Speed Limit

[Vulcan]

What’s the point?

This guy was weeving in traffic driving one handed filming himself at 123 mph. Should BMW face some responsibility for selling cars in the UK when they know the speed limit is only 70 mph? And what about the Government, shouldn’t they perhaps ban the sale of cars that can achieve speeds well above the limit. The EU have mandated something about this which came into force recently didn’t they? But I think you can turn it off! Police think a Porsche was involved in a recent fatal accident that killed six people, I wonder how fast that was going?

 

[Agent_zed]

I might need to drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation

I might want to drive my car on a track or on the autobahn

cars still kill people at lower speeds.

Figured I'd put all the usual excuses up to save time for those who don't want to lose bragging rights that their car can break the speed limit by X mph.

 

[NickDReed]

This post is not meant to be inflammatory, it is purely my initial thought.

At what point does personal responsibility need to be considered?

Many companies sell many products that can be misused. If the desire is that a government should control/authorise/regulate any product that can be misused, then the door is open for us all to be living in a 'nanny state'.

 

[Thingybob]

This post is not meant to be inflammatory, it is purely my initial thought.

At what point does personal responsibility need to be considered?

Many companies sell many products that can be misused. If the desire is that a government should control/authorise/regulate any product that can be misused, then the door is open for us all to be living in a 'nanny state'.

"then"

 

[Jacob]

I might need to drive faster to get out of a dangerous situation

Yes it happens a lot around here - being chased by maniacs in HGVs

 

[Agent_zed]

This post is not meant to be inflammatory, it is purely my initial thought.

At what point does personal responsibility need to be considered?

Many companies sell many products that can be misused. If the desire is that a government should control/authorise/regulate any product that can be misused, then the door is open for us all to be living in a 'nanny state'.

It's always useful having a discussion.

My counter question is what state isn't a 'nanny state'?

All countries live by rules and laws, these change as situations change. In the 1980s there weren't that many production cars capable of 100mph+, now most cars you buy can easy exceed that even small hatchbacks. There are also significantly more cars on the roads now. The game has changed so the rules have to change accordingly.

When motorways first began they weren't regulated and a cobra did 160mph+ (if i remember the story correctly), subsequently laws came in to stop that. Is that being a nanny state or should we just drive as fast as we like?

I can't go and buy a 1300 hyabusa motorbike without first doing smaller engined bike qualifications. Should I just be allowed to jump on a 194mph bike and off I go?

This isn't a tablesaw in my garage that will only kill or maim me, high speed car and bike accidents have life changing consequences for anyone involved in them. Often innocent bystanders.

What problem would being limited to say 80mph actually cause you?

 

[NickDReed]

It's always useful having a discussion.

My counter question is what state isn't a 'nanny state'?

All countries live by rules and laws, these change as situations change. In the 1980s there weren't that many production cars capable of 100mph+, now most cars you buy can easy exceed that even small hatchbacks. There are also significantly more cars on the roads now. The game has changed so the rules have to change accordingly.

When motorways first began they weren't regulated and a cobra did 160mph+ (if i remember the story correctly), subsequently laws came in to stop that. Is that being a nanny state or should we just drive as fast as we like?

I can't go and buy a 1300 hyabusa motorbike without first doing smaller engined bike qualifications. Should I just be allowed to jump on a 194mph bike and off I go?

This isn't a tablesaw in my garage that will only kill or maim me, high speed car and bike accidents have life changing consequences for anyone involved in them. Often innocent bystanders.

What problem would being limited to say 80mph actually cause you?

To an extent I agree with your viewpoint about nanny states, but to what extent are you happy to give up your individual choice?

For clarity I would have no issue with a car limited to 80mph, but I would make an argument that while speed is linked to many (the majority?) traffic accidents, all will be as a result of poor individual decisions or inability (or choosing not) to control a vehicle in a manner that is safe to them and other road users.

My position in the discussion is whether you're happy for a government to reduce your ability to make decisions for yourself, and in turn reducing the ability of manufactures to innovate. Or are you wanting your individual freedom of choice. If you are wanting the freedom of choice, then all other members of society will be entitled to the same freedom (until such time they break the law to a degree that removes the privilege of that freedom). I'm not a proponent of anarchy, but individual responsibility and as a result liberty. I do not believe every individuals liberty should be removed as a result of a minorities lack of individual responsibility.

To go to an extreme, should the government ban sharp kitchen knives and only allow you to buy a butter knife if someone commits a murder with the kitchen knife?

 

[paulrbarnard]

Always an interesting debate but fundamentally this isn’t about your rights it about the rights of others. Others should have a right to safety unaffected by your choices to exceed your capabilities.
I’m all for restricting vehicles to the posted limit. Our car is already capable of that.

 

[Agent_zed]

To go to an extreme, should the government ban sharp kitchen knives and only allow you to buy a butter knife if someone commits a murder with the kitchen knife?

Let's take this example. No, they shouldn't ban kitchen knives as they fit a purpose within the home. You also cannot buy a 'zombie' knife. I'm sure you can cut carrots with a 'zombie' knife but it is far out of spec of what is deemed a reasonable tool for the job. The same way a 150mph top speed is far out of spec for a country that has a maximum legal speed of 70mph.

You also cannot carry a kitchen knife around in public without a very good reason and you can't buy bladed items if you are under 18.

Would you happily repeal the law on what is legal carry and age restrictions on the grounds of freedom of choice?

Back to cars though for me I would happily accept cars where if you want to remove the max speed limit you do it in the same way that if you choose not to have your airbags on. i.e you have to stop, open the glovebox and manually turn it off. That way your 'personal choice' is to deactivate the limit and the driver therefore takes the responsibility for their actions.

 

[NickDReed]

Let's take this example. No, they shouldn't ban kitchen knives as they fit a purpose within the home. You also cannot buy a 'zombie' knife. I'm sure you can cut carrots with a 'zombie' knife but it is far out of spec of what is deemed a reasonable tool for the job. The same way a 150mph top speed is far out of spec for a country that has a maximum legal speed of 70mph.

You also cannot carry a kitchen knife around in public without a very good reason and you can't buy bladed items if you are under 18.

Would you happily repeal the law on what is legal carry and age restrictions on the grounds of freedom of choice?

Back to cars though for me I would happily accept cars where if you want to remove the max speed limit you do it in the same way that if you choose not to have your airbags on. i.e you have to stop, open the glovebox and manually turn it off. That way your 'personal choice' is to deactivate the limit and the driver therefore takes the responsibility for their actions.

I'll hold my hands up and admit I have no idea what a 'zombie' knife is, although I am aware they have been in several news headlines recently. I assume some sort of machete which should and likely is subject to the same laws as any possession of a blade in public.

You're of course correct that you cannot under normal circumstances carry kitchen knives in public, as it is against the law. In the same way that traveling over 70 MPH is. And those who contravene the law are (or should be) held to account.

However, the OP was regarding a governmental ban on cars that are capable of achieving speeds in excess of the national limit. The equivalent being an ban on the sale of sharp knives rather than legislation of the use of them outside of what would be considered the specific purpose it is sold for.

My position is not one in support of people to be able to drive fast, it's one of a preference of reduced authoritarianism (for want of a better word).

I'd personally have no issue with driving a car limited to the speed limits, I think your last paragraph is a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

 

[Tris]

Back to cars though for me I would happily accept cars where if you want to remove the max speed limit you do it in the same way that if you choose not to have your airbags on. i.e you have to stop, open the glovebox and manually turn it off. That way your 'personal choice' is to deactivate the limit and the driver therefore takes the responsibility for their actions.

That would make a lot of sense, especially if penalties were harsher if you are found to have done this and were involved in an at fault accident or get caught speeding

 

[NickDReed]

Always an interesting debate but fundamentally this isn’t about your rights it about the rights of others. Others should have a right to safety unaffected by your choices to exceed your capabilities.
I’m all for restricting vehicles to the posted limit. Our car is already capable of that.

I don't disagree, I'd also be perfectly happy to drive a speed limited car. I choose to by using the inbuilt limiter and cruise control on most journeys, especially with the proliferation of speed cameras these days.

However the OPs question was the whether the government should ban the sale of cars that can go in excess of the speed limit. My position is one in favour of small government and individual responsibility, which obviously should take into account the rights and safety of others.

 

[Agent_zed]

I don't disagree, I'd also be perfectly happy to drive a speed limited car. I choose to by using the inbuilt limiter and cruise control on most journeys, especially with the proliferation of speed cameras these days.

However the OPs question was the whether the government should ban the sale of cars that can go in excess of the speed limit. My position is one in favour of small government and individual responsibility, which obviously should take into account the rights and safety of others.

To a certain degree I agree with you, but there comes a point where the government has to step in because individuals aren't being responsible anymore.

I live on a road that is 40mph. I hear them coming from a distance and then whooshhhh past my driveway at 50mph+. Happens numerous times a day, cars and bikes. A couple of months ago the school bus was loading just up the road from my house and a motorbike comes past it wheelie-ing for 100m or so, drops down onto 2 wheels and blasts past 2 cars (~50-60mph) crossing the double white lines, towards the 30mph zone further down the hill.

I came home from a gig wednesday night and got to a town with a 20 zone, so did 20. There was a car behind me. Suddenly I see to my right a pickup truck overtaking us both around a traffic island and shooting off down the road. 8 miles later I get to my hometown, another 20 zone, and suddenly have a different SUV blast past me doing at least 40mph.

A limiter won't stop these idiots but there doesn't seem to be any individual responsibility going on on the roads today. Everyone out for themselves.

 

[NickDReed]

To a certain degree I agree with you, but there comes a point where the government has to step in because individuals aren't being responsible anymore.

I live on a road that is 40mph. I hear them coming from a distance and then whooshhhh past my driveway at 50mph+. Happens numerous times a day, cars and bikes. A couple of months ago the school bus was loading just up the road from my house and a motorbike comes past it wheelie-ing for 100m or so, drops down onto 2 wheels and blasts past 2 cars (~50-60mph) crossing the double white lines, towards the 30mph zone further down the hill.

I came home from a gig wednesday night and got to a town with a 20 zone, so did 20. There was a car behind me. Suddenly I see to my right a pickup truck overtaking us both around a traffic island and shooting off down the road. 8 miles later I get to my hometown, another 20 zone, and suddenly have a different SUV blast past me doing at least 40mph.

A limiter won't stop these idiots but there doesn't seem to be any individual responsibility going on on the roads today. Everyone out for themselves.

I think most people on here will have similar stories of seeing drivers acting entirely recklessly. And if you're anything like me, when you seem them you think to yourself 'I hope that car they just sped passed was an unmarked police car', never is though.

However, I would say I see an awful lot of people making dangerous manoeuvres on the road which are not done over the speed limit. While making everyone stick to the speed limit may reduce risk it will not prevent idiots from being idiots.

IMO these drivers should be held to account in line with the current law, rather than creating new laws and limits on society.

 

[Spectric]

The problem is not the speed or recklessness but that the penalties are not a good enough deterent and driving standards seem to have fallen. There should be speeding offences where you are not wildly over the limit and could argue a lapse of thought but then for all other speeding offences they should be classed as careless, reckless and then dangerous depending how far over the limit with mandatory sentencing of maybe 1 year ban, 2 year ban and £100 for every mph over the limit and then for dangerous a five year ban, re take the driving test and vehicle seized plus if any injury caused then ten year ban or if death then lifetime ban and a good stretch as well. The police need to treat all motoring offences no mater how minor, once sloppyness sets in then it can just get worse so warning someone they failed to indicate at a junction or they were in the wrong lane will make people aware and maybe deliver the speed awareness course to people every ten years to bring them up to date and remind them of things they may well have forgotten.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Speed limits should be variable, variable limits work OK in other Countries. There's nothing wrong with a 20mph limit outside a school or playground, but little reason for it at 3am.
We've a road near us with limits that go from 20mph to 30mph to 40mph back to 20mph and back to 30mph - the road is perfectly safe at 60mp for most of a 24 hour period. You could drive the length of it at night and not pass anyone or see a soul.
I've driven on a motorway in weather that made it unsafe to top 30mph (at 30mph it was struggle to see the road), but people still drove at 20mph or 30mph faster - I'd have speed limit notices on the gantries and take people's licences away for exceeding them.
Speed in itself is not dangerous - the wrong speed in the wrong place at the wrong time is.

 

[Sideways]

Stop blaming the tool and blame the tool who was driving.
He committed manslaughter of 2 innocent bystanders.
Give him 25 years and he should count himself lucky. People should bear the consequences of their actions.

 

[mcostello]

Instead of making more rules for innocent, law abiding citizens, why not increase penalties and make justice more sure instead of suspended sentences and slaps on the wrist. Getting 30 days of making little ones out of big ones in the summer son might change minds
One Year We were on vacation in a southern State in the USA. We pulled into a McD's and a chain gang came in. The prisoners WERE chained together. There was a very mean Deputy on a horse holding a shot gun and He looked like He just would like something to break up His boredom. It was well over 100° with no clouds. One small tree about 6-8' high with no shade. They sat down on the grass, no water, no food. A car pulled up and an officer went through the drive in, got His order and left. The prisoners left, not a word spoken. The next day We got breakfast to go and went to a nearby State park to eat outside. A white truck came by with several people in prision clothes. The truck stopped and an inmate quickly jumped out and weed trimmed around several bushes and trees while almost running. He jumped in the truck and the truck gunned it and left.
Moral of this story-DON'T SCREW UP IN GEORGIA. This was around 35 years ago and is still vivid in My mind.

 

[Blackswanwood]

According to Wikipedia a few States reintroduced chain gangs in the 1990’s during a “get tough on crime” spree. They scrapped them after twelve months presumably as it didn’t work.

I recall an initiative in the UK to make young offender institutions into boot camps. That was promptly scrapped as it also didn’t work.

Speeding already has a sliding scale of penalty via the fine which is linked to earnings. I think this is avoided by accepting a fixed penalty so perhaps scrapping fixed penalties would focus minds more on adhering with the speed limit. It could also raise some revenue to bolster funding if the NHS who bear much of the cost of accidents.

 

[Jacob]

According to Wikipedia a few States reintroduced chain gangs in the 1990’s during a “get tough on crime” spree. They scrapped them after twelve months presumably as it didn’t work.

I recall an initiative in the UK to make young offender institutions into boot camps. That was promptly scrapped as it also didn’t work.

Speeding already has a sliding scale of penalty via the fine which is linked to earnings. I think this is avoided by accepting a fixed penalty so perhaps scrapping fixed penalties would focus minds more on adhering with the speed limit. It could also raise some revenue to bolster funding if the NHS who bear much of the cost of accidents.

USA has worlds largest prison population historically and it's argued that it's a continuation of slavery; mostly black people on trivial offences, who were made available for work.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/sep/27/slavery-loophole-unpaid-labor-in-prisons