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!!!

[kcpasco]

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.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

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

I bet you remember the first time.

[Mephistopheles Janx]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

A true commie would have everyone driving Ladas

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.

[kccrow]

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...

[Abba-Dabba]

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.

[Stryker]

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

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by vonBobo

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 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.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

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.

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...

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Stryker

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

What about Tina? What could she have controlled?

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by 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!!!

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

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by eDave

What about Tina? What could she have controlled?

Uh, victim not perpetrator.

[Megatron96]

Originally Posted by kccrow

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...

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?

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Uh, victim not perpetrator.

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

Think before you respond this time.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by eDave

What about Tina? What could she have controlled?

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.

[Titty Meat]

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?