NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you will remember that I'm more than slightly worried about cars being made scapegoats for climate change and any other number of problems. And fast cars are of course along with SUVs the most obvious targets.

Well, it's happened again. There may not be an immediate risk of this actually being approved, but I wouldn't trust the media or the politicians if people keep bringing this up.

This time it's a British LibDem MP:
http://www.chrisdaviesmep.org.uk/news/2007/June/mep_proposes_big_co2_cuts_from_cars.htm
Controversially he says that new vehicles should not be awarded type approval if they are built to exceed the maximum speed limit of 130 kilometres per hour applying in most European countries by more than 25% (162kmh or 101mph).

Mr Davies said: "Cars designed to go at stupid speeds have to be built to withstand the effects of a crash at those speeds. They are heavier than necessary, less fuel efficient and produce too many emissions.

"At a time when Europe is worried about its energy security it is sheer lunacy to approve the sale of gas guzzling cars designed to travel at dangerous speeds that the law does not permit."

On the one hand, cars probably are part of the problem.

On the other hand, I also fear that the contribution to greenhouse gasses that cars make will be greatly blown out of proportion, in order for politicians to tax the hell out of you and me. So it's lose-lose, really.

Maybe because he doesn't feel the need... the NEED FOR SPEED!

Cuz,... I do.

Hey, all of this pressure isn't helping guys like me.

I'm trying to develop Cold Fusion as quickly as possible, people. Breathing down my neck won't help.

Where would anyone actually, legally, travel at 110+ mph in a car (excluding F1 drivers and the like, obviously)?

I think the MP has a point.

A pretty woosy point, that won't do much to actually combat climate change, but a point indeed.

Pre-emptively punishing people that might break the law? How absurd. Well if that's how the winds are blowing we best lock up all the gun owners before they shoot anyone. And the knife owners before they stab someone. And anyone who can make a fist, they could punch some poor person.


We're gonna need more prisons.

Hey, all of this pressure isn't helping guys like me.

I'm trying to develop Cold Fusion as quickly as possible, people. Breathing down my neck won't help.

Back to work, Spotty.

A powerful car is not necessarily used to go excessively fast. For me, around 75 mph (~120kph) is fast enough, but what I do want is the ability to go from 50 mph to 70 mph in a second or so.

It may be because I started on the roads on motorbikes, but my first reaction to a dangerous situation is to get the hell out of there. This normally means acceleration is required.

If you restrict the power of a car, you also limit its acceleration, making it, in my view, more dangerous.

And the difference in terms of carbon footprint really is minimal, if you keep the engine in good condition. (I am not taking about 200+ hp. I simply think that 130 - 150 hp has a god reason to exist).

Where would anyone actually, legally, travel at 110+ mph in a car (excluding F1 drivers and the like, obviously)?

I think the MP has a point.

A pretty woosy point, that won't do much to actually combat climate change, but a point indeed.

I've pushed 110 in a few places - Texas, Wisconsin, farm country in general. :p

Technically, we could all conserve a little gas if speed limits were lowered nationwide, back to 55 - I don't think people would obey that limit, however.

Instead of putting a cap on top speed, why doesn't the government put a minimum on fuel economy. That way, the automobile manufacturers would be forced to make improve the efficiency of their cars. If you think it can't done check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors) out! An electric car that can do 0-60 mph (0-100 km/h) in less than 4 seconds, has a top speed of 130 mph (210 km/h) and a range of 200 miles (322 km) on a charge. Now that rocks!

I've pushed 110 in a few places - Texas, Wisconsin, farm country in general. :p
I don't doubt you're able to go ridiculously fast, and I suppose going fast on some of America's vast highways isn't too bad, but until they develop impressive ABS, or human reactions become extremely sharp, speeding around on the road seems idiotic.

I don't doubt you're able to go ridiculously fast, and I suppose going fast on some of America's vast highways isn't too bad, but until they develop impressive ABS, or human reactions become extremely sharp, speeding around on the road seems idiotic.

Oh, it is. :p It's idiotic, but probably something we all do once or twice, just to see what will happen.

No one is arguing that people owning these cars should be locked up, nor is anyone saying gut the power. What I see is a logical question; Why do cars need to go faster then the legal limits? The fastest limit in North American that I am aware of is 120kph or 75mph. Why, then, are cars created that can go 180, 210, or even 300 kph? Many heavy trucks come equipped with restrictors that restrict the of the vehicle, not the power. This is logical. Anyone that complains about this is basically saying "I want the right to break the law!" Same goes for Radar and Laser detectors. These items have no legitimate use except to aid drivers in evading detection when they speed. They are illegal to own in the majority of North America. Why are they even allowed to be [i]sold then? I've been wondering for years when someone wold come to the logical conclusion and restrict vehicle speeds and ban the making of detectors. It's about freaking time!! :cool:

I would think gasoline and carbon taxes are more than sufficient for covering and offsetting the externalities created by consumption of fossil fuels. Arbitrarily banning vehicles and restricting their speed seems like a foolish idea that will only harm the automobile industry and create negative sentiments towards the very real need to contain CO2 emissions.

If people can afford these vehicles, they can certainly afford the cost of offsetting their emissions.

First of all most cars burn the majority of their fuel during acceleration. This is why driving around town results in a much lower miles per gallon then driving on the highway.

Secondly a lot cars get better fuel mileage running 70+ mph as oppose to 55 mph. The ones that don't are the little economy cars that are designed for only driving in a city (hybrids and similiar)

Finally should they every start building restrictions in to how fast a car can go; I will be opening up a shop to remove said restrictions and make the car go faster.

Pre-emptively punishing people that might break the law? How absurd. Well if that's how the winds are blowing we best lock up all the gun owners before they shoot anyone. And the knife owners before they stab someone. And anyone who can make a fist, they could punch some poor person.


We're gonna need more prisons.

Your example only works if they bar full automatic weapons from civilian ownership, but allow WalMart to stock machineguns for sale.

Secondly a lot cars get better fuel mileage running 70+ mph as oppose to 55 mph. The ones that don't are the little economy cars that are designed for only driving in a city (hybrids and similiar)

I've heard that the 55-65 mph range was optimal, but the drop in fuel economy at speeds above that comparatively speaking is a lot less than the amount that is sacrificed in order for the car to accelerate in the first place.

Maybe because he doesn't feel the need... the NEED FOR SPEED!

Cuz,... I do.

Top Gun?

Sad.

Where would anyone actually, legally, travel at 110+ mph in a car (excluding F1 drivers and the like, obviously)?

When I lived in Germany I used to cruise around on the Autobahn in my Mini at about 120mph.

Meh limit the speeds of vehicles doesn't bother me...I like fuel efficient cars.

It's threads like these that remind me of the Ford Nucleon (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=656). It was sadly never built but it really could kill two birds with one rod (of fuel that is). It wasn't possible when it was first envisioned but it is today with smaller reactor designs, both traditional and RTG cells. And to those that say it would pose a serious risk in a crash I say to you that spent nuclear fuel shipping casks have been tested in collisions with rocket powered deisel trains and been set on fire in pools of jet fuel without breaching. They're some crazy videos if you can find them but it proves that the engine at least would be safe in the event of a crash.

Your example only works if they bar full automatic weapons from civilian ownership, but allow WalMart to stock machineguns for sale.

It's more like selling any kind of gun at the walmart. Sure you can break the law with the gun, but you can also do legal things with it to. Just because it's illegal to drive above the speed limit on public roads, there are still private tracks and roadways where you can drive as fast as you want.

Instead of putting a cap on top speed, why doesn't the government put a minimum on fuel economy. That way, the automobile manufacturers would be forced to make improve the efficiency of their cars. If you think it can't done check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors) out! An electric car that can do 0-60 mph (0-100 km/h) in less than 4 seconds, has a top speed of 130 mph (210 km/h) and a range of 200 miles (322 km) on a charge. Now that rocks!
That's the rub, really. The law would block the Tesla Electric Roadster, which is more efficient than, well, most things.
First of all most cars burn the majority of their fuel during acceleration. This is why driving around town results in a much lower miles per gallon then driving on the highway.

Secondly a lot cars get better fuel mileage running 70+ mph as oppose to 55 mph. The ones that don't are the little economy cars that are designed for only driving in a city (hybrids and similiar)

Finally should they every start building restrictions in to how fast a car can go; I will be opening up a shop to remove said restrictions and make the car go faster.
That's the truth, really. Basiclly restricted cars would be made with governors that would be removed and kept in cabinet until inspection time.

On a pragmatic level, sadly, the guy makes a good point. You don't really need your car to be able to do a buck eighty, you just don't. Sure, there are track days-you'd be forced to either de-restrict your car at the track or to own a whole separate track day car. It's hard to really argue, because it boils down to, "But I want to break the law and endanger others," otherwise is it worth it really to have the car that can but you won't? I know when I had my sports car I most certainly did at the slightest provocation. And I certainly do miss the ability to merge at will.

And he's not even advocating that the cars can't go faster than the speed limit, 25% more than the speed limit, which is actually about how fast most cars already go.

I don't think it will pass because it doesn't address the issue at its core. Seems like a showboat move.

The problem isn't cars, it's people. There are too damn many of them.

The problem isn't cars, it's people. There are too damn many of them.

You're a real bucket of sunshine today, aren't you?
:fluffle:

It's a dilemma of utilitarianism (methinks): which has the greater happiness? Two million people struggling along in scarcity, or half a million living great lives?

One thing is clear. Not everyone on earth now can drive a car.

Finally should they every start building restrictions in to how fast a car can go; I will be opening up a shop to remove said restrictions and make the car go faster.

They just need to attach a seed-planting wheel to every car. Then it won't matter how fast you're going; the faster you go, the faster you plant trees. :)

cars are, very much a signifigant part of the problem. somewhere near half of it.

along with the use of combustion to generate energy being another.

although there is a deeper and more endemic root to both of those and the remainder as well.

the problem isn't that we make things and enjoy the things we make. the problem is when we don't care how much we destroy trying to impress each other with doing so.

i still say let the oil and auto industry pave their own roads as they can far better afford to then anyone else, and doing so would provide a more level playing field of opportunity for more environmentally harmonious alternatives.

(what DOES "bode ill for the future" is refusal to think beyond the familiar box of automobile dependence!)

=^^=
.../\...

Some of you will remember that I'm more than slightly worried about cars being made scapegoats for climate change and any other number of problems. And fast cars are of course along with SUVs the most obvious targets.

Well, it's happened again. There may not be an immediate risk of this actually being approved, but I wouldn't trust the media or the politicians if people keep bringing this up.

This time it's a British LibDem MP:
http://www.chrisdaviesmep.org.uk/news/2007/June/mep_proposes_big_co2_cuts_from_cars.htm

His reasoning is silly. If he wants to legislate fuel consumption, he should do just that, and not assume the fuel consumption through the maximum possible speed.

If you think it can't done check this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors) out!
That thing is old news. This is better, in my opinion: http://www.lightningcarcompany.com/

Though it still doesn't solve the problem of electric cars: how to not make them feel like electric cars. A combustion engine has a torque and power profile, and using it is a major part of the driving experience.

An electric car has 100% torque and power no matter what you're doing. It's a different experience.

Why do cars need to go faster then the legal limits? The fastest limit in North American that I am aware of is 120kph or 75mph. Why, then, are cars created that can go 180, 210, or even 300 kph?
Because people want them.

On a pragmatic level, sadly, the guy makes a good point. You don't really need your car to be able to do a buck eighty, you just don't.
People don't need a Picasso painting either.

cars are, very much a signifigant part of the problem. somewhere near half of it.
Evidence, please.

Maybe because he doesn't feel the need... the NEED FOR SPEED!

Cuz,... I do.

*makes the new Australian hand gesture at Vandal Unknown*

People don't need a Picasso painting either.


Except for two things-

I would argue that the money spent on a Picasso painting might be better spent elsewhere-

And no one is going to go nuts in a Picasso painting and kill a family of four, nor is appreciating a Picasso painting going to do irreparable damage to anything.

Look man, we've been over this before. I don't think you're going to match me on enthusiasm for sports cars. They're cool. But "I wantee" isn't a justification. I don't live on this planet by myself.

And no one is going to go nuts in a Picasso painting and kill a family of four, nor is appreciating a Picasso painting going to do irreparable damage to anything.
And you're going to argue that because there is a risk someone driving one could cause an accident killing others, it is legitimate to outlaw these cars?

I think it would be supremely interesting to see whether sports cars or super cars are actually more likely to be in accidents and actually more likely to be associated with people getting hurt or killed. I suspect the answer to both questions is "no", which then makes me ask the question: why not ban cars full stop?

But "I wantee" isn't a justification. I don't live on this planet by myself.
You would probably but the emphasis on the "by myself". I'd put it on the "I live". What sort of being would I be if I willingly condemned my own wishes to irrelevance because an angry (ill-informed) mob wants something else?

The thing that puzzles me is why you would align yourself with the Green lobby (or the people who want to profit off it, like this guy), knowing fully well that their arguments don't have a leg to stand on, that their reasoning (the environment comes before individual freedom) is both dangerous to the extreme and would be unacceptable if you replaced "environment" with anything else (like "god", "unity" or "security") and that they're after what you like.

Where's your self-esteem? Where's the part of you that says "Wait a second, I'm at least as much a human being as you. What gives you the right to tell me how to live my life?"

Well the motivations may be all wrong but I don't see problems with stopping cars that can reach very high speeds. Hardly anyone is going to get up to those speeds legally so what's the point.

Well the motivations may be all wrong but I don't see problems with stopping cars that can reach very high speeds. Hardly anyone is going to get up to those speeds legally so what's the point.
Preventative behaviour controls...I like it! Very "Minority Report".

Preventative behaviour controls...I like it! Very "Minority Report".

Hmm, didn't think of it like that. You have a point but still there's no point having a car capable of doing those speeds if you're not going to.

And you're going to argue that because there is a risk someone driving one could cause an accident killing others, it is legitimate to outlaw these cars?

I think it would be supremely interesting to see whether sports cars or super cars are actually more likely to be in accidents and actually more likely to be associated with people getting hurt or killed. I suspect the answer to both questions is "no", which then makes me ask the question: why not ban cars full stop?


You would probably but the emphasis on the "by myself". I'd put it on the "I live". What sort of being would I be if I willingly condemned my own wishes to irrelevance because an angry (ill-informed) mob wants something else?

The thing that puzzles me is why you would align yourself with the Green lobby (or the people who want to profit off it, like this guy), knowing fully well that their arguments don't have a leg to stand on, that their reasoning (the environment comes before individual freedom) is both dangerous to the extreme and would be unacceptable if you replaced "environment" with anything else (like "god", "unity" or "security") and that they're after what you like.

Where's your self-esteem? Where's the part of you that says "Wait a second, I'm at least as much a human being as you. What gives you the right to tell me how to live my life?"
My self esteem is founded in the fact that I have outgrown clutching things to my chest and yelling "MINE!"

They have a point. Speed limits exist, are you going to argue that you really should be able to go as fast as you want down the street because of your 'personal liberties?' Do you really want me ripping down your neighborhood street at a buck fifty because it's good for my self esteem?

Regardless of how fast your car is capable of going, the bottom line is there is only a certain speed that it is allowed to go. Pragmatically, they have a point in that if you're not allowed to go any faster than that there isn't any purpose to selling a car that can.

Fuel availability is a problem. The Carrera GT gets 11 miles to the gallon. So you already have a car that you can only use a fraction of and it uses three times as much gas as a Mini which goes down the road just as fast legally.

So, again, pragmatically they do have a leg to stand on. I don't agree that this is the way to go about it, but thats another thing.

I also don't buy the 'danger' of considering the environment. Rather, I see much much more danger in stomping around and insisting that I should do whatever I want damn the consequences. That it will effect the poorest of the world the worst in no way 'makes it better.'

Frankly, the Tesla is a fun car. Porsche is working on a hybrid. We're a species that went to the moon, cured Polio, split the atom, but for some reason I'm supposed to believe that coming up with a better alternative here is some impossible dream that will destroy us all? C'mon...you don't really buy that, do you?

I said on the outset, there are better ways to go about what this guy is trying to do, and high end sports cars aren't made in large enough numbers to focus on when fleet cars will make a larger difference. I didn't think this guys deal will pass, he's making a point. And he kinda has one.

Preventative behaviour controls...I like it! Very "Minority Report".
Speed limits are 'preventative behaviour controls' too and are to the same end - stopping people driving above a certain speed. I hardly think that putting limits on cars is any way dangerous to personal liberty because you don't have the liberty to go that fast anyway.

Speed limits are 'preventative behaviour controls' too and are to the same end - stopping people driving above a certain speed. I hardly think that putting limits on cars is any way dangerous to personal liberty because you don't have the liberty to go that fast anyway.

Sure you do, private land tracks

Or how about the state of montana

http://www.us-highways.com/montana/mtspeed.htm#*

Sure you do, private land tracks
In the UK we don't have any land tracts you could go above 70 on, to be honest.

Or how about the state of montana

http://www.us-highways.com/montana/mtspeed.htm#*
I'm talking about in principle (when on public roads) - I can't see any practical difference between having a sigh saying 60 and a limiter on 60. I'm not in favour of this, I think it's a waste of time solution looking for a problem, but I don't see it as a great invasion of civil liberties.

They have a point. Speed limits exist, are you going to argue that you really should be able to go as fast as you want down the street because of your 'personal liberties?' Do you really want me ripping down your neighborhood street at a buck fifty because it's good for my self esteem?
If you hurt anyone, it'll be your problem to deal with. And if you don't, there is no problem.

So yeah, if you feel the need, go as fast as you want around my house.

Fuel availability is a problem. The Carrera GT gets 11 miles to the gallon. So you already have a car that you can only use a fraction of and it uses three times as much gas as a Mini which goes down the road just as fast legally.
And your answer to a problem of supply and demand is government restricting stuff. If there's limited rental space available in a city, would you support the government making a law outlawing singles renting apartments?

Fact of the matter is that as fuel prices go up, the price sensitivity of the Mini buyer is greater than that of the Porsche driver. So the Mini will get a biodiesel engine, and things sort themselves out.

I also don't buy the 'danger' of considering the environment. Rather, I see much much more danger in stomping around and insisting that I should do whatever I want damn the consequences. That it will effect the poorest of the world the worst in no way 'makes it better.'
I'm just questioning their priorities, and their hope to impose their beliefs on other people. They're welcome to convince me that I will make a difference by giving up what I like, and they can try to explain how they figure that this difference is worth more than the happiness I could have had.

But they know fully well that they can't do that, that the fact that I might own a Carrera GT doesn't change jack shit.

Frankly, the Tesla is a fun car. Porsche is working on a hybrid. We're a species that went to the moon, cured Polio, split the atom, but for some reason I'm supposed to believe that coming up with a better alternative here is some impossible dream that will destroy us all? C'mon...you don't really buy that, do you?
I haven't driven the Tesla. I doubt it's as good a car as it is a marketing gag.

But yeah, I think that cars will adapt. Koenigsegg just finished work on their bio-ethanol tolerant CCR and managed to get greater power out of the engine due to the special properties of the blend.

What I don't think is that engineers will actually be allowed to find these solutions because a bunch of shady individuals see this as a chance to do what they always wanted: destroy "loud, smelly cars" that shout "I made it, I've got lots of money"

The funny thing is, I actually think that a carbon tax makes sense. Since tradable permits are impractical in this case, the actual price of emissions must be factored into the market somehow. But what these people are doing (and what you seem to be supporting to some extent, which is what really perplexes me) is that they appeal to emotions, to my "duty to my fellow man" to actually make me give up what I enjoy. And failing that, they just want to outlaw it.

That's not a solution to the tragedy of the commons. The solutions have been known for many decades now (if it isn't a century already). And precisely because they don't care, I say they don't give much of a damn about the actual problem, they just want to get rid of fast cars.

Speed limits are 'preventative behaviour controls' too and are to the same end - stopping people driving above a certain speed.
And you honestly say they aren't an attack on your rights?

I can see the point of traffic lights and road signs. Obviously you need some level of coordination.

But speed limits aren't coordination, they're limitation. Do you know that when cars first started, people wanted to make a law requiring someone to walk in front of it alerting everyone to the danger that was coming? That's the sort of idea that led to speed limits even being considered as a policy.

Fact is, speed doesn't do anything. Speed limits are placed arbitrarily and in the studies I've seen it doesn't make a difference to accident rates whether cars travel at 60km/h or 120km/h. Hence recommendations are a better way to go, and once an accident actually happens we can see whether the driver took an unnecessary risk by going quicker than the recommended speed, and adjust punishments accordingly.

If you hurt anyone, it'll be your problem to deal with. And if you don't, there is no problem.

So yeah, if you feel the need, go as fast as you want around my house.



Your problem and the problem of the person you hit

Fact is, speed doesn't do anything. Speed limits are placed arbitrarily and in the studies I've seen it doesn't make a difference to accident rates whether cars travel at 60km/h or 120km/h. Hence recommendations are a better way to go, and once an accident actually happens we can see whether the driver took an unnecessary risk by going quicker than the recommended speed, and adjust punishments accordingly.

That's not always true. Many roads are engineered for certain speeds, after which the chance of an accident increases dramatically; I've noticed it myself when driving. Now, mind you, that's not really the case for highways, but for ordinary roads not designed for high speeds, speed limits are necessary for safety.

Of course, I'm speaking from experience on US roads, so the situation may be entirely different in other places.

Your problem and the problem of the person you hit

And that's the thing. My 'right' to book it through your neighborhood just interfered with little Jenny's right to live a full life.

You have to put that on a scale, and when you do little Jenny comes out on top, no question.

It's threads like these that remind me of the Ford Nucleon (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=656). It was sadly never built but it really could kill two birds with one rod (of fuel that is). It wasn't possible when it was first envisioned but it is today with smaller reactor designs, both traditional and RTG cells. And to those that say it would pose a serious risk in a crash I say to you that spent nuclear fuel shipping casks have been tested in collisions with rocket powered deisel trains and been set on fire in pools of jet fuel without breaching. They're some crazy videos if you can find them but it proves that the engine at least would be safe in the event of a crash.

Hmm, ever notice how William Ford looks like Pee Wee Herman?

http://www.damninteresting.net/content/ford_nucleon_model.jpg

It's threads like these that remind me of the Ford Nucleon (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=656). It was sadly never built but it really could kill two birds with one rod (of fuel that is). It wasn't possible when it was first envisioned but it is today with smaller reactor designs, both traditional and RTG cells. And to those that say it would pose a serious risk in a crash I say to you that spent nuclear fuel shipping casks have been tested in collisions with rocket powered deisel trains and been set on fire in pools of jet fuel without breaching. They're some crazy videos if you can find them but it proves that the engine at least would be safe in the event of a crash.

Who knows, maybe it will come back? As more and more people get over their irrational fear of nuclear power (which isn't even based in evidence other than Chernobyl, which is to contemporary nuclear power as lead pipes are to PVC pipes) we are seeing a return to what is still one of our most abundant, clean, reliable and powerful sources of energy. A second Atomic Age does appear to be in the works and hopefully it will go above and beyond the optimistic projections of the 1950's.

It's a damn sight better than burning food.

If you hurt anyone, it'll be your problem to deal with. And if you don't, there is no problem.

So yeah, if you feel the need, go as fast as you want around my house.
I already addressed this, but I think you'd be singing a different tune if it was your kid sister I just plowed through.


And your answer to a problem of supply and demand is government restricting stuff. If there's limited rental space available in a city, would you support the government making a law outlawing singles renting apartments?

Fact of the matter is that as fuel prices go up, the price sensitivity of the Mini buyer is greater than that of the Porsche driver. So the Mini will get a biodiesel engine, and things sort themselves out.


I'm just questioning their priorities, and their hope to impose their beliefs on other people. They're welcome to convince me that I will make a difference by giving up what I like, and they can try to explain how they figure that this difference is worth more than the happiness I could have had.

But they know fully well that they can't do that, that the fact that I might own a Carrera GT doesn't change jack shit.
We've had this discussion before, I don't share your borderline religious belief in the benevolence of the 'invisible hand.' To me the free market gives us the Company Store, child labor, dangerous products, a destroyed environment (look at living conditions in East St. Louis), things like tainted beef in the Spanish American War that killed more American soldiers than enemy fire, or the Ford Pinto that was released knowing its flaw because the lawsuits would be less than the recall.

I don't trust the market further than I can throw it.


I haven't driven the Tesla. I doubt it's as good a car as it is a marketing gag.
Everyone who has driven it says it's a blast. It's a Elise with instant on power, what's not to like?

But yeah, I think that cars will adapt. Koenigsegg just finished work on their bio-ethanol tolerant CCR and managed to get greater power out of the engine due to the special properties of the blend.

What I don't think is that engineers will actually be allowed to find these solutions because a bunch of shady individuals see this as a chance to do what they always wanted: destroy "loud, smelly cars" that shout "I made it, I've got lots of money"
As long as they have a point, they'll be successful. When they don't, they won't. Frankly, if this is the end of the sports car/flashy car, so be it. It was a good run. And you already know that I love those things more than you can imagine. But the realities are the realities.

The funny thing is, I actually think that a carbon tax makes sense. Since tradable permits are impractical in this case, the actual price of emissions must be factored into the market somehow. But what these people are doing (and what you seem to be supporting to some extent, which is what really perplexes me) is that they appeal to emotions, to my "duty to my fellow man" to actually make me give up what I enjoy. And failing that, they just want to outlaw it.
The think that maybe your sense of humanity might out weigh your selfishness, or at least make you understand that if we all go down, that includes you, too.

That's not a solution to the tragedy of the commons. The solutions have been known for many decades now (if it isn't a century already). And precisely because they don't care, I say they don't give much of a damn about the actual problem, they just want to get rid of fast cars.
As long as it's just 'they're coming for my fast car' it will never get traction, it hasn't for all these years. But in terms of environment and resources they do. I'm just not as paranoid or selfish. I don't think my 'sense of liberty' is more important that everyone elses, and if my actions affect everyone else, then a trade off has to be considered. And I'm not willing to leave that to the market, because the market is far too willing to trade me down the river. (not to mention that it gives a disproportionate amount of 'say' in society to people with money and makes the poor societies bitch, the poor who will pay the greatest costs for the excesses of the rich.)


And you honestly say they aren't an attack on your rights?

I can see the point of traffic lights and road signs. Obviously you need some level of coordination.

But speed limits aren't coordination, they're limitation. Do you know that when cars first started, people wanted to make a law requiring someone to walk in front of it alerting everyone to the danger that was coming? That's the sort of idea that led to speed limits even being considered as a policy.

Fact is, speed doesn't do anything. Speed limits are placed arbitrarily and in the studies I've seen it doesn't make a difference to accident rates whether cars travel at 60km/h or 120km/h. Hence recommendations are a better way to go, and once an accident actually happens we can see whether the driver took an unnecessary risk by going quicker than the recommended speed, and adjust punishments accordingly.

Thats ridiculous and a car guy should know better. You know full well it's a shorter distance to bring a car to a stop from 35 mph than it is from 65 mph, that changing direction at 40 mph is a much safer proposition than it is at 90 mph. You know full well that you have more time to react to something at lower speeds than at higher speeds. Don't be ridiculous.

Some of you will remember that I'm more than slightly worried about cars being made scapegoats for climate change and any other number of problems. And fast cars are of course along with SUVs the most obvious targets.

Well, it's happened again. There may not be an immediate risk of this actually being approved, but I wouldn't trust the media or the politicians if people keep bringing this up.

This time it's a British LibDem MP:
http://www.chrisdaviesmep.org.uk/news/2007/June/mep_proposes_big_co2_cuts_from_cars.htm

Well that's just stupid. If you want to punish environmentally unsound manufacturing then apply those punishments to the things that are actually bad for the environment. Speed and size are not bad for the environment. If you can find a way to make an SUV or muscle car as fuel efficient as a smaller car then there's no reason you should be punished for resembling inefficient vehicles in some particular that has nothing to do with efficiency.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but the suggested implementation is stupid.

Thats ridiculous and a car guy should know better. You know full well it's a shorter distance to bring a car to a stop from 35 mph than it is from 65 mph, that changing direction at 40 mph is a much safer proposition than it is at 90 mph. You know full well that you have more time to react to something at lower speeds than at higher speeds. Don't be ridiculous.

But that's a simplistic view. People don't drive 70-90 mph on back roads or winding roads. They do it on highways, which are usually a pretty straight run. And unless you're a moron, if you're driving 90 mph you stay further away from the guy in front of you than if you're going 50 mph.

And if you are a moron then it doesn't matter how fast you drive. You're still going to do something stupid.

But that's a simplistic view. People don't drive 70-90 mph on back roads or winding roads.
Pff. Sayz you....I mean...of course they don't...
They do it on highways, which are usually a pretty straight run. And unless you're a moron, if you're driving 90 mph you stay further away from the guy in front of you than if you're going 50 mph.

And if you are a moron then it doesn't matter how fast you drive. You're still going to do something stupid.
Have you ever actually looked at the actual safe distance you have to give just for 65 mph? Next time try and count 2 seconds between cars and see how often that number comes up. The spacing between cars would have to be pretty far, then when you take into account that the cars won't be going the same speed...

German Autobahns have to be strictly regulated to maintain their safety (I just recently found out that you can't pass on the right, which when I thought about it made sense) including dividing the lanes into various speed 'groups.' Speed limits on highways are as much about getting the cars to all go relatively the same speed as they are anything else.

(For fairness sake, I should point out that the semi-regulated Autobahn accounts for fewer accidents than other superhighway systems, including the US, but again in order to achieve this it has a group of regulations that go with it. Tourguide for the Autobahn (http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.net/autobahn.htm))

I'll respond later, right now I found a sorta related article about the current hype about the environment and the tendency to put the interests of the Green lobby above all else: http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,491075,00.html

And you honestly say they aren't an attack on your rights?
Yes. I don't see anywhere in law that says I have the right to drive at any speed I like, just like I don't have the right to drive without insurance, opr the right to drive without a license.

I can see the point of traffic lights and road signs. Obviously you need some level of coordination.

But speed limits aren't coordination, they're limitation. Do you know that when cars first started, people wanted to make a law requiring someone to walk in front of it alerting everyone to the danger that was coming? That's the sort of idea that led to speed limits even being considered as a policy.
And? Cars are a danger to pedestrians, red flags or not. I had to cross a busy main road every day to walk to school, which was dangerous enough with cars doing the 30 mph speed limit, being on a blind corner. And knowing the 'boy racer' attitude of the young drivers in my area - you can bet your bottom dollar people would do double that. Sure - people would love to do 70 down a residential road to give their girlfriend a thrill, but it's make our roads far more a danger for both other drivers and pedestrians alike.

And, as a side thought, I get people driving past my house at night over the speed limit which is rather annoying, but that's just being an old fart.

And speed limits are used as coordination too - like on motorways in order to sort out congestion and keep traffic flowing. In the UK it can be lowered to 40 or 30 mph to prevent stop-start and making traffic jams any worse.

Fact is, speed doesn't do anything. Speed limits are placed arbitrarily and in the studies I've seen it doesn't make a difference to accident rates whether cars travel at 60km/h or 120km/h. Hence recommendations are a better way to go, and once an accident actually happens we can see whether the driver took an unnecessary risk by going quicker than the recommended speed, and adjust punishments accordingly.
From the Department of Transport's road safety website:

* You are more likely to kill a pedestrian driving at 40mph than 30mph.
* Specifically, if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 20 mph, the pedestrian has a 95% chance of survival.
* If you hit an adult pedestrian while driving at 30mph, the survival chance is 80%. But if you hit a pedestrian while driving at 40mph, the pedestrian's chances of dying rises to 90%. (this lowers to 80% for a child).


I'm still confident that speed limits do do something.

EDIT: Here's the link http://www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk/campaigns/slowdown/slowdown.htm

Yes. I don't see anywhere in law that says I have the right to drive at any speed I like, just like I don't have the right to drive without insurance, opr the right to drive without a license.
It doesn't say in the law that I have the right to eat, drink or have sex with people either.

So those aren't rights?

I had to cross a busy main road every day to walk to school, which was dangerous enough with cars doing the 30 mph speed limit, being on a blind corner.
Ever thought of walking a bit further and not crossing the road at a dangerous place?

And speed limits are used as coordination too - like on motorways in order to sort out congestion and keep traffic flowing. In the UK it can be lowered to 40 or 30 mph to prevent stop-start and making traffic jams any worse.
Hence my suggestion to make them speed recommendations rather than speed limits.

I'm still confident that speed limits do do something.
Well, obviously. They're a great marketing tool for local politicians, can be used to raise money for government and when necessary can rally an angry mob to support you in whatever you want.

What I was asking was whether the likelihood of an accident increases. I remember a great series of ads a while ago in which they explained to us that going 65km/h in a 60 zone doubles the risk of being in an accident, and that doing 70km/h triples it.

So I went ahead and found the study on the web. Apart from a ridiculously small sample size, what stood out was the misrepresentation of the results: the study also found that going 40km/h triples the likelihood that you will get in an accident. But somehow they forgot to mention that in the ads.

So yeah, I would question anything coming from a government source on this issue.

As for the severity of any accidents, I think my rule of linking punishments to how avoidable the accident was (which includes how fast you were going) covers it. If you know that hitting someone with 30 will get you a fine but hitting someone with 60 gets you 15 years, that might just encourage people to go at sensible speeds. And it's a damn sight fairer because it's not preventative punishment, while speeding tickets are.

Where would anyone actually, legally, travel at 110+ mph in a car (excluding F1 drivers and the like, obviously)?

I think the MP has a point.

A pretty woosy point, that won't do much to actually combat climate change, but a point indeed.
On the German Autobahn, of course. Where else?

It doesn't say in the law that I have the right to eat, drink or have sex with people either.

So those aren't rights?
I'll give you that, but nevertheless, if I were to list my fundamental rights, I wouldn't put 'driving at speed' on that list.

Ever thought of walking a bit further and not crossing the road at a dangerous place?
When there's people driving at any god damned speed they like that turns into 'not crossing at all'.

Hence my suggestion to make them speed recommendations rather than speed limits.
Without enforcement, they'd be useless. I'm fairly sure they wouldn't be taken seriously.

Well, obviously. They're a great marketing tool for local politicians, can be used to raise money for government and when necessary can rally an angry mob to support you in whatever you want.
Speed cameras are particularly unpopular. They aren't a great marketing tool over here at all, but that's really beside the point.

What I was asking was whether the likelihood of an accident increases. I remember a great series of ads a while ago in which they explained to us that going 65km/h in a 60 zone doubles the risk of being in an accident, and that doing 70km/h triples it.

So I went ahead and found the study on the web. Apart from a ridiculously small sample size, what stood out was the misrepresentation of the results: the study also found that going 40km/h triples the likelihood that you will get in an accident. But somehow they forgot to mention that in the ads.

So yeah, I would question anything coming from a government source on this issue.
I've had a look on the 'net for this, but can't find anything. Most of the anti-speed limit sites I found focused exclusively on motorways and not anywhere else (and there, I think they have a point) but found no research for residential zones, or anything in between the two. My gut feeling is that driving too slow relative to other drivers is likely to be dangerous too, but as with anything else, the only sources I can find are from the Department of Transport. if you won't accept a government source, there's little I can do - they set the limits, they do the research.

As for the severity of any accidents, I think my rule of linking punishments to how avoidable the accident was (which includes how fast you were going) covers it. If you know that hitting someone with 30 will get you a fine but hitting someone with 60 gets you 15 years, that might just encourage people to go at sensible speeds. And it's a damn sight fairer because it's not preventative punishment, while speeding tickets are.
I agree with that. I've never said speed limits are perfect, necessary everywhere, or always appropriately posted, but in residential and built up areas especially, I think they're a necessary evil.

Some of you will remember that I'm more than slightly worried about cars being made scapegoats for climate change and any other number of problems. And fast cars are of course along with SUVs the most obvious targets.

Well, it's happened again. There may not be an immediate risk of this actually being approved, but I wouldn't trust the media or the politicians if people keep bringing this up.

This time it's a British LibDem MP:
http://www.chrisdaviesmep.org.uk/news/2007/June/mep_proposes_big_co2_cuts_from_cars.htm

we just need to physically constrain road cars in the UK to a top speed of 75 mph by fitting limiters in the engines and by confiscating the cars of persistent speeders. :D