No one thinks of speeding as illegal.

My partner had a radar detector in his Accord. I wouldn't allow it in the CRV (and now the Civic). I've told people that I think it's un-sporting. If you're going to break the law, you should at least give the cops a fair chance to catch you. People look at me like I'm crazy.

I think all states should outlaw radar/lidar detectors. Get caught with one and your vehicle is seized, auctioned off, and the state gets to keep the proceeds.

I don't care for the GPS black box deal. Our government is already spying on us enough, as is. (I long for the days when only the whack-jobs were talking about government spying.) How about if you build a feature into every new car where the lights will start strobing like an Indy pace car when you exceed 65? Warn everyone else on the road and draw the attention of the police at the same time.

In the BMW I had ( ), if the Tach goes to the red zone or if the cars exceeds 150mph the engine shots off.
Maybe something like that if you exceed the speed limit or drive thru a red light.

Best Tank = 54.2 mpg (Sep. 9'06)
Best Trip = 61.9 mpg

I DO and there was a discussion about this in one of the car pool lane threads. I felt that I was look at like this when I said it too. The speed limit is not a suggestion, it is a law.

Umm.. actually every car made in the last 15 years has that. They're called rev limiters and speed limiters. EVERY car has a rev limiter and about 80% of cars have a speed limiter. However, the is not yet technology available to dynamically make the car know if you're using poor speed judgement, other than to perhaps lower the speed limiter to 80mph, since that is currently the highest speed limit in the country.

Ehh, you would be surprised how little they actually help. I have a rather nice one (now sitting in a box...somewhere) and it gave me advance warning sometimes. But most of the time I would have been cooked had I actually been travelling over the limit. LIDAR can not be defeated without a jammer, and those are quickly becoming illegal. (They aren't anywhere near 100% effective, anyway.) Radar can not be jammed at all (without committing a federal crime) and doesn't have to be triggered until the officer has already made a visual estimate of your speed and intends to pull you over anyway. Then there is POP mode radar, which sends out an extremely fast burst (16ms or 67ms on K or Ka band depending on the model) but most units that can detect it also false extremely often.

In short, you shouldn't take these little devices as seriously as you do. Most of those that you see on the road are completely useless (read: poorly designed, cheaply made). I won't say that they are never useful, but a habitual speeder WILL get tickets even if he uses one. Guaranteed.

I guess you have to spend some time using one to really understand its capabilities and limitations.

A few here simply think speeding is OK and go so far as to imply there is something wrong with those that don't

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

Thanks for the info. I would love to lower my car's "speed limiter" and "rev limiter" to protect it from me. Also sounds like a good Parental Control option.

Are you sure all cars have it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rev_limiter

Best Tank = 54.2 mpg (Sep. 9'06)
Best Trip = 61.9 mpg

Speed limits should represent the fastest speed that is reasonably safe to drive on a given road, based on observed scienfitic data and statistical analysis, not be some manipulative way to force people to use less fuel. For example, the lower speed limits ended up raising the cost of shipping freight-- as it is, the time-value that can be saved by driving faster when delivering things by truck far exceeds the extra fuel cost. If it is safe to drive the trucks 70 or 75, they should be able to do so. In my case, driving 55 instead of 75 would only save me about $3.50 per extra hour on the road-- it's easily worth $1-2/person/hour to finish a road trip sooner.

Most surface street speed limits seem to be set fairly appropriately for the conditons in California, anywhere from 35mph to 65mph in some places. I find most of the time I, and others, are not inclined to go much faster than the posted limit as it truly would not be safe to do so (given turns, visibility, cross-traffic, etc). Freeways tend to be posted at much lower limits than could be safely handled by most modern vehicles however, this is why most officers enforce the traffic as if the speed limit were 10-15mph faster -- because 10-15mph faster in most cases is an appropriate speed limit for conditions.

I'd rather see enforcement of rules agaisnt blocking overtaking lanes on the freeway, and people weaving and passing on the far right. That is more dangeorus than speeding, and forces vehicles to brake and accelerate more -- wasting fuel.

The biggest thing the government should do to reduce gas consumption though would be to spend all the current gas tax money on building new roads. Copious amounts of fuel are wasted every day due to gridlock traffic/idling/stop and go on overcrowded roads.

Speed limiters as far as I know are designed to protect the ancillary drivetrain components. For example, a car with a V8 may have enough horsepower to handle going say 160mph, but the belts, or the transmission, or the tires, or some other component of the vehicle may only be able to 130mph safely.

Limiting the speed as low as 80 could make overtaking someone on the freeway more dangerous, where reaching 80+ momentarily would be needed. Finally, there are some emergency sitautions where one may need to exceed 80mph momentarily -- having a governor cut engine power in the middle of an emergency maneuver, such as trying to accelerate out of the way of a runaway truck, could be outright dangerous.

Recently I shifted onto a wide open lane on the freeway at 60, at the same time, a driver (on a cell-phone) going 80mph cut right behind me, without signalling. His lane was absolutely clear, so I didn't expect him to shift, but apparently he was trying to reach a ramp at the last minute. I laid on the throttle to avoid being rear-ended -- it was a long time before he reacted and started braking too. I'm not sure what my top speed was, as I wasn't paying attention to the speedometer, but a governor limited 80mph might have caused me to be rear-ended in that scenario.

Not quite since the autobahn actually has people driving fast on it that know what they are doing. They take a very extensive (and expensive) driver's education course before they are allowed to get a license - something we need in the US. That being said I have been to some countries before where if you can afford a car you don't need a license, I really had to let my "Type A" personality shine there.

Here's something I've been meaning to mention for a long time. Most people nowadays think that the speed limit is the MINIMUM speed, it's just the mindset people have now and with the police (at least in my area) not enforcing it it confirms their belief.

Several months ago I was riding with my mother when she started riding the rear end of car in front of her, then she said "He could AT LEAST do the speed limit". I noted to her that he was doing 54 in a 55 zone with 55mph being the MAXIMUM not the MINIMUM, he was not in the wrong at all. With my own little old lady grey haired mother saying that I had confirmation on what what I had thought for so long. On another note she mentioned how I've changed as I used to think nothing of doing 100+ MPH in a 55 and on open highway with 70mph limit 130+ when no cars were around. My how times change when you become hybridized.

'00 Insight "Wazabi" -75,000+ miles
'03 Toyota Matrix - 81,000+ miles
'03 HCH-CVT-OSBM-41,000+ miles (retired 04-10-06)
"I'm very secure with my little Insight, no Prius envy here."

I find that in most areas where I live, if the speed limit truly represents a max safe speed for conditoins (ie people would flip their car around turns, or lose traction or something) people won't tend to go faster, as it would actaully be dangerous to do so. If the road could safely handle well over what the posted limit is, people will treat it as a minimum.

I agree that is perfectly fine, so long as he doesn't accelerate to 60-65 if someone tries to overtake him, as I see happen a lot. There are times where I will cruse right at the speed limit, and where possible, will turn out to allow passing, or will slow slightly if someone is trying to overtake on the opposite side. Accelerating to block someone from overtaking should result in immediate citation at any speed, as it is extremely dangerous.

130 probably is dangerous in nearly all cases. With no traffic, I believe most paved highways are engineered to handle 110mph safely, and most modern vehicles can handle that.

I definitely agree. If the current highways were enforced like the autobahn, the roads would be much safer and more efficient, as in Germany they don't tolerate passing in the rightmost lanes, or blocking the flow of traffic, or weaving, or accelerate to block someone from overtaking etc. No posted speed limit with German traffic rules would probably actually be a lot safer than current American roads, and possibly even have less back-ups, since all that uesless maneuvering actually slows traffic substantially.