The Inalienable Right to Speed

From the same measurebating author...

At least now I know I am not compensating with my car.

My "Hot Rod" will go up to 240/MPH, with my hair whipping in the air. Quite exhilarating experience, and never once even wondered about the legality.

Never tied it to "size" either.

I enjoy the three basics while I have them: My Lovely Wife, My Sports Car, and My Hair.

Regards:

As a defensive driving safety issue I need to be able to accelerate from 0-60 in 3.4 seconds.

Much road rage is eliminated by our cars being able to get up to merge on to the motorway and get up to speed within seconds (not minutes).

"Most cars can travel over 100 miles an hour"

LIES, ALL LIES. There are only a few cars in the world that can, it is just that those few cars are the ones you see. If you see an automotive accident then it is probably an average car that tried to exceed 100.

Apart from that the point is noted. Pushing the engineering boundaries is nice, but we really all don't need high-performance cars. As for the article, it is full of misleading and erroneous statements based on what appears to be a biased personal view rather than any real actual data and facts.

<Sigh> Lazy, lazy reporting.

Evolution is not a japanese automobile. Evolution is people that get faster and faster and before ya know it, flying fighter jets is easier for the grandson than grandpa back in the day bragging about the p-51. To hinder us all to 75mph is like setting down syndrome as a goal for a mcdonalds employee...

Cars can be fast, cars can be safe, drivers the same. stop the socialist ideals. I desire to punch you in the face real fast like a car I can drive fast, after developing reflexes, speed, stamina, sharp eye... the old fashioned evolutionary way to quicker and stronger: because I challenged myself. Ridiculous post. Go get a 12 inch wheeled vtec...and pretend the world isn't leaving the slow behind. The tractor trailer doing the speed limit will do away with you retarded minds quicker..maybe even a sidewind by GOD himself would do the trick. Backwards thinking sucks like a honda, bitching loud and going nowhere...Stupid socialist.

Well I for 1 do not need to be anywhere in 3.6 seconds.

If I get there this week thats ok if not then next week.

I am thankful to have a car... it takes so much longer to get places on foot.

We should probably not worry about what we *can* do in our cars, but rather show proper thanks for having such gifts by using them in moderation.

This article follows the logic tat first reared its ugly head when cars began showing up on american roadways..."nobody needs to get somewhere faster than a horse can take them" I recommend the author get himself a horse and stay off the road...I'm actually more concerned with driver's who are so scared of driving that they drive substantially slower than the rest of traffic on a freeway rather than taking an alternate route that has a lower posted speed limit. The need for cars that can go that fast is so if you need the acceleration to avoid an accident, you have it. If you reduce all vehicles to top out at 75 mph you will eliminate that extra acceleration. I personally have used acceleration to avoid a handful of potential accidents. As far as the average american auto being capable of over 100 mph, for the most part this is true. My current car will do 105 before the computor disconnects the accelerator. This is similar to how most vehicles I've driven. And, if I wanted, I could replace the chip in the computor to allow me to drive faster.

I was driving and talking on I-85 thru Alanta late one night and she looked over and said honey slow down your going 125 mph in a 75 mph zone. That little thing was so quite too.

Having acceleration is one thing, but having the top end at 120+mph? That's just overkill. I've driven that fast and hey now don't you all think I'm super cool, what if I told you that I had driven faster than 140mph! WHO CARES

Was it a smart thing for me to do? No Could it have been harmful to me? Yes, but here's the real kicker...that doesn't matter. If I go off and do something stupid and die it only hurts me. If I go and do something stupid and kill somebody else, somebody's child or mother or sister or brother, then it hurts others and that's the underlying issue (other than insurance companies are able to drive rates up now because you just bought a car that can do 140mph).

So drive fast if you want, but if you drive fast and kill somebody that I'm related to... well, I'll just leave the rest to the imagination.

There's no need to rush, where ever it is that you're going, it'll be there when you get there.

I do take umbrage at the statement, " . . . deliberate production of potentially law-breaking devices has no precedent." What a dolt. That statement is absurd. I suppose we haven't been deliberating producing:

firearms

kitchen knives

hammers

axes

chainsaws

bicycles

rope

and so on.

I maintain that virtually every device, object, product, or material could be used for potentially law-breaking purposes. It's all in how the person uses it. This is exactly the dangerous kind of language this genre of people love to espouse, where they advocate a totalitarianist form of government.

I must admit that I do have some cognitive dissonance in these areas however. For instance, I like the fact that smoking has been banned in restaurants here in Maryland even though I disagree with the law. Had I been governor, I would not have signed it into law even though I like it.

We must remain vigilant against these attempts to put more and more government into every aspect of our lives.

Agreed Robin. My main issue is that some seem bent on enacting laws every time they are personally dissatisfied with something. I like what the late George Carlin had to say on the subject. They are passively handing over our freedoms to eliminate choices that THEY SHOULD MAKE ON THEIR OWN. As you mentioned with the smoking ban...If you don't like it, leave. I'm a non smoker in most cases I have little issue with being around smokers. If someone's cigarette is wafting in my face I ask them to hold it somewhere else or I move. Likewise for speeding. If you don't like speeders Then take an alternative route. I've noticed far more speeders on freeways than on highways. It's already aginst the law and if they get pulled over they'll be cited. If they're a habitual offender they'll pay more. I don't think many states would back such legislation, basically because the fines that are collected for traffic violations are earmarked for road construction/repair. This is a large source of income for most states and if you've ever tried to separate the government from a source of income you'll know that you''d have an easier time separating a hungry lion from a fresh steak.

Ahh so I take it you'd rather be dust than ashes...That is, of course, your choice...I personally would rather get from point a to point b (not go round in circles on a track) and not drive any more than necessary(waste of gas)...

Actually, for you it is the destination that matters. For others, myself included, it is the journey that counts.

Well, OK, but personally I've always found it to be more to my interest to care whether I get there, not when... Results admittedly may vary.

In theory that is a nice thought, but who among us has never, never gone faster than the posted speed limit?

Not too many law abiding citizens on the road that I have seen.

Oh, I agree. Believe me, I'm no saint, I've had some fast cars in the past. But today, in the People's Republic anyway, a speeding ticket is big money. Then you get a surcharge on your insurance for the next 5 years. Also, 3 tickets in a year, and they pull your licence for 6 months.

Best to go the speed limit.

While I concur with Brave Sir Robin on the wisdom of passing largely unenforceable laws "for our own good", I must also agree with the basic premise. I've often wondered myself why cars a built that can do 140+ mph. Where are they supposed to be driven? Nowhere, legally. At least in this country. Unless you have access to a racetrack, of course. I too have accelerated out of several potential accidents, and never been involved in one. But I needed to go from 60 to 85 in 1.2 seconds, not 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds, or 60 to 120 in 4.5 seconds. Fast acceleration and top end speed are two entirely different things!

Sebring is one place of many that you can go legally.

Why are cars built to go 140+ mph? Because they are a blast to drive (on the track).

Yes, and Sebring isn't too far away. For that matter, neither is Daytona. Or Talledega, but how likely is the average Joe with his 4-door sedan to be allowed to run the course? I guess if you can afford a Ferrari you could rent a few laps...

Yah,

I was young and foolish once or twice.

Back in 70-71 I had a real nice looking 59 Chev with fresh 283, 3 on the tree and a high geared (for automatic) rear end. It was a hassle to drive it through town because it was hard to do just 25.

Just outside Pasco there is a 60 MPH highway going down along the Columbia river toward Walla Walla. On that engine's break-in run several friends and I crested the hill overlooking that stretch and I put the pedal to the metal.

You can see about 10 miles (clear to Wallula Jct.) and the oncoming lane was clear so I slid over and let her roll. After passing the 13th car I got back in the right lane. The 120 MPH speedo had been burried for about half that distance. Of course it didn't have the right speedo gear for that high geared rear end. Best estimate was somewhere between 160 and 200 MPH. When I pulled into the Junction I looked around and saw my buddies climbing up off the floor some what shaken.

The topper was after I sold the car two weeks later. The fellow that bought it was going around a corner in our neighborhood and one of the front top suspension A frames came off. Immagine that at 160+.

Yeah, you'd have to imagine it - I doubt you'd survive it!