A lot of jurisdictions have a no chase policy when speeds reach triple digits. Even more don't chase bikes because there's no sense to. They can't keep up with the acceleration of a bike so they aren't doing anything but create an even deadlier situation.

But in my neck of the woods there isn't traffic like that and even the 1 cop towns are some times rolling with a charger.

I had a Suzuki Samurai in college that was the same way. The fastest I ever got that thing on the highway was 78, and I had to go downhill with no wind resistance to do it. When they raised the speed limit on I-70 to 65mph, I could only maintain the speed limit by drafting behind a semi.

My first car was a 78 Skyhawk, which was basically a Monza with a spoiler. I never noticed it being particularly slow, although it was a gas guzzler for a little car.

I had a Suzuki Sidekick. That thing was real good off road. Pismo Beach dunes where hella fun. That thing could do things Jeeps couldn't do.

I really do think this is the wrong question to be asking in the light of what happened(nothing against you Bugeater, but overall), wrong thing to be focused on. It frankly does not matter if he was in his 2020 Corvette or in an old Chevette with a sewing machine engine or hell if he had gone full George Jones and was on a lawnmower, the fact of the matter is operating any of those after drinking would still be the absolute wrong decision.

The problem isn't the machine, isn't the alcohol, isn't the Top Golf or wherever the hell he was drinking, the problem was his extremely poor decision making.

Illegal mexicans in 1980 datsons are dangeroius

I'm more worried about people not wearing masks

I wish I would have had mine when I lived in Phoenix, because it would have been great to go off reading there. I did take it mudding quite a bit, and it never got stuck. It was so light that it would just skim over the mud without sinking in.

I dated a girl who had one of those Samurais and I drove it a few times. It was definitely a piece of crap.

That Monza was a piece of crap, too, although it was a pretty little car. Bought it used in '83. The first day I had it the driver's side window fell down inside the door when I tried to roll it down to tell a passing friend that I'd just bought a car. LMAO I actually put a lot of miles on it, and admittedly didn't take particularly good care of it. The car was on its last legs when I had it Norfolk preparing to go home for Christmas of '85. The plan was to trade it on a new vehicle when we (the ex and I) got back to Missouri. Well, we got as far Charleston, West Virginia, the exact midway point of the trip, when the engine blew. Ended up selling for $100 and a ride to the bus station.

Oh I agree and no offense taken. Not trying to say the car was the problem, but it was during a conversation about the Ruggs incident when he brought the point up. It got me wondering about some of my vehicles with speedometers that went up to 150 or even more and why they even bother putting them in cars.

Its sole purpose is to stroke the fragile ego of the person about to buy the car.

And there are zero reasons a car needs to go 100 miles per outside of a track

It’s not the speed, it’s how fast they can reach speed. My Ram can do over 100 but it can’t get to that speed as quick as a C8.

I bet you remember the first time.

I don't know what it is about the Lada. Perhaps it is it's simplicity. Perhaps it evokes memories of 1980/90's Volvo which I love but...

I would drive the **** out of a Lada. Especially the 4x4 one that Black Widow was driving in the movie or something similar. Shit... for $15k brand new that would be the PERFECT vehicle for me on my farm.

https://static1.hotcarsimages.com/wo.../lada-niva.jpg

https://www.carscoops.com/wp-content...-2021-main.jpg

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...YbbI7zCBZy7EXw

In all seriousness, they shouldn't be built to not go fast but they should have a computer-controlled governor that needs to be deactivated by a technician at a race track if you want to open it up over 100. Of course, the issue will always lie with someone getting their hands on the technology and deactivating them for street use...

Of course they should be street legal. Just treat speeding like you do drugs. Any speeding over 5mph is an immediate jailable offense with heavy handed fines and sentencing. Make people who are habitual speeding offenders serve years in prison and punish them financially for life with limited economic opportunities.

It seems to have worked with drugs.

It's not the speed, it's the DRIVER. If you cannot control what you drive, that is on YOU!

It's actually very useful at times.... like if you're traveling at 80mph in a 75 and some dumbass semi driver decides he wants in your lane with no shoulder, gunning it is safer than causing a massive pileup by stomping on your brake.

And I generally find it far safer to not be around other cars, so I'd much rather get through the bullshit than be one of the dolts who spend 4 days passing each semi.

If we actually taught people how to drive and the responsibility that comes with it, 100mph wouldn't be such a daunting thing that you seem to be making it out to be. That's prime cruising speed for many cars these days.

You don't seem to understand... Banning spoons and forks wouldn't stop people from overeating, just like banning fast cars wouldn't stop stupid folks from driving too fast. Unfortunately, living in a free society kills less people than an oppressed society, but that doesn't stop the handwringing from those who want government control when and awful accident caused by someone already breaking numerous laws occurs...

What about Tina? What could she have controlled?

Power and speed has ALWAYS been the THING. When to use it and how to use it is the real issue.

Uh, victim not perpetrator.

:facepalm:

The vast majority of fatal car accidents occur at speeds well below 100 mph. think I read that it's actually about 60. Maybe we should whine to the government that cars should be limited to 59 mph just to shut the holes of all the bleeding vaginas in America today?

Yes. What about her could she have done to not get hit by a dude doing 156?

Think before you respond this time.

Please, let me take this back. She was innocent in a rampant display of speed and negligence on an intoxicated youth with obviously, no regards to human life. I will stand with this response.

Even if he wasnt going 156 and say 85 instead with how low the Corvette is to the ground it still probably hits the Rav 4s fuel tank right? Would 85 be enough to cause a fire as well?

I get it... and I agree the idiocy of a few people shouldn't ruin things for everyone else. And in that particular case, 50mph would have been twice the speed limit, much less 100.

OTOH, at a certain mph, it does make any arguments against practically pointless and nothing more than silly "slippery slope" stuff. I mean, the limiter on my car is 125 and calling that being oppressed is pretty ridiculous outside of going to a track. It's basically limiting the absolute dumbest members of society from doing something really ****ing stupid (and people in rural North Dakota from having a little fun).

I voted yes.

100 should be the max

But, I also realize Ruggs still kills her going 100

Nobody wants anyone innocent to come to ill due to thoughtless and frivolous actions of others, but no one thinks the things they do are thoughtless or frivolous enough to be restricted, at least not the wise and attentive ways THEY do them.

I personally think Chrysler is overdue for slamming a 800 horsepower Hellcat engine in a Grand Caravan. What are they waiting for?

Actually lined up next to one of those Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawks not too long ago and didn't even realize it. Not until that Jeep took off like a rocket upon the light turning green, dude must of thought me in my Mustang wanted to race. You are in a Jeep I didn't even think about racing man.

Dunning Kruger at its finest.

LOL. I had a little Honda SS once and a guy pulled up next to me in a mustang or something and started gunning his engine and shit. I did the same. Light turned green, he took off, I turned right and went into CVS to get some milk.

No offense, because it didn't start with you, but I hate how much this is overused, and so smugly. Like it explains everything, including how it doesn't apply to the observer.

That little rant dispensed with, I think my observation is more about self-centeredness than about overestimation of abilities. You know you are conscientious, but you don't care how conscientious anyone else is. If someone else hurts people doing something you don't value, you don't see why anyone should be 'allowed' the way you are allowed to do dangerous things because you are good and conscientious.

* - [all uses of 'you' are intended as royal]

I truthfully don't race people in my car though, too old for that. Was once in a leftmost turn lane going onto the on ramp for the freeway and a Camaro pulled into the next turn lane, and as soon as the light turned green he shot off down the on ramp and steadily grew smaller in my windshield as he pulled away. All I could think about was lol I wasn't trying to race buddy, but you go ahead and attract the attention of the cops so I don't have to worry about it. His car sounded damn good though.

My best story in this area though involves my old Bronco though. Was driving to work sometime during the winter and the roads were icy and some small Mazda was right on my butt and at the stop light the road briefly opens up to two lanes before collapsing back down to one lane. Light hits red before we get to it so I pull up and the Mazda pulls up to my right, and I'm like okay this guy wants in front of me no big deal. Light turns green and he guns it, only because it's icy he goes absolutely no where. I laugh a bit and casually accelerate, not even in 4 wheel drive mind you, and go on my way while little Mr. Mazda is struggling to get going.

Around here, it probably did start with me. LMAO

Just like Slayer wearing a fedora when he was younger, I preceded the craze.

I see your point on the 2nd part. I think it's textbook DK in terms of overestimating your own abilities (depending on what that thing is), but can see there's other aspects to that as well when it comes to the contradiction of what is and isn't dangerous based on what you value.

I hadn't really thought of it in those terms, but thinking about an example or two, can definitely see that for myself when it comes to things that don't interest me in the slightest and a view of basically "why would anyone even want/do that?"

No.

Tried of restrictions on liberty because idiots exist.

Why do you need to go 150+. In the name of Liberty, of course.

**** me, my Dad is 66, and he does the shit too. Most of the time it is on rural county roads, but still. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that he's 66 and feels compelled to compose longform multifaceted responses to simple questions behind the wheel.

That isn't really the issue. I don't go 150+. Fastest I've ever been in a car is 110.

The question is why should I be restricted from owning a car that is capable of going 150+. I also don't a car that has a heads up display, but does that mean I should be restricted from owning one?

And it is certainly possible that I could legally and in good faith use some of the performance functions that also allow 150+ to keep myself out of trouble. My current vehicle, while costing...let's just say all the money, isn't very evasive if I need it to be.

Not arguing, but the question is actually whether we should be allowed to own a car that can exceed 100 mph, not 150. Like it's a given that we shouldn't be able to buy a car that can go 150 already.

These poll results....LMAO


https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e3/7c/d5/e...d315d78745.jpg

When self driving cars get to the point where they are safer on average than human driven ones, those of us still alive should remember the Tina's of the world and push for their adoption and even - despite the howls from the testosterone freaks - eventually push for the elimination of human driven cars.

Think......think harder. Come on man

Oh, you don't have Bugeater on ignore? I was just responding to Dave.

:D

Hey Bug...:Poke:

Some people have to bring their political bullshit into every single thread and make every argument a slippery slope, no matter how insignificant a restriction would be on their life?

Is that it?

How do you even conceive the notion of restricting the actions of others without invoking the notion of political power?

Seems to me that, no matter what behavior you want to elicit or restrict in another individual, you have 3 options; persuade them, force them through personal might, or force them by proxy through the might of governance.

I purposely did not talk politics but rather asked you to simply "think" and you answered my and your question at the same time. Its all good.

I will say this, I don't think cars should be limited, though I don't see the purpose of driving over 100 mph on public roads and having a drivers license isn't a citizens right.

If street legal cars had a 100 mph limiter installed in them it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. The highest my truck ever sees is maybe 80 mph if I need to get in front of a semi when merging onto a highway and then its right back down to 70-75.

Fast cars are a sign of toxic masculinity and freedom to make personal choices...I think all cars should be tan and slow... and men digitally monitored...limited to only 2 orgasms a week.

You want three...that will $200 deducted from your digital ID account.

I NEED a car that exceeds 100 MPH...to avoid you commie freaks.

I dont support the government putting some sort of speed control on cars but what I do question are some of the laws and how they delt. I mean you have videos of Ruggs going high speeds in the past, buying a high speed car where the website openly admits to having built in radar dection which is illegal in Nevada. Now how is it different between me filming myself going 100 in a car that weighs a ton on a road shared by others and openly shooting a gun into the air? They are prosecuted much differently but both are extremely dangerous to the public.

I generally favor personal freedom. I am against most vaccine mandates. Not in favor of forcing masks on school children but limiting cars to a more reasonable speed on the highway makes sense. In Germany on Autobahn, everyone pays attention to the rules of the road so driving 120 MPH there feels safer than 65-75 MPH in the USA. Too many drivers in the USA are distracted/drunk or simply don't know how to drive well so I support introducing a limit.

In the USA given the terrible drivers, cars without the most safety devices to prevent collisions and lessen the impact of them should be limited to something like 105 MPH. Vehicles with them and drivers having to blow into some sort of device to make sure they are sober, I would allow to go up to 120/125 MPH on certain desolated highways like in the desert.

I wouldn't make old cars without these speed governors illegal or force any sort of retrofitting on them so it would take 10-20 years to really start lower the death rate/accident rate from some of these idiots who think they are Nascar drivers on public highways.

I don't care if folks go over 200 MPH on the track so I would allow GPS or something like that to control if the speed governors take effect.

Just wait until GPS is attached to you digital ID account....

Stevegrogan fan, our monitoring system shows you exceeded the approved speed limit of 45 and maintained a MPH of 48 for 3 minutes and 23 seconds.

That will be $666 dollars...

You MF's that crave being digitally controlled/monitored...arent going to like where this ultimately goes.

Shut up edave

People try to race my lil s10 all the time.


LMAO

No. It's safer to have a car that is engineered to be able to handle going substantially faster than I would ever drive it, and to be driven under substantially rougher conditions than I would ever attempt. So allow me to purchase more than I need and to use the restraint that an adult citizen is expected to have in a complicated society.


TL/DR: Go **** yourself.

Jesus christ how many cars cant go 100 mph in modern times? My daily driver gas saver 06 cobalt will do 115 or more.

You been noticing this too?

I was doing 80 the other day and everyone was blowing by me. I thought my speedometer was off.

80-90-100+ all the time it seems.

I had a Sidekick when I lived in Flagstaff. 75 MPH governor on it. Go 76 and try to set the cruise control. Nope, won't do set.

Gutless piece of trash in many ways with that tiny sewing machine engine but man, that think could climb a hill like no ones business. Put it in 4 wheel low and it could nearly go up the side of a building.

Amazingly I put 150K on that thing before it finally gave out.

You realize every car that leaves Ford, GM, and Dodge factory’s today are capable of 100mph right? All of them. Every one

Not true. My 3/4 ton duramax governs at 99 in 4 out of 6 gears LMAO

Years ago I helped my cousin move from St. Louis to L.A. I drove the rental truck. Goddamn thing had a governor on it and wouldn't go over 65. I think I still have PTSD from driving the length of Kansas at 65. ****.

**** that!

We should just make the speed limit 150... that solves all the problems.

It was horrible. Hour after hour after hour of nothing but open prairie and the highway heading toward a distant rise. Every time I'd approach one I'd think PLEASE GOD LET THERE BE SOMETHING INTERESTING OVER THIS ONE, but it was just more open prairie heading toward another distant rise.

Kept waiting to get to Colorado, thinking about the mountains and streams and beautiful scenery. And of course eastern Colorado is just as bad as Kansas, if not worse. It was still several hours before I saw mountains.

But once we got past Denver into the mountains, that drive was absolutely magnificent, all the way to L.A. I had never been in that part of the country before, so even the stuff that would bore me if I spent any real time there was cool because it was all so foreign and new to me.

Here's the outside the box thinking we need!

I have a brilliant idea!

They should make a device thats installed along all roads that will activate a governor that would be installed on all vehicles that will govern the speed limit of the vehicle. So if your in a 75 mph zone it will limit you to 75. If you're in a 40 zone it will limit you to 40. If you're in a school zone it will limit you to 20. If you're in a Chicago ghetto it will take you straight to jail.

The most accurate answer is embedded in the name "street legal." Since there currently isn't a street/highway in the US with a speed limit of 100 mph, then any vehicle capable of that speed by rights shouldn't be street legal. This would change almost nothing when it comes to safety though, so I see no reason to take away the ability for people to make the choice to drive over 100 mph. You cannot legislate away risk of everything and there are times that driving at this speed could be prudent and actually safer than driving at a slower speed.

:facepalm:

You want these cars to be illegal to drive?

No? I rest my case.

https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

https://external-content.duckduckgo....jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Hell you would put an entire major industry out of business. Its an absurdly stupid idea to begin with. Ironically the SEMA show in Vegas is going on right now.

I don't think anyone who voted "no" in the poll is arguing that these cars shoud be illegal to drive. I think most of the discussion has been centered around the ability to govern the engine to where they wouldn't have the ability to go over 100mph. If they still had the same acceleration and handling but topped out at 100 mph, would that really be the worst thing in the world? The enjoyment of driving the sports cars I've owned in my lifetime has always come from the acceleration, not the top end speed.

Funny thing about all those classic muscle cars is they make ordinary Toyota sedans and minivans that put out more power than any of those cars did stock. It’s now the norm to make passenger cars with 300+ horsepower.

Entirely different sensations driving them.

shut up noob...

Correct. I drove my brothers new wide body vet on a wide open flat and straight Montana highway. He said to goose it, I looked down at the projected speed on the lower part of the windshield a few seconds later and I was doing 141... It felt like 60 and was as smooth as could be... I remember driving with my brother in a 70's Cougar in the late 80's. We were going 105 and it felt like the car was going to break apart...

So I have to have a governor on my car on the street and take it off when I go to the track etc..?

Nah **** that.

Get back to me when they outlaw cigarettes', alcohol, extra large fries and cokes and donuts which kill more people than cars do every year. Wait what? Why shouldn't people who can control their drinking and eating have to have the things taken away because of a people who can't? :hmmm:

This whole argument is epically stupid but it shows the bent logic of some people.

When i first read this my initial reaction was, "**** you OP".

But honestly i can't think of a reason as to why a street car needs to go over 100mph in THIS country.

But that doesn't mean i support restricting them, because it's about a helluva lot more than going fast.

Sports cars are part of our culture, and getting rid of them would kill the automotive market. Just kill it. All your speed shops, parts manufactures, car clubs, local race tracks etc would be devastated.

Because while we sit here and go, "oh there should be cars for the track and cars for the street", the reality is that they are one in the same.

Most track cars started life as a street car and then it's enhanced to be track worthy.

And so, sure, if your car couldn't do 100mph it probably won't change anything about how you drive. But it would absolutely destroy car culture.

A bunch of freedom hating eunuchs in here. :evil: :p

Should we also outlaw castor beans because they can be processed into ricin?

Since no product/item is being outlawed, I'm thinking a far better analogy would be along the lines of limiting portion sizes at restaurants to be much more reasonable, which is something most other countries do.

And even then, since the OP is talking about 100mph, the limit would be the equivalent of not being able to order two extra large fries or a 128oz Coke... something that very few people do, like drive 100mph.

But then after that, the point would be to not kill other people, so it would maybe be more like a restriction of alcohol served to 2 drinks per hour (again, extreme enough that most people wouldn't even notice, like driving 100mph).


And FTR, I voted no because my guess is the majority of drunk driving deaths or car related deaths at all are caused by someone driving less than 100mph, even though that line of "extreme enough of a restriction to not care" would be fairly close to that, such as the 125mph limiter on my car..... just figured if we're bending logic, we should at least bend it back to the reality of the proposed restriction.

I like motorcycles. Hyper Space liter bikes are the best.
Fastest I have been on a bike was 142. Got to have the visibility and long stretch of road with no drives/intersections.