4 ms·

There is absolutely no reason any road car should be able to (consistently) drive faster than ~150km/h

by Raed667 4y ago

ABeeSea 4y ago
But have you considered how much fun breaking the speed limit is?
- userbinator 4y ago
  I know you intended it to be a bit of a throwaway comment, but I think you hit on something very fundamental and human which explains why everyone is so outraged by things like this: taking risks is part of life, the thrill is the enjoyment. That's what true freedom feels like... and also responsibility, since if you mess up, you also face the consequences. Things like this take away not only freedom but also normalise and encourage a condition of continuous subservience. Those in power want everyone to live a sterile, "healthy" life under their control, one with neither risk nor personal freedom.
  - Raed667 4y ago
    How about my freedom to go about my day without having to worry that someone decided they wanted to take a "risk" that moment? Commute is supposed to be efficient, boring and predictable. Not a thrill ride, there are sport tracks for that.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      That's not called freedom --- it's cowardice, the state of being afraid to live. Maybe making you too scared to do anything without government permission is the end game of stuff like this.
mvdwoord 4y ago
There absolutely are.
tter3 4y ago
When Mt Saint Helens erupted there was an account from a survivor who raced away at 100mph, passing a car traveling at 80mph and seeing the slower car disappear into the ash cloud with little chance of surviving. Even in in the most extreme events your proposed limit is adequate. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19800605&id=zvdVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2OEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6890,1089884&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19800605&id=...
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  Thank you for the link. Wow, that was sad.
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Citing this one case as a policy rationale is absurd. 40,000 highway deaths per year, but its vitally important to keep in mind that one guy that escaped an erupting volcano over 40 years ago.
valine 4y ago
You’d eliminate all traffic fatalities if you limited cars to 5 mph. We as a society have collectively decided that X number of traffic fatalities are acceptable. It’s the price everyone pays for efficient transportation. Why 150km/h and not 40km/h? Are you too impatient to drive 40km/h even though it could save lives?
- stefan_ 4y ago
  Oh no, we will just limit it at the speed limit. What could be the problem with that? No one has accepted anything, certainly not the increasing number of dead pedestrians from ever larger cars. You surely recognize the massive moral hazard.
  - valine 4y ago
    Driving the speed of traffic is safer than driving the speed limit. Or what about when you’re seeking shelter during a tornado warning or bringing someone to the hospital. Or maybe you just want to get away from a road raging a-hole. People die all the time on roads it’s true. Enforcing a zero tolerance policy for speeding wont stop that. It will have many unintended consequences.
- Raed667 4y ago
  This is a bad faith argument, but I'll respond: 150km/h is not arbitrary. In most Europe, highway speed-limits are between 110km/h and 130km/h [0] give or take 40km/h to 20km/h to get out of a dangerous overtake and 150km/h should be more than enough for most cases. Notice I added (consistently) for clarity, there are very rare cases where one needs to accelerate, but I find it very hard to justify a car going almost twice the highway speed limit for 30 minutes non stop. [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_speed_limits_europe_with_indicator_colors.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_speed_limits...
samatman 4y ago
Why not? There are roads without speed limits, both public and private, and drivers capable of driving safely above that speed. Driving really fast doesn't happen to be my hobby, but I see the appeal.
- standardUser 4y ago
  For one, it's grotesquely fuel inefficient.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    I'll be as inefficient as I want, because I'm paying for my own fuel.
    - standardUser 4y ago
      Right, I was stating a reason why a rational person would not want to drive at excessive speeds, as the comment asked.
      - cypress66 4y ago
        Why do you assume what's rational and what's not? There are plenty of situations where arriving sooner is more rational and important than saving gas. (leaving aside legality or safety)
        standardUser 4y ago
        Most people think wasting an expensive and harmful resource for minimal gain is irrational.
      - samatman 4y ago
        You got the question I was responding to backward, it was said that there is absolutely no rational reason why cars should be able to drive above 150km/hr. "Come up with some reasons why people wouldn't want to drive fast" is trite, boring, I would have ignored it. Edit to clarify: "Why not" in my reply isn't "Why not drive fast", it's "You say there is no rational reason, why not? Here's one".
onionisafruit 4y ago
Have you ever been on I-10 in west Texas or New Mexico? Nothing but straight, flat blacktop and little traffic. 150km/h (93 mph for my fellow Americans) is kind of slow for that stretch. Granted it is 8 mph above the posted speed limit, but nobody really pays attention to that.
- standardUser 4y ago
  I have made plenty of long distance drives through some of the flattest and most desolate parts of this country and I have never seen cars going anywhere close to 100mph on average. Mostly 80's to 90's. One huge reason for that is fuel efficiency, which is dogshit even at 90mph. The other is that most cars really don't handle great past 90. And another is that you're far more likely to end up a fine bloody mist if you do happen to collide at that speed. Not likely, sure, but those speeds also come with vastly reduced reaction times.

There is absolutely no reason any road car should be able to (consistently) drive faster than ~150km/h

ABeeSea 4y ago

But have you considered how much fun breaking the speed limit is?

userbinator 4y ago
I know you intended it to be a bit of a throwaway comment, but I think you hit on something very fundamental and human which explains why everyone is so outraged by things like this: taking risks is part of life, the thrill is the enjoyment. That's what true freedom feels like... and also responsibility, since if you mess up, you also face the consequences. Things like this take away not only freedom but also normalise and encourage a condition of continuous subservience. Those in power want everyone to live a sterile, "healthy" life under their control, one with neither risk nor personal freedom.
- Raed667 4y ago
  How about my freedom to go about my day without having to worry that someone decided they wanted to take a "risk" that moment? Commute is supposed to be efficient, boring and predictable. Not a thrill ride, there are sport tracks for that.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    That's not called freedom --- it's cowardice, the state of being afraid to live. Maybe making you too scared to do anything without government permission is the end game of stuff like this.

mvdwoord 4y ago

There absolutely are.

tter3 4y ago

When Mt Saint Helens erupted there was an account from a survivor who raced away at 100mph, passing a car traveling at 80mph and seeing the slower car disappear into the ash cloud with little chance of surviving. Even in in the most extreme events your proposed limit is adequate. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19800605&id=zvdVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2OEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6890,1089884&hl=en https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19800605&id=...

MerelyMortal 4y ago
Thank you for the link. Wow, that was sad.
lamontcg 4y ago
Citing this one case as a policy rationale is absurd. 40,000 highway deaths per year, but its vitally important to keep in mind that one guy that escaped an erupting volcano over 40 years ago.

valine 4y ago

You’d eliminate all traffic fatalities if you limited cars to 5 mph. We as a society have collectively decided that X number of traffic fatalities are acceptable. It’s the price everyone pays for efficient transportation. Why 150km/h and not 40km/h? Are you too impatient to drive 40km/h even though it could save lives?

stefan_ 4y ago
Oh no, we will just limit it at the speed limit. What could be the problem with that? No one has accepted anything, certainly not the increasing number of dead pedestrians from ever larger cars. You surely recognize the massive moral hazard.
- valine 4y ago
  Driving the speed of traffic is safer than driving the speed limit. Or what about when you’re seeking shelter during a tornado warning or bringing someone to the hospital. Or maybe you just want to get away from a road raging a-hole. People die all the time on roads it’s true. Enforcing a zero tolerance policy for speeding wont stop that. It will have many unintended consequences.
Raed667 4y ago
This is a bad faith argument, but I'll respond: 150km/h is not arbitrary. In most Europe, highway speed-limits are between 110km/h and 130km/h [0] give or take 40km/h to 20km/h to get out of a dangerous overtake and 150km/h should be more than enough for most cases. Notice I added (consistently) for clarity, there are very rare cases where one needs to accelerate, but I find it very hard to justify a car going almost twice the highway speed limit for 30 minutes non stop. [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_speed_limits_europe_with_indicator_colors.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_speed_limits...

samatman 4y ago

Why not? There are roads without speed limits, both public and private, and drivers capable of driving safely above that speed. Driving really fast doesn't happen to be my hobby, but I see the appeal.

standardUser 4y ago
For one, it's grotesquely fuel inefficient.
- userbinator 4y ago
  I'll be as inefficient as I want, because I'm paying for my own fuel.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Right, I was stating a reason why a rational person would not want to drive at excessive speeds, as the comment asked.
    - cypress66 4y ago
      Why do you assume what's rational and what's not? There are plenty of situations where arriving sooner is more rational and important than saving gas. (leaving aside legality or safety)
      - standardUser 4y ago
        Most people think wasting an expensive and harmful resource for minimal gain is irrational.
    - samatman 4y ago
      You got the question I was responding to backward, it was said that there is absolutely no rational reason why cars should be able to drive above 150km/hr. "Come up with some reasons why people wouldn't want to drive fast" is trite, boring, I would have ignored it. Edit to clarify: "Why not" in my reply isn't "Why not drive fast", it's "You say there is no rational reason, why not? Here's one".

onionisafruit 4y ago

Have you ever been on I-10 in west Texas or New Mexico? Nothing but straight, flat blacktop and little traffic. 150km/h (93 mph for my fellow Americans) is kind of slow for that stretch. Granted it is 8 mph above the posted speed limit, but nobody really pays attention to that.

standardUser 4y ago
I have made plenty of long distance drives through some of the flattest and most desolate parts of this country and I have never seen cars going anywhere close to 100mph on average. Mostly 80's to 90's. One huge reason for that is fuel efficiency, which is dogshit even at 90mph. The other is that most cars really don't handle great past 90. And another is that you're far more likely to end up a fine bloody mist if you do happen to collide at that speed. Not likely, sure, but those speeds also come with vastly reduced reaction times.