5 ms·

Why are typical passenger vehicles even sold with the ability to go so fast? Or perhaps more pertinently, why aren't any typical passenger vehicles I've ever he

by smeej 1y ago

Why are typical passenger vehicles even sold with the ability to go so fast? Or perhaps more pertinently, why aren't any typical passenger vehicles I've ever heard of sold without the ability to go so fast? I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph. Many who only rarely leave their cities and would be happy to use alternate transportation if they did would probably buy a car that couldn't go more than 50mph. Going that fast seems like a feature most people don't care enough about that they'd be willing to pay for it, so why does the market appear to include it by default?

davemp 1y ago
I’m not much of a gear head but I believe that a car would perform much worse at 0-80mph if it couldn’t physically reach 120mph. You can artificially limit it and I think that’s what folks take with.
- robin_reala 1y ago
  Volvo limit all their cars to 110mph and no-one seems to care. https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/268578/every-volvo-model-now-comes-with-a-180kph-speed-limit-and-care-key https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
HDThoreaun 1y ago
Because people dont want to buy cars that cant go over 100 mph. > I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph You are empirically wrong I think.
- codelikeawolf 1y ago
  Most people driving on I-294 in Illinois would agree. Just "keeping up with traffic" normally requires you to go about 80mph. If my car topped out at 50 or 60mph, I'd be frustrated as hell.
- smeej 1y ago
  How can you make an empirical assessment when one of the options isn't available?
  - HDThoreaun 1y ago
    It is possible to make speed limited cars. The fact that no one does is evidence that people do not want them. The car market is very competitive, automakers do respond to what people want.
    - smeej 1y ago
      This isn't necessarily true at all. Other people in this very thread have proposed much better reasons. Some have even provided evidence that people do still buy cars that are limited (Volvos), without any apparent impact about speed. You can't assert that the empirical absence of data supports just one possible explanation.
      - HDThoreaun 1y ago
        The empirical absence suggests speed limited cars are not a viable product. Whether its because people dont want them or some other reason is up for debate but by far the simplest reason and to me most likely answer is just that not enough people want them.
twobitshifter 1y ago
There is always the autobahn. If systems like that existed endangered there could be incredible time savings. A related question of mine is ‘If cars can go so fast why do we not find ways to raise speed limits while keeping roads safe?’
- op00to 1y ago
  Why are assault weapons so difficult to own in Europe? They make them in the US and you can own them there. As to your question - I’d like to refer you to physics. 2000 pounds of metal moving at any speed can kill pedestrians easily. More speed means more energy. Increasing speed limits consumes more fuel, wears roads more, pollutes more tire and brake dust, and of course kills more. We should not make things more convenient for motorists just because motorists exist.
  - ryao 1y ago
    There are typically no pedestrians on highways. Being a pedestrian on a high way is hazardous no matter what the speed limit is for any realistic speed limit. If the cars move faster, they will get off the road faster. This means fewer vehicles on the road and the distances between the vehicles will increase. It is a linear effect if you adapt a flow equation to vehicles. Here is the equation off the top of my head: V1*D1*L1 = V2*D2*L2 V is the average speed, D is the linear density, L is the number of lanes. If you care about safety, you want D to be as big as possible so that vehicles do not have distances between them reach 0. That implies higher speeds (or more lanes, but that is harder to do). Finally, the gun analogy is inappropriate. It is essentially saying “the data contradicts our conclusions, so let’s shutdown any rational thought that might question our conclusions”. This kind of thinking is backward and should easily lead to nonsense such as the rationalization of square wheels to give an example of the absurdity it allows. Interestingly, much of what you said could also be said in defense of the forced adoption of square wheels.
    - op00to 1y ago
      Traffic flow theory looks tidy on a whiteboard, but real roads don’t follow V D L arithmetic. Drivers open their following gaps faster than speed rises, so capacity peaks around 55 mph at roughly 2 000 veh/h/ln. Push limits higher and flow falls while crash energy soars. Because kinetic energy scales with the square of velocity (½ mv²), a 20 mph jump doesn’t give you 33 % more punch, it delivers nearly 80 % more. NHTSA data put it bluntly: fatal-injury odds about double for every 10 mph over 50 mph [1]. That’s an exponential climb in destructiveness, not a linear trade-off. Higher limits also leak onto the streets that feed the ramps. The AAA Foundation’s 2024 before-and-after work showed a lasting uptick in operating speeds and speed-related crashes on arterials within a mile of interchanges after states boosted freeway limits [2]. Pedestrians and cyclists never set foot on the interstate yet bear some of the fallout. Saying my analogy shuts down rational thought misreads what the analogy is doing. It's not a substitute for data but a framing device. I'm highlighting that different technologies share a core governance problem. When a private activity's danger rises faster than its utility, society uses regulation to keep expected harm below an acceptable threshold. This invites more rational analysis, not less. If empirical data showed that 85mph highways or un-regulated assault rifles actually reduced third party harm, the analogy wouldn't block that conclusion, but instead lead to different regulatory settings. Your dismissal flips the burden of proof, hand-waving away the external-risk problem instead of engaging the numbers. The gun analogy is serviceable once you zoom out from mechanics to externalities. An AR-15 and an 85 mph interstate both offer private utility but impose public risk that scales steeply—ballistic energy for one, kinetic energy for the other. Society uses licensing, background checks, or posted limits to push that expected harm below a tolerable threshold. Arguing that faster roads are safer because “cars clear out quicker” is like saying bump-stocks make rifles safer because the shooter finishes the magazine sooner: it flips the risk calculus on its head. Think of operating a consumer-grade drone near people on the ground. Private benefit: You get great aerial photos and save time compared with climbing a ladder or renting a lift. External risk: If the drone falls from 100 ft it can hit a bystander with far more kinetic energy than if it falls from 20 ft (energy ∝ height, so the risk climbs steeply as you fly higher or faster or fly over people). Regulatory levers: Aviation authorities cap altitude, require line-of-sight operation, limit flights over crowds, mandate geofencing near airports, and sometimes ask pilots to pass a basic safety test. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/think.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/think.pdf [2] AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, “Uncovering the Spillover Effect from Posted Speed Limit Changes” (2024). https://aaafoundation.org/uncovering-the-spillover-effect-from-posted-speed-limit-changes-a-tool-to-examine-potential-safety-concerns/ https://aaafoundation.org/uncovering-the-spillover-effect-fr...
kube-system 1y ago
Most vehicles are mechanically capable of going that fast because thats how fast cars can go when they are given the amount of power that consumers want when accelerating to pass or merge. Most vehicles do have software speed limiters, which are typically set to the safe mechanical limits of the vehicle when manufactured (often, the speed rating of the tires). The reason software speed limiters are not set to the highway speed limits in the US is because: 1. They might be used in places other than on highways subject to US law 2. Laws change 3. Manufacturers are not required to

by smeej 1y ago

davemp 1y ago

I’m not much of a gear head but I believe that a car would perform much worse at 0-80mph if it couldn’t physically reach 120mph. You can artificially limit it and I think that’s what folks take with.

robin_reala 1y ago
Volvo limit all their cars to 110mph and no-one seems to care. https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressreleases/268578/every-volvo-model-now-comes-with-a-180kph-speed-limit-and-care-key https://www.media.volvocars.com/global/en-gb/media/pressrele...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

HDThoreaun 1y ago

Because people dont want to buy cars that cant go over 100 mph. > I think the overwhelming majority (like 90%+) of people would happily buy a car that couldn't go more than 100mph You are empirically wrong I think.

codelikeawolf 1y ago
Most people driving on I-294 in Illinois would agree. Just "keeping up with traffic" normally requires you to go about 80mph. If my car topped out at 50 or 60mph, I'd be frustrated as hell.
smeej 1y ago
How can you make an empirical assessment when one of the options isn't available?
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  It is possible to make speed limited cars. The fact that no one does is evidence that people do not want them. The car market is very competitive, automakers do respond to what people want.
  - smeej 1y ago
    This isn't necessarily true at all. Other people in this very thread have proposed much better reasons. Some have even provided evidence that people do still buy cars that are limited (Volvos), without any apparent impact about speed. You can't assert that the empirical absence of data supports just one possible explanation.
    - HDThoreaun 1y ago
      The empirical absence suggests speed limited cars are not a viable product. Whether its because people dont want them or some other reason is up for debate but by far the simplest reason and to me most likely answer is just that not enough people want them.

twobitshifter 1y ago

There is always the autobahn. If systems like that existed endangered there could be incredible time savings. A related question of mine is ‘If cars can go so fast why do we not find ways to raise speed limits while keeping roads safe?’

op00to 1y ago
Why are assault weapons so difficult to own in Europe? They make them in the US and you can own them there. As to your question - I’d like to refer you to physics. 2000 pounds of metal moving at any speed can kill pedestrians easily. More speed means more energy. Increasing speed limits consumes more fuel, wears roads more, pollutes more tire and brake dust, and of course kills more. We should not make things more convenient for motorists just because motorists exist.
- ryao 1y ago
  There are typically no pedestrians on highways. Being a pedestrian on a high way is hazardous no matter what the speed limit is for any realistic speed limit. If the cars move faster, they will get off the road faster. This means fewer vehicles on the road and the distances between the vehicles will increase. It is a linear effect if you adapt a flow equation to vehicles. Here is the equation off the top of my head: V1*D1*L1 = V2*D2*L2 V is the average speed, D is the linear density, L is the number of lanes. If you care about safety, you want D to be as big as possible so that vehicles do not have distances between them reach 0. That implies higher speeds (or more lanes, but that is harder to do). Finally, the gun analogy is inappropriate. It is essentially saying “the data contradicts our conclusions, so let’s shutdown any rational thought that might question our conclusions”. This kind of thinking is backward and should easily lead to nonsense such as the rationalization of square wheels to give an example of the absurdity it allows. Interestingly, much of what you said could also be said in defense of the forced adoption of square wheels.
  - op00to 1y ago
    Traffic flow theory looks tidy on a whiteboard, but real roads don’t follow V D L arithmetic. Drivers open their following gaps faster than speed rises, so capacity peaks around 55 mph at roughly 2 000 veh/h/ln. Push limits higher and flow falls while crash energy soars. Because kinetic energy scales with the square of velocity (½ mv²), a 20 mph jump doesn’t give you 33 % more punch, it delivers nearly 80 % more. NHTSA data put it bluntly: fatal-injury odds about double for every 10 mph over 50 mph [1]. That’s an exponential climb in destructiveness, not a linear trade-off. Higher limits also leak onto the streets that feed the ramps. The AAA Foundation’s 2024 before-and-after work showed a lasting uptick in operating speeds and speed-related crashes on arterials within a mile of interchanges after states boosted freeway limits [2]. Pedestrians and cyclists never set foot on the interstate yet bear some of the fallout. Saying my analogy shuts down rational thought misreads what the analogy is doing. It's not a substitute for data but a framing device. I'm highlighting that different technologies share a core governance problem. When a private activity's danger rises faster than its utility, society uses regulation to keep expected harm below an acceptable threshold. This invites more rational analysis, not less. If empirical data showed that 85mph highways or un-regulated assault rifles actually reduced third party harm, the analogy wouldn't block that conclusion, but instead lead to different regulatory settings. Your dismissal flips the burden of proof, hand-waving away the external-risk problem instead of engaging the numbers. The gun analogy is serviceable once you zoom out from mechanics to externalities. An AR-15 and an 85 mph interstate both offer private utility but impose public risk that scales steeply—ballistic energy for one, kinetic energy for the other. Society uses licensing, background checks, or posted limits to push that expected harm below a tolerable threshold. Arguing that faster roads are safer because “cars clear out quicker” is like saying bump-stocks make rifles safer because the shooter finishes the magazine sooner: it flips the risk calculus on its head. Think of operating a consumer-grade drone near people on the ground. Private benefit: You get great aerial photos and save time compared with climbing a ladder or renting a lift. External risk: If the drone falls from 100 ft it can hit a bystander with far more kinetic energy than if it falls from 20 ft (energy ∝ height, so the risk climbs steeply as you fly higher or faster or fly over people). Regulatory levers: Aviation authorities cap altitude, require line-of-sight operation, limit flights over crowds, mandate geofencing near airports, and sometimes ask pilots to pass a basic safety test. [1] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/think.pdf https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/think.pdf [2] AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, “Uncovering the Spillover Effect from Posted Speed Limit Changes” (2024). https://aaafoundation.org/uncovering-the-spillover-effect-from-posted-speed-limit-changes-a-tool-to-examine-potential-safety-concerns/ https://aaafoundation.org/uncovering-the-spillover-effect-fr...

kube-system 1y ago

Most vehicles are mechanically capable of going that fast because thats how fast cars can go when they are given the amount of power that consumers want when accelerating to pass or merge. Most vehicles do have software speed limiters, which are typically set to the safe mechanical limits of the vehicle when manufactured (often, the speed rating of the tires). The reason software speed limiters are not set to the highway speed limits in the US is because: 1. They might be used in places other than on highways subject to US law 2. Laws change 3. Manufacturers are not required to