4 ms·

I don't think it's fearmongering, especially when you consider that children are allowed to drive (at least here in the US, and with minimal training). This is

I don't think it's fearmongering, especially when you consider that children are allowed to drive (at least here in the US, and with minimal training). This isn't about being a nanny state or keeping folks from driving fast cars (I imagine there will always be cars you can take on the track), it's about keeping everyone on the roads safer. Not one single time in my highway driving life have I encountered a NEED to drive that fast in any traffic maneuver. People die in high speed crashes all the time, I don't think anything about this decision is fearmongering, it's about the health and safety of those around you.

Mirioron 8y ago
Every decision that restricts people is justified with "it's about the health and safety of those around you". It's not a convincing argument when it's used for everything. Volvo does it so they can use cheaper tires without being liable.
- wsy 8y ago
  If it indeed increases the health and safety of those around you, why is this not a valid argument?
modzu 8y ago
cuz a kid doing 112 is fine? it seems like a bit of a straw man to me. but volvo is known for making the safest cars on the road and this continues that trend/perception
userulluipeste 8y ago
This is exactly the kind of argument I tried my best to prevent when I said that we already have speed limitation both on the society level and on individual one. You may rise the bar for the amount of training required for children in the US, you may restrict the speed capacity of the vehicles they'd be allowed to drive, you may disallow them to enter the kitchen for the fear of knives that they might find in there, you may even keep them in the leash until you'll deem them ready for the world out there (if ever), there are a lot of options that would address the problem a more localized manner instead of some global restriction "just in case". I'm not talking about the specific limit Volvo has chosen for their cars, because for the most part, the specs of the cars they make are theirs to decide, after all. What I'm talking about is an automaker promoting speed limiting as necessary for safety and about the voices that endorse that as reasonable. If the safety indeed requires an improvement through additional speed limitation, that would have been addressed by the bodies of society whose job is exactly that public safety, and by further adjustment of our driving speed on the individual level, considering the self-preservation instincts (which are supposed to checked along with the rest of one's mental condition prior granting the driving license).

Mirioron 8y ago

Every decision that restricts people is justified with "it's about the health and safety of those around you". It's not a convincing argument when it's used for everything. Volvo does it so they can use cheaper tires without being liable.

wsy 8y ago
If it indeed increases the health and safety of those around you, why is this not a valid argument?

modzu 8y ago

cuz a kid doing 112 is fine? it seems like a bit of a straw man to me. but volvo is known for making the safest cars on the road and this continues that trend/perception

userulluipeste 8y ago

This is exactly the kind of argument I tried my best to prevent when I said that we already have speed limitation both on the society level and on individual one. You may rise the bar for the amount of training required for children in the US, you may restrict the speed capacity of the vehicles they'd be allowed to drive, you may disallow them to enter the kitchen for the fear of knives that they might find in there, you may even keep them in the leash until you'll deem them ready for the world out there (if ever), there are a lot of options that would address the problem a more localized manner instead of some global restriction "just in case". I'm not talking about the specific limit Volvo has chosen for their cars, because for the most part, the specs of the cars they make are theirs to decide, after all. What I'm talking about is an automaker promoting speed limiting as necessary for safety and about the voices that endorse that as reasonable. If the safety indeed requires an improvement through additional speed limitation, that would have been addressed by the bodies of society whose job is exactly that public safety, and by further adjustment of our driving speed on the individual level, considering the self-preservation instincts (which are supposed to checked along with the rest of one's mental condition prior granting the driving license).