SOUND OFF: Do You Agree? NY Times Says It Is It Time To Limit A Car To 75 MPH!

Fully agree with vladyxa. Build more high-speed highways, not limit vehicle speed.

Time is money and, the faster you go, the quicker you get there. Safety mongers are full of beans when they say that speed kills. It is the slow pokes that cause accidents.

We have much safer cars today with much better tires than in the days when speed limits were originally set. Politicians always play the safety card when they have no good ideas to propose to the voting public. When they can't think of a safety argument (usually a phony argument) they play the morality card which is unconstitutional as far as I am concerned.

Individuals should determine what is safe for them not a big brother government. In extreme cases, when someone's behavior like drunk driving is a public hazard, the government should step in and revoke licenses.

Commie Pinko rag. No wonder they can't sell any papers!

what does communism have to do with speed limits?

The goody-goody that wrote this probably drives a Prius -- or worse, doesn't even drive.

the goody goody that wrote this article needs to jump off a cliff

What kind of a miserable schmuck would even suggest something like this???

"HELL NO"

It's funny the writer used the phrase "deliberate production of potentially law-breaking devices". Using the same logic, should we make all knives dull because of my potential to break the law with it? Oh, computers are also devices that could break the law - let's restrict it to calculator and MAYBE MS Paint if you have a clean criminal record. Drivers are adults and therefore should decide how to use such device instead of a blanket control. Btw - the German Autobahn has a lower death rate than the U.S. last I checked. Remember, it's not speeding that kills - it's crashing that does =)

009 found a good one this time.

like you mentioned dust...there were many twisted qutoes and phrases our dear friend Mr. Sepkowitz used.

Here are some others.

-"Yet we continue to produce fast cars despite the lives lost, the tens of billions spent treating accident victims, and a good deal of gasoline wasted. (Speeding, after all, substantially reduces fuel efficiency due to the sheering force of wind.)"

Dearly concerned with wasting fuel, huh. Tell you what, might as well eliminate brakes since stop and go traffic is the number one reducer of MPG in any car.

-"Consider this: in Texas, in 2005, 3,504 people died in a traffic accident; 1,426 (about 41 percent) were considered speeding-related. In sharp contrast, for Florida, 3,543 died yet only 239 were considered speeding-related — about 7 percent."

Compared Texas with Florida...for speeding. Man thats a good joke. Florida, the state that sits in the left lane with its blinker on traveling at 20mph on a highway. That florida? Rich.

-"Despite all this, we Americans insist on the inalienable right to speed"

Tell you what buddy. There is this wonderful library here in DC which has a whole bunch of other inalienable rights we Americans 'insisit' upon. And heck one of those rights gives us the right to firearms, yet your raising hell about cars killing people? (not discrediting 2nd amendment I support it fully and excersize this right at the range a couple times a month)


-"Imagine, for a moment, if E-ZPass kept track of exactly when each car entered one toll booth and exited another, which would allow local governments to do some basic math, dividing distance traveled by time spent. If this calculation showed you to be a speeder, the authorities would send you a traffic ticket. Lives, money and oil would be saved and proof of wrongdoing would be undeniable..."

Tell ya what Comarade Sepkowitz. Vladimir Putin is rebuilding a country that fits right into your concept of heaven on earth. I mean of course the police should monitor every time you move anywhere in the country...thats the kind of spirit of freedom America was built on, isn't it.

You bet it is...oops I mean Da!

TYPICAL LIBERAL BULL CRAP

how bout putting a breathalyzer on every car in order to start it?

How about giving politicians breathalyser tests before they are allowed to legislate?

Q. Aren't most traffic accidents caused by speeding?
A. No, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) claims that 30 percent of all fatal accidents are "speed related," but even this is misleading. This means that in less than a third of the cases, one of the drivers involved in the accident was "assumed" to be exceeding the posted limit. It does not mean that speeding caused the accident. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

So... actually... speeding with therefore reduce the risks of accidents... ;)

... speeding will*** therefore...

*sigh*

Now I want to know who the people that voted yes(on the poll)are? Show yourself little weasels! Let us all hear what made you side with the devil on this.

You are obviously not very smart but at least you are not a coward. You scored points today.

The fact that the NY Times let this idiot publish this article means that they are wanting it on some level as well. It just seems like just another person or special interests pushing an agenda.

this isnt' about speeding its about governmental control over aspects of our lives. liberal green types won't stop until we are all wiping our butts with our hands to save paper

I am pretty sure the government, by that stage in society, will *ass*ign a governmental department to deal with the ass-wiping every time you need to take a shit, just to be sure you did it according to code. For the greater good, of course.

Since the real reason that we have speed limits is to generate income for local police, this would never pass! They would cry about it as much as we would.

txripper is right about the statistics, they don't show the real picture.

if my car was governed i would just chip it. good luck!

I would do like evryone else do take the govenor off problem solved

Q. Don't lower speed limits save gas?
A. No, research has shown that the 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit, which was enacted specifically to save gas, had practically no impact on fuel consumption. This is partly because people do not obey artificially lower speed limits. It is also because the differences in travel speeds that result from unreasonable limits waste gas. Most fuel is used to accelerate to a given speed. Speed limits based on actual travel speeds promote better traffic flow, which reduces the amount of braking and accelerating on our roads. This has a positive effect on fuel consumption.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

My last and current cars can attest to this reply (good one, BTW). On the highway, cruise control set at 79mph:

400bhp V-8 Cadillac, 27 MPG
1??bhp 4 banger Focus, 33 MPG

Gallons saved over 1100 mile drive to folks' house: 7.4

Gallons used under acceleration in said Cadillac vs. in said Focus: exponentially higher! (and more fun, dammit)

Q. Don't higher speed limits cause more accidents and traffic fatalities?
A. No, if a speed limit is raised to actually reflect real travel speeds, the new higher limit will make the roads safer. When the majority of traffic is traveling at the same speed, traffic flow improves, and there are fewer accidents. Speed alone is rarely the cause of accidents. Differences in speed are the main problem. Reasonable speed limits help traffic to flow at a safer, more uniform pace.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

Hell no!!!! If anything, I think the speed limit should be increased to 85 on major routes and interstates. Go to any major city, trying to drive the speed limit and YOU will be the cause of an accident. Even today's econoboxes are capable of safely traveling at well over 65-70 mph. You could just as easily reduce the accident rate by requiring every new driver to take a defensive/performance driving course. You want to avoid accidents, teach people how to get out of a skid and how to learn the capabilities of their autos. All I learned in drivers ed was how to stay in my lane and how to parallel park.


Stone

well said. you really don't have to know how to drive in the US to be given a license. that's the cause of a majority of accidents, people generally do not know how to drive.

Q. Isn't slower always safer?
A. No, federal and state studies have consistently shown that the drivers most likely to get into accidents in traffic are those traveling significantly below the average speed. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers Study, those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed are six times as likely to be involved in an accident. That means that if the average speed on an interstate is 70 mph, the person traveling at 60 mph is far more likely to be involved in an accident than someone going 70 or even 80 mph.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/

because they blow off the doors of anything you drive.

not a dangerous as a limited mind

Listen-Liberal or Conservative it might still become federal law. Why.... Because politically it is popular to want to reduce our depence on foreign oil. Both Liberals and Conservatives might endorse this plan. I would recommend you contact your congressman or senator. The political climate is changing and this is somthing that could happen.

hey! Mini22 is making a valid point here... Or did you all stop reading when you saw the word liberal?

Make a point of telling your representatives that you would never support a law that limits speed.

Speeding has never caused a single accident. Only bad driving. Many days of real driving school should be mandatory in order to obtain and keep a license. That would do more to save lives than changing speed limits.

I can just here the reply now.. "... All that would do is teach people how to drive like reckless racecar Fast n Furious types!.. "

A ridiculous idea. No wonder New York Times circulation is down.

Where was the New York Times when Governor Cuomo canceled the Long Island Nuclear Power Plant after spending $5 billion on it, leaving it uncompleted. This is energy money wasted. $5 billion could have improved much motoring infrastructure.

Build roads so that you do not have to stop at a light or stop sign every 1/4 mile and there would be less deaths of all types. Being efficient is the best way to save lives and gas. I was in Oakland a couple of years ago at a friend's wedding and driving from the hotel to the nearest gas station I went through 10 stop lights and had to come to a full stop at each one. Genius, pure genius.

That sounds like my city - Winnipeg. We have the most horrible traffic lights here. Stop n Go is basically our city's mantra.

The only reason why there are traffic accidents is people are too distracted with other things like make-up, cell phones, chatting with friends, as well as an incapable mind when driving.

And another thing: I would like the speed limit increased to 80 or higher because you're more alert and aware about what you're doing and you concentrate on just simply driving. I would also include the ban of the use of cellphones w/o bluetooth headset.

Why oh why can't we be more like the Germans and approach the speed limit issue with common sense. The slower folks drive on the outside lane and the inside lane is for going uber fast. Oh that's right, we don't have common sense in this country because we're a bunch of idiots!

AGREED!!!

Hey, don't blame us liberals on this...i hate this idea as much as the rest of you...let's get rid of guns first before we start worrying about cars going over 100 mph...

plus, aren't speed differentials (one person going a lot slower than the rest of the highway) way more dangerous than speeding?

Lexus1555, in my opinion, it doesn't get more liberal than having "big brother" government electronically monitoring and issuing speeding tickets through EZ Pass while at the same time preventing the public from driving faster than 75mph. Talk about taking the Nanny State to a whole new level.

Also, have you ever heard of the 2nd Ammendment?

1995e34, solid job copying and pasting from dictionary.com.

I was referring to the traditional liberal political belief in a larger and more powerful federal government that pushes the liberal agenda.

You have just made a massive mistake by quoting the dictionary. The word "liberal" in the United States was bastardized in the 1930's by progressives. Incidentally, it was the progressives who were the primary proponents of prohibition. "Liberals" today in the United States are not true or classical liberals in the sense that they do not believe in liberalism. Leftists today are not the party of Adam Smith, Helvétius, the Baron de Montesquieu, John Locke, Voltaire, or Algernon Sidney.

That dictionary has just given you multiple but differing definitions.

Obviously, he means the word in its bastardized sense.

"bastardized sense."

...which is not the "traditional" sense of the word, so he did misspeak.

You and me both.

I *completely* agree with the Stupid Times, furthermore;
- lets change footbal into flag-football, to avoid potential live threatening injuries
- lets reduce the alcohol content in all adult drinks to prevent drunk driving
- lets manufacture only blunt knives, not sharp ones because they can lead to crime

Is this guy insane or is he just the stupidest person alive?

Is speeding also the cause of a high rate of deaths in other countries? if not, perhaps its because their licensing process and enforcement is more efficient than ours (something that can be proven now). It so happens that this death rate is much lower in Germany where there are no speed limits on certain highways. It is because of much better discipline and respect of other drivers, unlike the cavemen driving in American highways.

The New York Times promotes this type of silliness because of where it is -- New York, where traffic jams are the norm and most people get around by walking, taxi or subway. I would never trust anyone who lives in New York to give an opinion on automobiles and driving. New York being the center of the universe as far as New Yorkers are concerned, of couse something stupid like this would seem to make sense to them.

Our company used to have office space in the New York Times building in Manhattan (the 52+ story tower that those two idiots climbed up without ropes or harnesses). I have never encountered snootier people in my life.

New York isn't a Gigantic City. Do not generalize. NY CITY is only a small part of NY STATE. NY State has rural roads, small towns and Highways just like every other state. I'm not sure why its impossible for some non new-yorkers to make the distinction?

Would you "trust" a New Yorkers opinion if that person has never been to the City? Or are you still unable to make that distinction?

Before you say that most of the people in NY State live in the city I would like mention the following:

NY state has a population of 19,000,000 people, NY city has a population of 9,000,000.

LexSucks, get real. I believe you know exactly who I'm referring to when I say New Yorkers. I know some great people from both the city and the state -- but let's not kid ourselves; New Yorkers (okay, the city people, just so you'll understand) regard anything else as lesser. NYC always has bigger, better, more of everything, and anything worth anything was probably invented there, if you listen to them. Look, I love the city, to tell you the truth. But I've only visited several times. I could never live there.

By the way, NYC is a gigantic city. It has more people than any other city in the United States of America.

I would agree to limit the speed to 100.

emergencies. If I have a close family member who is severely injured, and I know I can get to the hospital faster than an ambulance, then damned if I won't be driving as fast as my car and skills allow all the way there.

I would agree to the speed limit of 300 MPH. I'm more alert and tuned to driving while going at that rate. It also keeps my brain at optimal condition.

who knows, maybe in the future, we evolve to handle even higher speed. We can legislate evolution... we should promote the good feature and let the others go extinct.

I'm a bit confused. Isn't 75 MPH 'speeding'? Why not make it 50. Or even 30. No wait. Just think of the lives that would be saved if cars were limited to a top speed of 15 MPH. :o)

I guess I could tolerate it if all my cars achieved that 75mph in under 4 seconds...

eh...I dunno...maybe still need to de-govern, even with that...

Or maybe we could make having a license to drive a true skill, involving rigorous testing and training and even crash avoidance.

Anyone have any stats on Germany and there autobahn system, that's the place to look for the real answer to the speed question. They also apparently require a much more extensive driver training/testing program.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people", right? In other words, guns can be a factor in death, but not the cause. Speed is only a factor and will always be that and never the true cause of accidents and/or death -- that would be the fault of poor judgment, inattentive driving, drivers that were improperly trained or put forth the minimal effort to be trained, and/or fate.

I do understand that municipalities have to capitalize on writing tickets for speeders, but pestering drivers for driving 5-13 mph over the posted speed limit is a waste of time unless the conditions are poor (rain, sleet, snow, high winds, etc.) and THEY ARE ACTUALLY IN A POSITION TO CAUSE DANGER TO OTHERS (a cop that pulls along side of someone, flashes their lights, and then announces over their loudspeaker to "watch your speed!", would be a better service to all and allows the cop to remain available for more important situations).

IMHO, police and highway patrols would do a better job to create safety for all by enforcing the "smaller" rules, an "if you want people to follow the big rules, they must respect the lesser one" mentality. I'm referring to driver's etiquette, common courtesies and common sense -- slower traffic keep right, left lane is used for passing and drivers should yield to faster vehicles while cruising by moving over to the next right lane, allowing drivers to pass on the left, being attentive and courteous to other drivers around you, maintaining your vehicle properly (acceptable tread depth on tires, suspension and brakes), using proper signaling to get the attention of other drivers and not forcing them to "guess" where you want/need to go, not impeding the flow of traffic (how often is the ass end of a turning vehicle partially in your lane?), keeping personal distractions to a minimum (excessively loud music, doing your hair, makeup or shaving, etc.), not using your cellphone to text someone while the vehicle is in motion (you be surprised), if able-bodied not having both hands free to drive at all times (in other words, get a headset for your cellphone and use it!, otherwise, pull to the side of the road in a safe area and away from traffic), be attentive to your surroundings and posted signage (knowing the speed limit for example), proceeding to the next available exit if your speed and/or vehicle location puts yourself and more importantly, others in jeopardy, and yielding the right of way.

(I could go on and on, but this should be enough to get the message across to the uninformed.)

Now granted, all of what I've suggested are factors just like speed can be in causing an accident. It is, however, more likely that what I've suggested to be a factor FIRST, long before speed is considered. I think speed can only be a factor sooner only during an investigation of an accident and in hindsight. Furthermore, I suggest this as an overall perspective and not with the implication of ignoring it altogether.

On a side note: I just

On a side note: I just hate it when well educated people make ignorant statements. Dr. Sepkowitz would be of better service to the people if he sticks with cancer research and not writing Op-Ed's on speeding.

ha.ha.ha...this guys hilarious.........

Since the NY Times is floating this idea from the left, I'm sure Homeland Security and the Bush Admin will say from the right that it's a good idea for security. Too many morons makes a country not.

Any question as to who the author of this article would vote for in the presidential election?

Don't fan the flames too hard fuelfool, this things going to explode.

Obviously no one on an website dedicated to car enthusiasts would agree with Times.

Only in America.

^^ ^^
Or Canada.

I'll agree w/ the crook part, but not cowards.

A 75mph limit would only prevent speeding on the highways, which are already the safest places to drive. It doesn't prevent someone from doing 75mph in a 25mph zone....so what is the point if you can still drive 50mph over the limit?

America doesn't need any more nanny-state rules, IMHO. Here's a thought: if you don't want to go over a certain speed, don't. If you want to impose your beliefs on other people, go take over some other country. This is America, don't let the border hit you on your way out.

I have better idea than the "Times" speedlimit, just ban cars/vehicles and no one would die from any accidents. We save something like 30,000 people every year.

On a serious note, the USA has some of the worst accident statistics of any industrialised nation. Better education and testing would make a huge difference in these figures.

Just a little example of the stupidity and lack of education:-- I live in S.Florida and sometimes it rains, like the heavens have opened.! Driving in these conditions you will find maybe 20-30% of vehicles with no lights on (daytime) and maybe 15% of people with their emergency hazard blinkers on, and a lot of people driving too fast for the conditions. In Europe they teach and then enforce the rules, in Florida they pay lip service to the first and only bother with speeding tickets for the latter. It is a joke, except a lot of people die.

Thats the NY Times for you. They would run youre life if you let them because they no whats best for you and you dont. Comy basturds

What really needs to be limited is EXPOSURE TO THE NY TIMES!!

Let's see, the highway is:

•Safter
•Faster
•More space efficient
•More fuel efficient

Than regular roads. There is no reason for a limit. Perhaps the smarter way to do it would be to limit the cars of excessive speeders.

May be we should limit the NY Times to 75 words... Or 75 letters... Or send them to a very far planet of a solar system 75 light-years from Earth, in a 75-century exile!

Lol. Thats too funny.

Speed is not the true issue, the U.S. needs better driver training programs.

My 17 yr. old son when through the state required program last summer 6 hours on road driving, 30 hrs in a class room, cost $500.00. Not nearly enough time on road. He learned more in 2 days at a BMW teen driving school and had more time driving. cost $895 but does not count for our state.

What about all the people reading books, texting, talking on a mobile eating a Big Mac etc... and driving 80+mph Did any of those distractions cause accidents ???

NYtimes and America needs to study the Autobahns safest roads in the world and the best programs.

What about the road constucton itself just like everything else we do fast and cheap 12-16 inch road beds, Germany 27-34 inch's

Sorry starting to rant. Training ,Training, Training is the only answer. But it won't happen unless we the enthusists stand up and stand together.

While I am a hard core car enthusiast, I am not in favor of raising speed limits. Too many cars on US roads are not well maintained, with poor brakes and tires in particular. Notwithstanding the poor driver training in general. Several people have cited that speeding is not the major cause of traffic deaths, so it seems they favor raising those limits until it is? That is pretty brain dead. Its clear that if cars move faster, the number of traffic fatalities will increase. Many highway accidents at 65MPH that escaped fatality will record fatalities. If you want to enjoy high speeds join a decent car club, invest in the proper gear for the track and enjoy the thrill of high speeds without endagering others. Keep the highways safe for travel. Keep the drunks off the road and keep poorly maintained roads off the roads.

the new york times is the official rag of liberal jackasses and is therefore irrelevant. so is new york for that matter. blow it up.

i would say yes to 75.... hundred :)