Should cars that go 100+ mph be street legal?

[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.

[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.