NYT: No Need for Speed (stop building cars that exceed speed limits)

This is not a novel idea, but one that I haven’t thought about in a long time.

The author of the article, Kent A. Sepkowitz, comes from a medical background and appears to approach the topic entirely from the perspective of savings lives (not a bad place to start).

As much as I love cars, love motorcycles, and love going a bit faster than I need to for the heck of it (while feeling very guilty about the fuel consumption increase north of 80kmph/50mph), I have to — with great hesitation — agree with Mr. Sepkowitz.  There is absolutely no reason to travel north of 160kmph / 100mph (many non-20-something males might argue for a lower number however my tiny Honda CBR125R motorcycle is limited to approximately 125kmph and I do believe that low of a limit can be a major issue for highway safety when passing or an evasive maneuver is required) and with fuel consumption at the top of everyone’s mind, we may be able to effectively counter the passionate arguments that remain for building cars capable of higher speeds.

Sadly, with the American automotive industry in the state that it’s in (re: decline), taking away such a major component of the sex appeal of new cars will not be business-palatable.  There is a reason little old Nissan managed to force their previously-dominant competitors in the mid-size segment (Honda Accord, Toyota Camry) to follow their lead:  horsepower.  The 240hp 3.5L V6 in the 2002 Nissan Altima was the official start, in my opinion, of the mainstream horsepower wars.  Having driven a 188hp 1996 Lexus ES300 through my hurried and reckless teenage years, I can absolutely confirm that there is no fucking reason to have a 200+hp family sedan.  Even with my massive stupidity, there was never any reason to come close to flooring the great big 3.0L V6 in the Lexus.  But it sure is neat to tell people your new Honda Accord has 268 horses, 100 or more of which have never left the stable.

Of course, there are many ways to make cars safer, but I think there is no more obvious way of REDUCING FATALITIES (not necessarily accidents) than removing the ability to travel 40kmph (25mph) faster than the average flow of highway traffic (we have a 100kmph limit here on all the major highways in Toronto).

And for those that want to go faster?  Try motorcycles where your the only person likely to be killed by your own stupidity (though you’re also WAY more susceptible to death by others stupidity).  And if getting crushed from behind by an SUV at a red light isn’t appealing to you, there’s always Playstation.

Bullshit Sidenote: I am surprised he mentions cruise control as the necessary component for limiting speed.  Electronic rev limiters have existed and been in use for some time to reduce maximum speeds, albeit at much higher speeds than Mr. Sepkowitz would likely propose.  Although I am not too familiar with the technical details, I do believe installation of such a device would be easy on modern cars that are not even equipped with cruise control so a mandate to include such a device on all new cars could be extended to most newer existing cars as well.  I remember the mid-90s (last generation in North America) Toyota Supra Twin Turbo had a shortened 6th, overdrive gear, with a virtual redline around 5800rpm, limiting the 320hp machine to a ‘mere’ 155mph.  That rev limiter ruined me in Need for Speed (the video game, not the article).  Even the relatively weak and torqueless Mazda RX-7 got to 158mph, as I recall.  I had to roadhog like a motherfuck to keep those dinky RX-7s from passing me…

… and the cow goes moo