Quantcast

National Speed Limit?

What do you think?

  • Reinstate the national speed limit and set it to 65.

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • National speed limit and mechanically limit cars and trucks.

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Keep it like it is and let people drive 100+.

    Votes: 45 86.5%

  • Total voters
    52

JustMtnB44

Monkey
Sep 13, 2006
849
119
Pittsburgh, PA
If it was up to me any highway outside of a major city (so like 95% of interstates) would be like the autobahn with no speed limit for passenger vehicles. Why spend 10 hours driving somewhere when you can get there in 6.5? If I can afford the gas and I'm skilled enough to drive fast then good for me, and if you want to save gas by going 55 or 65 then thats up to you.

Of course along with this the US would have to implement driver's licensing tests that actually require you not to be retarded and show some competency in controlling a vehicle in places other than 30mph city streets in order to pass. That would probably eliminate 1/4 of drivers currently on the road which would save a lot of gas.
 

CKxx

Monkey
Apr 10, 2006
669
0
I think the national speed limit should return and be set to 65mph. Cars should be mechanically limited to 67mph and trucks to 65mph. There is no good reason to allow cars to drive any faster on public roads. It is dangerous and wastes millions of gallons of gas every day.
I got in on this way late but uhh..."Sounds awesome you socialist ass."

EDIT TO ADD: Only a fully indoctrinated Masshole could come up with an idea this perfect.
 
Last edited:

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
86,705
25,252
media blackout
how about this, nuke all the major cities, give the remaining population guns and meth, and let hilarity ensue! I picture it like this...

 

thebornotaku

Monkey
May 19, 2008
359
0
Northern Bay Area
I think the national speed limit should return and be set to 65mph. Cars should be mechanically limited to 67mph and trucks to 65mph. There is no good reason to allow cars to drive any faster on public roads. It is dangerous and wastes millions of gallons of gas every day.
the national speed limit is 55mph, 65mph if marked.

Yes, it is generally dangerous, that's why there's such things as speeding tickets, hazardous driving tickets, etc.

Wastes millions of gallons of gas every day? No. It's probably "Wasted" millions of gallons of gas, yes, but not in one day. Besides, what do you care? They paid for it, it's no different if they get to go 100mph with it or 65mph. If you're THAT concerned with gas economy why don't you mandate that people can't go over 56mph (the optimal speed for fuel efficiency, most studies show) and make us all drive hybrids?

I like the European Autobahn (not just Germany). In some countries (Germany, I think The Netherlands too, Italy) there's no speed limit. I know on the German Autobahn, there's less accidents/capita than there is in the US. The difference is the higher fatality rate per accident.



Mechanically limiting cars to 65mph is a dumbass ****ing idea. That means when they're doing 65mph they're all out of steam, and it uses a ****load of fuel to maintain that. Granted, speeding will disappear, but so will our gas supply, and you seem to be concerned about that...

Electronically limiting cars to 65mph is also a dumb idea, anybody with a laptop, a $50 cable and about 15 minutes could reprogram the ECU and raise the rev limit/speed limit.


By building cars that can reach 100mph+ easily, you also make it so the engine does minimal work to maintain proper freeway speed, reducing engine wear, fuel use, and increasing engine (and wallet) life.

Also keep in mind some cars are bought with the intent to be used as track cars and pretty much garaged otherwise. Are you going to mandate that these cars be kept off the road and/or require that people present some sort of race license to access higher speed cars?



What I think we need to change, if anything, is our government's system of dealing with drivers. Don't hand any dope with $500 and a few hours a license. Make them do actually challenging tests (like defensive driving, wheeltime at a controlled location and require a certification for proof) and mandate the power of cars that people under a certain age can own (like Australia does, no cars over x HP, no cars over x displacement, etc), but have an age limit where it's unrestricted.


The only real problems on the road have just been addressed. Dumbass kids (who I all too often see driving around in mustangs, camaros, etc, cars way more powerful than they can handle) and people who just never really learned how to drive properly (and end up getting in accidents where it was avoidable).

Oh, and drunks should be punished with permanent (and forever) removal of the license. Simple as that. If you're not responsible enough to be behind the wheel of a vehicle, then you don't get to. Driving without a license warrants jailtime, too, or it should.

But as far as the cars go, let automakers be automakers.
 

narlus

Eastcoast Softcore
Staff member
Nov 7, 2001
24,658
63
behind the viewfinder
I like the European Autobahn (not just Germany). In some countries (Germany, I think The Netherlands too, Italy) there's no speed limit. I know on the German Autobahn, there's less accidents/capita than there is in the US. The difference is the higher fatality rate per accident.
they also don't drive while texting and filling their pie hole w/ an egg mcmuffin.
 

thebornotaku

Monkey
May 19, 2008
359
0
Northern Bay Area
they also don't drive while texting and filling their pie hole w/ an egg mcmuffin.
That too.

Oh, and my thoughts on that group of dumbasses? I think we should have them all do a destruction derby where at the end everything just blows up anyways. No, wait. Just blow them up, screw the derby.

Srsly.

I drove through Los Angeles (on I-5) and I saw a lady reading the newspaper and putting on makeup. No hands on the wheel.

Doing 60mph.

I was so tempted to cut the wheel and ram her off the road.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
If you really want to make people drive 65 then the national limit should be 50..because just about everyone drives 10-15 over. I really could care less if it saves or doesn't save energy. As long as gas prices keep going up eventually people will be forced to drive responsibly. Telling them it will save energy will do nothing as evident in this thread..you have to hit them where it hurts and unfortunately the only way Americans care is when it hits their pocketbook...D
 

AngryMetalsmith

Business is good, thanks for asking
Jun 4, 2006
21,418
11,179
I have no idea where I am
If you really want to reduce fuel consumption on a large scale, make it more difficult to get a drivers license. Impose an IQ minimum requirement for obtaining a license. This would significantly reduce the number or cars on the road and create a demand for better public transit. But best of all it would completely eliminate NASCAR.
 

strangeland2

Monkey
Jul 11, 2007
305
0
masshole
I dont know why anyone would want the government to control anything they do. We re supposed to be a free country. Just cause it works for one person doesnt make it the best method. Everyone in this thread that has referred to other drivers or people in general as idiots or bad drivers has at least once been the idiot or bad driver whether you all believe it or not.

As for me... A vehicle that was limited to 65 wouldnt have changed the outcome of my situation.... Id still have been an idiot and a bad driver.
 

BMXman

I wish I was Canadian
Sep 8, 2001
13,827
0
Victoria, BC
Interesting that the threadstarter is being called all kind of names by a number of people but no one else has come up with a better idea or alternative...D
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
I have always wondered why, if the government were so worried about people speeding, do they allow vehicles to be produced that are easily able to break speed limits. In some cases, even meant to.
The answer, and it's been said already, is that the government doesn't care whether you speed or not, but they do get alot of revenue from the tickets, and we owe alot of our safety in this country to police officers, who otherwise wouldn't be employed.

But if fuel consumption is the issue, or conservation rather... then I say the government would be far better off just investing in mass transit infrastructure and alternative fuels than to try and crack down on the vehicles and drivers themselves. After all, the gas will be gone one day no matter how much we conserve, so we might as well start preparing now instead of being caught with our pants down. As gas prices continue to rise (and they will), people will be looking to the mass transit/alt fuels for solutions to transportation. Sitting around and wishing we'd conserved more or driven slower won't be very productive then.
 

woodsguy

gets infinity MPG
Mar 18, 2007
1,083
1
Sutton, MA
US OIL DEMAND, 2004: Over 20 million barrels per day, up from January 2002, when demand was about 18.5 million barrels per day, = 777 million gallons. If lined up in 1-gallon cans, they would encircle the earth at the equator almost 6 times (about 147,000 miles of cans) — every day. Here's another image: EVERY DAY, the US consumes enough oil to cover a football field with a column of oil 2500 feet tall. That's 121 million cubic feet. 55-60% of US consumption is imported at a cost of $50 billion+ per year, amounting to the largest single element of our trade deficit. In summer 2004, thanks to higher prices, increased demand, and lower production, record trade deficits of more than $50 billion per month were recorded, with approximately 30% of that attributable to imported energy costs. In September 2004, the US reported its lowest monthly oil production in 55 years, at an average of 4.85 million barrels per day.
U.S. gasoline consumption of 320,500,000 gallons per day (March 2005) works out to about 3700 gallons per second.
Just a slight % increase in mpg would save millions of gallons of gas.
 

thebornotaku

Monkey
May 19, 2008
359
0
Northern Bay Area
Price goes up, consumption goes down. Sounds like it'll take care of itself. :rolleyes:
QFT


Uhhh , right.

So you're saying that all we have to do is increase the supply of a finite commodity.
:think:


Ever stop to think that there's TONS and TONS of raw oil out there that hasn't been drilled in to, maybe he's suggesting we tap into it. And I agree, we should.

It's been shown that at our current rate, the world's oil supply will last another 50 years or so.

That's more than enough time to develop and implement new, more effecient, technologies. Hell, the automobile was the main method of transport by the 1950's (1970's if you start when automobiles really began to be popular). By that calculation, we can change our entire country in less than fifty years.

Now, with the added motivation of higher fuel costs, people are getting cars that are more efficient and companies are devising new technologies.


How about we keep this thread on track, though, boys? National speed limit, yes or no?