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

I think we should ban spoons and forks except for small ones less than a 1/2 of teaspoon or 3 small fork prongs, to keep folks from dying from obesity...

Well, this thread was created from a thread about someone killing another person with their car.... it's not about saving you from yourself, it's (at least in the spirit of the other thread) about saving people from others' stupidity.

[jd1020]

If cars over 100 mph are banned does this mean cop cars are limited to 100 mph? Asking for a friend who rides a motorcycle.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by Otter

How do you limit the power and still allow for towing, hauling and other vehicle uses without adding more things to go wrong and making them more expensive?

Cars already do this. It's easy to limit speed and still have a million horse power, it is all electronic.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by jd1020

If cars over 100 mph are banned does this mean cop cars are limited to 100 mph? Asking for a friend who rides a motorcycle.

A highway patrolman once told me that they don't really take the time for crotch rocketers and said they will just wait until they are scraping them off the highway later. This was California.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

I’d probably rate several things above super cars on the road in terms of public safety. Most notably

1. Incompetence in operating a motor vehicle
2. Semis doing reeruned things.
3. Distracted driving because we can’t go .005 seconds without checking our phones because we are the ****ing worst.

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

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by eDave

A highway patrolman once told me that they don't really take the time for crotch rocketers and said they will just wait until they are scraping them off the highway later. This was California.

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.

[Spott]

Originally Posted by Frazod

My first car was a '77 Monza. It would do 80 going down the side of a mountain. And 30 going up the side of a mountain.

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.

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Spott

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.

[backinblack]

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.

[Demonpenz]

Illegal mexicans in 1980 datsons are dangeroius

[Titty Meat]

I'm more worried about people not wearing masks

[Spott]

Originally Posted by eDave

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 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.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Spott

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 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. 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.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by backinblack

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.

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.

[vonBobo]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

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