Should cars that go 100+ mph be street legal?

[Bugeater]

Spinoff of the Henry Ruggs thread. I had a conversation with someone earlier today who stated there was no reason for there to be cars on the road capable of more than 100 mph, and there's really no argument that can be made against that.

Meanwhile...we all now know what the new Corvette is capable of, and Chrysler is throwing Hellcat engines in everything possible, and the number of electric cars available with silly horsepower is constantly growing.

Is this really a good thing? Poll forthcoming!!!

[ToxSocks]

Originally Posted by backinblack

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.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Entirely different sensations driving them.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Vladimir_Kyrilytch

Now is your time, mods. Only allow certain political agendas to remain unbanned huh? So if I outwardly begin recruit new CCP members, all good huh? Cause I got links.

shut up noob...

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

Entirely different sensations driving them.

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...

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by LoneWolf

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.

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?

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

[ToxSocks]

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.

[TrebMaxx]

A bunch of freedom hating eunuchs in here.

[Peter Gibbons]

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

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

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?

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

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.

[Graystoke]

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.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Megatron96

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?

Most people are driving on highways where the posted speed is 55-65 mph, maybe that's why the average is 60? Jesus ****.