3 ms·

I don't know if you're being obtuse or if I'm being unclear. I know what a legal speed limit is. I don't think people should drive at 100 mph in fog or near a s

I don't know if you're being obtuse or if I'm being unclear. I know what a legal speed limit is. I don't think people should drive at 100 mph in fog or near a school. (Did you think I was saying 100 mph should be the lower limit?!) Apparently, vehicles are currently limited by the manufacturer to something like "whatever is safe for the engine" rather than "whatever the engine briefly capable of". Sure. Didn't know that. Thanks for telling me that. Not relevant to my point, but interesting. I'm suggesting, in the absence of technology that allows us to limit car speeds dynamically based on local conditions and laws, that vehicles driven on public roads should be limited to min(100 mph, "whatever they are currently limited to, which is an insane speed no one has any business driving at on public roads"). I chose 100 mph because it's a bit higher than the highest legal speed limit on the continent where I live. I'd be fine with a smaller number though.

kube-system 4y ago
I am suggesting that this proposal will accomplish nothing. It has no utility in preventing reckless driving, because 100 MPH is already reckless in >99% of scenarios. Your proposed limit would only ever be hit by two potential people: * someone who has a legitimate off-highway purpose for that speed * someone who is already operating their vehicle at 100mph on a public road and still has their foot down. What reckless driving has been prevented? None. In fact, only legitimate users have been impacted. At best, we're just trading edge cases for edge cases. If we discount off-highway uses as an irrelevant edge case, then we can also discount the edge case that someone driving at 130mph did a harm to society but at 100mph they would have been prevented from doing so.