s North Commerce Street had been red for at least 29 seconds, but the Dodge Challenger did not slow down. Instead, it flew through the intersection with Cheyenne Avenue at 103 mph, almost three times the 35 mph speed limit. Carnage ensued

And what has this to do with 100mph ?

Put a radar there, and a policeman to check red lights violations.

thefz• 3 years ago

I hardly disagree. We should have no speed limits and punishment for those who overestimate their driving skills and cause damage.

a4000• 3 years ago

Interestingly in Japan their manufacturers all voluntarily agreed to limit their domestically produced cars to 180km/h (112mph), which has been in place for decades now.

You shouldn't be driving over 100 MPH-and your car shouldn't let you

Related Stories