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!!!

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

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...

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).

[Prison Bitch]

I voted yes.

100 should be the max

But, I also realize Ruggs still kills her going 100

[Baby Lee]

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.

[backinblack]

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.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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.

Dunning Kruger at its finest.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by backinblack

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.

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.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Dunning Kruger at its finest.

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]

[backinblack]

Originally Posted by eDave

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.

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.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

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]

Around here, it probably did start with me.

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?"

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

No.

Tried of restrictions on liberty because idiots exist.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Carr4MVP

No.

Tried of restrictions on liberty because idiots exist.

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

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by alanm

I don't know who's worse. Women or men. Generally both if their under age 35.

**** 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.

Originally Posted by eDave

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

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.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

**** 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.

[Bugeater]

These poll results....

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by eDave

What about Tina? What could she have controlled?

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.