Point one..insurance.....it's called personal responsiblity. It is the law as
made by our elected representatives.If some one doesn't like the law they can always go vote and try to change it that way. If you do not want to purchase insurance, fine , don't , just go ahead and walk where you to go.
Point two..safety....I will concede that cars are safer now and highways better, however when a person such as yourself speeds
in the manner you do that negates any safety improvements. You are going against what the majority of others do and therefore become a
safety hazzard. The one piece of equipment that has not improved is the human behind the wheel. Even if you WERE as good as you think you are, you yourself had what you described as a bad day and had an accident. Imagine the result had you been driving faster. No one is that important that they cannot spend 5 more minutes on the road without cutting into their precious time. If you are that important, do like other important people and fly there in a plane or helicopter. You don't want to spend your whole life on the road, but if you are speeding and kill someone they have, and they might not have wanted to either.
Lastly, do not assume that because the number is 40965 that I am from Kentucky. I assure you I am not. This subject has nothing to do with geograghical location anyway, I assure you there as as many people per capita in the rest of the us speeding as there is there. Sad , but they are killing people everyday too.

Your retort to my query on insurance was way off. I didn't ask why do we have it mandatory now, I asked what made it mandatory.

I assumed you were from Kentucky because that is what you had listed in your own profile. Wow, what a stretch there. Like I said, I think this boils down to where we are each from. I always have and always will push for higher speed limits and higher competency of the driving populace. You have your opinions and set in ways. Neither of us is going to change.

Here's the way I see it...

If we have so much traffic and we need to drive fast then what we need to do is have seperate highways for slow vehicles like big rigs and trailers. It would be like a two-lane road that is like the freeway but detours right next to it for all slow and big vehicles.

Basically if the big trailers and slow cars would be forbidden to use the freeway on mostly all rush hours and should not taje the left lane.

Nexagen : it would cost an harm and a leg.

Madmax : would you mean that a speed limit of 85mph on the highways instead of 55mph would be more dangerous and that there would be more accidents ans killed people ?
... if that is what you mean, could you explain me why there are not more killed people on French highways compared to American highways (at équivalent mileage, etc.) ?
And in Germany !

Speed doesn't kill.
Bad drivers do.
People don't get where we are coming from because they're nowhere near it. Our government goes through it's beuracracy every day to do one thing, keep the one's with power in power. They don't (for the most part) give a shit about what happens in the real world:mad:. They lower speed limits to 55 for good reason. This lowers the efficiency of almost all cars, trucks, suv's ect. so they use up more gas. Using more gas puts more money in the pockets of those people who are in power and don't give a rat's ass about how many people were killed by drunk drivers that day. All they look at are statistics of the whole. Not how indaviduals use their automobile. Just because it's "THE LAW" hardly makes it just.:shakehead
France is a very good example of this. There's no drinking age (correct me if this has changed) and yet there isn't half as many drunks on French highways as there is in Cali alone.
If insurance is really about personal responsibility, why would we need it to begin with? You should be responsible enough to know what you are doing before you get on the road. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions and think that insurance does the job for them. "Oh, I don't care if someone sideswipes me. I've got insurance to cover my ignonrance. I don't have to pay for it because it's never my fault." *sob sob sob*
Why would anybody make fast cars if you can't use them for what they are intended for. It is all about driver compentence and not the speed at which they are traveling. :cya:

"This lowers the efficiency of almost all cars..."

How the hell does a lower speed limit lower the efficiency of cars?
Get your physics straight.

Boss San : it's forbidden to buy alcohol in France before 16 or 18 years old.... I event don't know the legal age.
But you can go in every supermarket, bar, café, pub, etc. and buy as much alcool as you want at 16yo or 14yo... at 10yo, I'm not sure that you can drink 5 vodka in a bar :D
Alcool is an important problem on the road, everywhere in the world. But, indeed (I must conceed that I've no figures), there might not be more killed people on our roads than on Americans because of alcool.

Cro : Boss maybe means that driving at slow speeds doesn't motive cars maker (American ones) of doing better cars. That's an interessant idea : look at handling of American car compared to Europeans or Japanese cars, the efficiency is not the same at all.

faster lanes for faster drivers huh?! I spent an hour in traffic today where it would take about 30 minutes to walk.
Anyone can admit that its fun to push your car to the limits even if you drive a shopping cart but there is no place for that on our roads. There are too many reasons to list why faster lanes dont work in the US.
Again, save the racing for the track or do as i do -- go to the best stretch of pavement you can find at 4 in the morning and tear up the road.

btw is there a tire that can support today's 3000+ pound cars like the e55 rs6 m5 and other sport sedans at 150+mph?

Word on the 4 in the mornin' runs.

Of course there are tires to put on M5's and E55's to go fast. Look at the ones on the cars in particular.

Gosh I wish I had been in this from the beginning. I'm going to work backwards since that seems easiest...

Davo - yes there is safe speeding. The two terms have nothing to do with each other. Speeding only refers to your speed versus that dictated by law. The law is written to the lowest common denominator so that everyone stays "safe". Therefore, more than a few cars will end up being held back from their potential while others are almost at the point of being pushed when driving the speed limit. I can guarentee you that my Eclipse with JIC FLT-A2 suspension, and R-compound tires is just as safe at 70 as it is at 65. Can you say the same about Suzy Soccer-Mom's base model 1976 Ford Pinto? Not even close. The arguments that modern cars are safer and can safely handle higher speeds (i.e. Speeding) is correct.



Perhaps i should elaberate what i said a little more clearly..

I was not refering to the car's level of safetly at high speeds, i was refering to the speed of the car it self isn't safe. Are you telling me that there is 0% chance that when raining, driving on a slippeery wet road going 120km/h+ is dangeroius?? Going 100+ in a built up area is dangerous??
The point i was trying to make out, was that when any given car (safety of the car is good or not) is speeding they are putting them selfs at risk, and others at risk, 90% of all crashes are speed related, and there is a 1 in 3 fatality rate in australia. Tell me now that speeding is safe.


And I can garrentee you, that next time you start to go faster than you legally can, you are putting your self, and other at risk, and you can quite easily hit a rut in the road, lose control, skid out, have a head on collision, kill your self, a family of 4, and cause more injurys.
Now tell me speeding is safe, it happens all the time, so please don't argue against me, or denie it, you know it's true.

*ED*
And to the guy who said "speed doesn't kill, bad drivers do" I never said speed kills in my post here, i just said it was dangerous, and used a good example that caused death.

But still, a good driver would never get into that position in the first place, but you can be a very good driver, speed, and kill your self or someone else. Racing car driver are good drivers (other wise they wouldn't be doing it), they accept the risks, they speed, they go very fast, and many have been killed. Doing what? Speeding.

I disagree with what you said. I'll try an explain, yes, bad drivers cause accidents, because they're f*kin idiots, but speed also kills.
Speed kills, It's a fact. As I said earlyer, stop denieing it, you're only cheating your self.

this might be worth a read:
http://www.charmeck.nc.us/Departments/Transportation/Speed/Speed+Kills.htm

Davo, the problem is that all those things you listed that cango wrong at high speed, go wrong at legal speeds also. Only difference is that your momentum causes more collateral damage at higher speeds IF something goes wrong. Frankly, if a driver is speeding on a road that has ruts, they deserve to crash. That alone is a bad idea (with the definite exception of purpose made rally racing).

Safely speeding is exceeding the posted legal limit WITHOUT raising the risk to the surrounding traffic. It can be done. It IS done almost everyday. As has been stated on here, the speed limits are written to the lowest common denominator. Most people exceed that level of driving skill and we know that plenty of cars do too. I'm not talking about recinding speed limits. There has to be some regulation. I just feel that they can be eased safely. Trying to run an autobahn here in the US would be suicide for anyone driving it. But even on our congested highways here in California I couldn't possibly see a significant rise in damages or number of crashes if a 5-10mph increase of the speed limits were to take effect.

I keep hearing people say they can drive fast in France and Germany.
That they do in France tells you there must be something wrong with the
concept. Really though, the population in either of those countries is much smaller than here.
I was going to respond to boss's comments but after his ignorant statement cars going slower are less efficent he probably wouldn't understand anything anyway, unless one had flash cards....maybe not even then.
As for his comments , why do we have to have insurance? Because we
as a society have decided drivers should. As I said before , if you don't want to buy insurance don't, but sell your car and walk....or maybe run if you like speeding.

Madmax : totally agree with you about insurance !
About the "smaller" population in France and Germany, I don't really see the point. Indeed, there are less people in these countries than in the USA, but if you compare the USA to Europe, it's 280 millions versur 350 millions (420 million in May04)... so, there's not a big difference. In France or Germany, you've same traffic jams, same number of cars, etc.

Sunday, I'm going to Stuttgart... 200km to do in 1 hour ! dream ! :D

I keep hearing people say they can drive fast in France and Germany.
That they do in France tells you there must be something wrong with the
concept. Really though, the population in either of those countries is much smaller than here...


And he's the ignorant one? It is true that Germany and France have smaller populations but you have to consider that they are a lot smaller...Roads are just in better condition and are kept that way. Drivers are also tested properly not with just 20 multiple chocie questions and a 5 minute drive. Drivers also obey and know the traffic laws very well.

What is the point of producing a car that get the best use of it's milelage when the speed limit is 55 and the car gets the most milelage when it's going 75? Saying that you can't speed and be efficiant at the same time is dumb. That's what cars are supposed to be about; getting to one place from another in the quickest amount of time, while using the least amount of fuel.

yea but since physics dictates :

PE= mv^2

PE-potential energy
m-mass
v-velocity

thus if you double your speed, you are using 4 times as much energy...

Cro : "Drivers also obey and know the traffic laws very well."..... for Germany, I agree, for France, I don't. They certainly know the laws, but dont' respect it really. Drive in Paris or a big Frecnh town more than 10 minutes and look how much red lights will be overpassed, how much yellow lines will be passed, etc. ;) And alcool belongs a real problem over here.
Madmax : I think that it would be more interessant to compare density of populations. There are less people in France (62M) than in the USA (280M) but on which surface ?

Davo, the problem is that all those things you listed that cango wrong at high speed, go wrong at legal speeds also. Only difference is that your momentum causes more collateral damage at higher speeds IF something goes wrong. Frankly, if a driver is speeding on a road that has ruts, they deserve to crash. That alone is a bad idea (with the definite exception of purpose made rally racing).

Safely speeding is exceeding the posted legal limit WITHOUT raising the risk to the surrounding traffic. It can be done. It IS done almost everyday. As has been stated on here, the speed limits are written to the lowest common denominator. Most people exceed that level of driving skill and we know that plenty of cars do too. I'm not talking about recinding speed limits. There has to be some regulation. I just feel that they can be eased safely. Trying to run an autobahn here in the US would be suicide for anyone driving it. But even on our congested highways here in California I couldn't possibly see a significant rise in damages or number of crashes if a 5-10mph increase of the speed limits were to take effect.

Are you saying that it's safe UNTIL something bad happens?

All I was trying to say, is that it doesn't matter WHAT speed you are doing, it's not safe. If there is a probability that something can go wrong (whether it does or not) it is "unsafe". And everytime you take your car out, there is ALWAYS the chance of something bad happening.

So by your own argument there is NO reason to deny the raising or even lifting of the speed limits. If we are unsafe just by moving our vehicles, then safety regulations are meaningless. They become nothing but bureaucratic burden. So, from now on I will use your argument.
See how little sense that makes? Everyone knows (thanks to the example of Montana) that completely unrestricted speeding causes immense damage and cost. Therefore, some speed restriction IS required. This whole thread is about ideas to allow those of us that ARE SAFE at higher speeds than others to use those higher speeds in our daily lives.

I'm just coming back from Germany, highways are not in an excellent condition and often only 2x2 lanes. There are sections limited at 130kmh where people drive between 120 and 170kmh and free sections where speed is between 150 and 200, sometimes, there are cars going over 250 but that's not so often.
Despite of these high speeds, there are not more accidents than in France or on other highways. But I must confess that people put their traficator, are driving on the right and move from the left to the right quickly when you're coming at 180 or 200.

I think that shows that the driver competency is definitely a grade above the average US driver. Appearantly, we aren't trusted to drive safely at 100-110Km/h, let alone 130-150Km/h.

Stefanel1 - Does your French license allow you to drive in Germany? If you had to use the German licensing system, just how difficult is the testing?

Rocket : of course ! I can drive in all countries with my driving licence, also in the USA.
I don't know the German tests but I've heard say that it was about the same thing as in France.

These roads dont exist here and they never will. And as for the idea of having certian cars with 'expert' drivers in fast lanes is bs. How will police enforce this?

I live in NY so with all the traffic around here its rare to find a safe place to go over the speed limit anyway. I do agree though that in places where traffic flow is light and the roads are in good shape, there should be either no speed limit or a limit of say 90.

With GPS technology and in-road sensors, lane controls are easy. The cost is the issue, not how. Again, why police private roads when access is permitted only to those who meet the criteria, then no speed limits. And no, not in crowded places like NY. That's not the point of no speed limits. Have no speed limits where traffic is light. Go to Germany and see how they do it on their autobahns, I have and it works. 150 MPH is common place there.

[QUOTE=Webslinger60].2- Higher limits for expensive exotic cars would create a socio-economic prejudicial issue. Only the very wealthy could afford to speed?

Bull%h!t - Ever heard of the Mitsubishi Evo and Subaru Impreza, plus numerous BMW, Mercedes and Jaguars. These are not seriously expensive cars, just cars developed for a purpose.........TO GO FAST. Duh!

Speeding in an EVO or STI is much different than speeding in an BMW 750iL, Benz, or something along those lines.
EVO's and such are meant for acceleration and turning, not cruising at 150mph (they can't even go that fast unless tuned to do so.)
The engines can't be wound out for that long. Bigger engines (v8's and 12's ect.) are more suitible for high speed for a prolonged time.
4 cylinder's and straight 6's, v6's or whatever are more suited for open country back roads and whatnot that invloves drastic changes in velocity.

I don't really know American cars, but if you want a car which can cruise at 120mph in an excellent comfort, you can choose (at least in Europe) a Citroën XM of 1990 for example for 4 or 5k€.... is that expensive ? and that's more comfortable than a 7 Series. And even this car can be bought at a quite low price (from 10 000 €)... I guesse that's the same thing in the USA. So... social prejudice, heum heum !

Sorry to tell you Stefanel, but we don't have Citroens here...Or Puegots...Or Opels...Or Alfas. Even a lot of models that you guys have other there, we don't have (ie Audi A3/S3, A2, RS6 - just to name the Audi's). Our "beloved" politicians have decided that we need to be protected from ourselves to the point that all these cars are deemed unsafe for American driving standards.

Sorry to tell you Stefanel, but we don't have Citroens here...Or Puegots...Or Opels...Or Alfas. Even a lot of models that you guys have other there, we don't have (ie Audi A3/S3, A2, RS6 - just to name the Audi's). Our "beloved" politicians have decided that we need to be protected from ourselves to the point that all these cars are deemed unsafe for American driving standards.

obviously a decent number of us are totally capable of driving those cars, but then you'll come accross you're stereotypical soccer mom trying to go twice as fast as everyone else in one of those or some other shitty driver that thinks they're invincible and that's where the problem arises. so i'm pretty much saying blame it mostly on the shitty drivers not the politicians (won't even get into how they can help).

That is where I have a fundamental split of opinion with the politicians. I feel that we should have tighter licensing, thereby allowing more leniency in other areas.

I do have a special case for you though, what is more dangerous Suzy Soccermom dashing down the highway at 80mph in her Audi S3, or Suzy Soccermom speeding down the highway in her Ford Excursion at 80mph. Sorry, but I'll take allowing the S3's of the world over the behemoth of the Excursions any day of the week. The S3 can make up for some error with superb design. The Excursion begs for destruction with every foot that it lumbers down the highway.

I would feel much safer with no SUVs (or their recently developed cousins; CUV, SRV, etc) on the road, period. Too many people can't drive properly at a basic level, but we allow them to take 3 ton (or 4 for the Excursion) vehicles to the same speeds as Corvettes and BMWs. How on Earth can we call this sane and/or safe? It's ridiculous. My Eclipse is no lightweight at 3200lbs. But if I get hit by even a light SUV, somewhere near 2.5 tons, I stand a more than likely chance of contracting a sudden case of death. It has nothing to do with my driving or my choice of vehicle. THAT scares me.

Rocket : I know (even if Peugeot, Citroën, Renault and Alfa Romeo are expecting to come back in the USA before 2010, but that's another problem ;)). I quoted this example to say that you have not to be very rich to afford a comfy car which can go fast. I don't know well the american second hand market, but I guess that a 5 Series E34 (~1990) doesn't cost an harm and a leg, and is an excellent car on highways... and after all, every car can go fast... even when I had an Austin Métro (year 1984), I was driving at 150kmh on the highway... that was not comfy and secure but, it could do it ! ;)

E34 = $3500-$8500 depending on condition, modifications, and location.

I hope if they re-make the Fulvia like Lacia said they would, that they would bring it to the U.S.

Rocket : it's about the same prices, and an E34 is a good car to cruise at 120mph on an highway.

Boss : The Fulvia will reappear in 2006. ;) It's damn nice. But I don't know if Lancia is going to come back in the USA soon. But Alfa Romeo is expecting for 2009 in North America, so, why not Lancia ;)

Yeah, I can't wait for the return of Alfa. It's been too long.

I havnt read the whole thread.. cause thers 7 pages but...

I have to drive about 100 km per day to get to and from school and i hate it when im in the fast lane doing 100-110 in a 90 and there is someone in the fast lane donig 80-90 with NOONE in the slow lane. Which meens for me to go into the slow lane and then back into the fast lane I am breaking the law (more than just speeding) by passing on the inside. I have heard on the news that around here people are horrible for doing that, and now that i have been drivign the highway more I see what they meen.

In germany where they have highways withuot speed limits (autobon sp?) They have to go through crazy driving schools to get there licences, our driving schools are shit compared to theres, here we are taught to park, shoulder check, go slow in slow zones etc... There they are actually taught to drive safley at higher speeds etc... I wish we had driving schools like that here. I even heard that it is mandatory for them to take the lessons before theycan drive. I want an autobon on vancouver island!!!!


On a semi unrelated note.... I had just got my mustang back from the paint shop a week earlier and had just gotten wheels for it. and i got a speeding ticket, 127 in a 90 zone... It wasnt a bad place to do it, long sweeping corners and wide straight stretches with no traffic. But my car saved me a loooad of money, if i was doing 130 i would have gotten a larger ticket but the cop liked my car. I know i was doing over 130 hehe. As the cop was leaving he said " it sure is nice to have a sweet little car with all this power, to bad thers no good places to drive em any more" hahah he thought i had a 5.0!!! to bad its onlya 2.3...

Check the date of the previous post...this thread had been dead for 18 months.

Don't bring back old threads.

Hmmmm, oops...... ohwell?

LOL Good one ahahhahahahaha.