My usual freeway speed is 80-85. I've hit 100 a few times in the LS and 120 once. I'm too worried about running into the UHP or having a tire blow-out to do it much.

I used to take my Firebird up to about 110 all the time though.

 

Many people like to drive faster than the speed limit, and wouldn't buy a car with this "feature". No manufacturer wants to lose any sales by being the first to set their speed limiter that low.

The only way it would happen is if they all did it at once, for example because it became the law. Right now (in North America anyway), passing such a law would almost certainly lead to defeat in the next election.

 

The auto lobbyists would go to town on such bill being passed Not to mention a ton of politicians probably have fast cars. A LOT ( I mean A TON!) like to drive way faster than the speed limit. You get the middle finger in So-cal for driving 65 in the right hand lane Too much love for speed in this country for any type of speed restrictions by the OEM

 

If satellites can target millions of cell phones, I don't think it would be trouble to target millions of gps units. The only issue I'd see though is if the satellites went offline. But I'm sure backup measures would be in place.

That's a completely different ballgame that's always infuriated me. When you first start, yes you might be an unsure driver, but that is no reason for your rates to be astronomical. Everyone should start with a clean slate, and if you attain accidents your rates go up respectively. Charging teens higher rates from age alone is age discrimination. I don't see them charging old folks more, and we all know how good their reaction times and visual/audible perceptions are. As well, progressive has what it calls the 'snapshot' program. Basically you hook up an OBD 2 gps blackbox which measures your braking and driving patterns. If it sees you brake too hard, it dings you. This is unfair though imo, because it doesn't know the situation and assumes you were driving improperly.

I'd welcome it. If it means not having to worry about going 70 or 75 on a 65mph and not worrying about a cop pulling me over because i'm restricted to 80, I wouldn't mind having the device at all. Bring forth said tech. As well, if it's built into the ECU, then it would possibly help with vehicle theft recovery. Or tracking criminals who used a 'getaway' vehicle.


Better to race on the track than on the streets . I'm sure there is separate coverage for the same car on the track though, right?

 

Wow great discussion. You guys got it right . If the speed limit is 65 MPH, why not make the car only go 65 MPH. She was serious when she asked. I was telling her all these reasons why it would go faster, but lost her because she was concentrating on driving.
Bax

 

Statistically speaking, seniors get into far fewer accidents than teens. Insurance companies are paid to bear risk. Throughout history they have determined that their risk lies with younger, more inexperienced drivers. If you were the insurance company, what would you do?

 

Just think of all the cars produced between 1974 and 1987 which would still be limited to a 55 MPH if this were enacted years ago.

 

you do not seem to understand how insurance works. they can't base premiums on a 'clean slate' or they would go broke.

^^ this.

well obviously things could be adjusted, but i don't agree with the idea of governing cars to speed limits, or worse, to speed limits street by street. i think that would be a disaster.

but, not sure what would be wrong with limiting cars to 100 outside cities, and 70 in metro city areas. i mean no one should be going over 100 on public roads. yeah i've done it, and yeah, it was dumb.

 

A senior is what almost ran me off the road before as well, and she did not hear me honk at her. A senior is also what caused my mothers car accident. It is also scientifically proven most seniors have a slower reaction time and poorer eye sight and hearing. That's what it boils down to, statistics. Punish those who commit the crime. I'm 26 now. I have not had any accidents on my record. I'm sure there are thousands if not millions of other people in my age bracket who fall into this same position. It is completely unfair to us that we had to shoulder the burden of higher rates because other kids decided to drive recklessly. However, isn't that how health insurance works? The healthier you are the less you pay? Because you're deemed a lesser risk. Ergo if you have NOTHING on your record, how can you be a high risk? Simply stating because other people your age can't drive is a copout to charge you more. This imo is where risk analysis is skewed to make more $$$.

I understand it's a risk game. I also understand insurances will play the game well to suit their benefit. I also understand they'll fight tooth and nail to pay out. I highly doubt they'd go broke Bit. I don't feel it's fair is all to be guilty by association. I thought premiums were supposed to drop at 25? My rate is still higher than that of my parents, and I have a cleaner record than them. (Accidents for both of them, granted not their fault). Something imo, is amiss.

Regardless, I still stand by my statement regarding the OP's question. GPS units are CHEAP by today's standards. Almost every smartphone has one. Pop a little adapter into every car's ECU, and regulate how fast they can go based on their location. Work with Google, use GIS to implant dynamic speed limits on certain roads, and then host that information serverside and send constant signals which everyones car picks up. Reduce number of traffic officers or put them to use where necessary.

 

Actually, it would be a little higher than that. A leeway has to be built in for sticky situations like passing on a two-lane road.

 

With most any solution to this problem (if there is one) the cries of Big Brother!!! would be deafening.

 

Depends what part of the country you are talking about. In a place like Montana or West Texas, you're probably right. However, a number of places in the country (especially Northeastern cities and the San Francisco area) are openly hostile to cars in general.

 

The state would probably have to pass a law and San Fran is about as big as a small burrow in LA All the other counties LOVE their fast cars in california so i imagine 98% to 2% on a bill like that

 

From a practical point how would one expect this to be done? Speed limits vary all over the nations, so the car somehow will have to know exactly what street it is on and what the speed limit is. Easy you say, GPS. Problem with GPS is it is dependent on the signal strength. Often my GPS will show me correctly on a 55 MPH freeway, then suddenly jump to the parallel road along the freeway which could be a 35MPH road. When this happens, would the car on the freeway suddenly only have a top speed of 35 MPH? The only way I see something like this being remotely possible if every road in the US has some sort of RFID signal that the cars tune into and gets the speed limit information from. The cost of such would be astronomical.

 

Agreed. That's one of the points I brought up earlier.