Well, considering especially that one of Europe's main exports is fast cars, I see this doing a LOT of harm to their economy (not to mention ending new car sales or at least forcing companies to use computers to limit speeds to 100).

Wow score one for the communists.... :(

You may want to look up the definition of communism before throwing the label around...

On the other note, yea, a pretty dumb idea...

Well he could be right. I mean what the use of the 600 bhp cars when you cant go fast?

Although, im pretty sure that guy doesnt mean super cars. i mean how many people drive those to be that effective on the climate? perhaps, he is pointing to cars with 200-300 bhp range... to tell you the truth, as a "Canadian Communist Monster", i think he is right. Those "SUVs" and gas guzzlers v6, v8s are the ones that need to be ban.

However, i think thats impractical. I mean, their emission can be reduced once the ethanol fuel becomes more available.

Alternative fuels like Hydrogen Combustions are also becoming practical faster than fuel cells. I mean Honda is planing to sell its Hydrogen model next summer!

Also, ive read about this exhaust filter that uses water in new way to dramatically reduce the carbon emissions.

Ecology aside, this could save thousands of human lifes.
Too often we see people kill themselves and others because of speeding. Next time it could be your child. So perhaps this would cool off some heads...
What, you think 101mph isn't fast enough?

You don't need to be going 101+ mph to kill people... Enacting this law isn't going to save any lives. There are plenty of fatal accidents that occur at 50-60 mph because the drivers are morons and this law will do nothing to change that.

"Ecology aside, this could save thousands of human 'lifes'."

It would save more 'lives' if our education system was improved.

Sorry - shoddy beat-up journalism.

"Europe is Considering" is not borne out by the mere introduction of a proposal by a member of the ineffectual European parliament, who comes from a party that is only a distant third force even within his own country.

Besides, the Germans would never stand for it. And nothing that is opposed by the Germans or the French would ever get through to become European policy.

...

If they did institute a ban, however, we could look forwards to a glut of 2nd hand imports in the rest of the world!! ^_^

Typical modern-day liberal "argument". Save the environment! At any ridiculous, half-witted cost. Save stupid people! At any measure, lower everyone to the lowest common denominator. Fast cars should not be banned. Let them use their brains and put some of that money they use to make their society increasingly socialist to something useful. Meanwhile, speed limits need to be abolished because they artificially restrain drivers and are such an easy excuse for ineffective law enforcement to make it seem like they're doing something useful by "cracking down" on the limit nobody follows.

"Next time it could be your child" is an argument that has been used over and over to enact every idiot law we have today. Freedom is toast, let's ban that word now, eh?

So one guy makes a proposition and the headline becomes "EUROPE is considering a ban!"

That's awesome reporting guys :)

I live in the motherland of that beautiful Lambo up there. Just for the record, last year our national parliament has raised the speed limits in some motorway stretches from 130 km/h (81 mi/h) to 150 km/h (93 mi/h). Since the highway code provides a 10% tolerance, you can peacefully drive at 165 km/h (103 mi/h).....

However the headline is indeed badly chosen, i live in Belgium and to me it doesn't sound totally stupid. I would prefer other measures though. The traffic sutuation in Belgium is a huge disaster. Traffic accidents are the biggest killer every year and only lowered the last years (over a 1000 a year, pop 10.5mil) with very rigid and severe government actions. You cannot possibly compare situations with countries where you actually have hundreds of miles of speedway straight ahead. The main intention is still to reduce co2, but it's a fact we don't NEED those cars here. Also public transport is a cheaper, better and more developped options in crowded areas (travelling for distances between 20 and 200 miles, train is the perfect and faster alternative).

I am interested to know what is the top speed of that gentleman's car, what's the power and the weight. I really doubt that he's driving in an Aygo or a Smart... And I also doubt that he will even if his proposal passes.

For the record, such proposals were passed in the past in Holland, where the only result was to produce the same motorcycle models (it was about motos back then) with an electronic limiter that was easily removed after the technical control. That's what will most probably happen in case new cars are not allowed to go faster than 160km/h (100mph)

"However, i think thats impractical. I mean, their emission can be reduced once the ethanol fuel becomes more available."

Ethanol helps NOTHING. It takes fuel to grow (tractors) and pesticides and fertilizers are all petroleum based. Ethanol is an energy negative.

"Alternative fuels like Hydrogen Combustions are also becoming practical faster than fuel cells. I mean Honda is planing to sell its Hydrogen model next summer!"

Hydrogen is not an alternative fuel. It can power a car, sure, but there are no hydrogen mines. It is created from water with the use of energy, like that created from burning fossil fuels. The only thing hydrogen is good for is centralizing pollution at the power plant instead of coming out of all the cars.

Ethanol and hydrogen are pipe dreams. We have to reduce energy usage, and a bill like this *might* help (though how many people ever actually drive that fast anyway?) Otherwise we get to watch gas prices continue to climb.

this is plain stupid,
cars don't kill people, if you are not smart enough to drive like a normal person, you shouldn't have a car.
why ban cars? ban dangerous people.
now before you start flaming me, i'm not meaning you should take away the car of a guy who drives a little too fast once in a while at night on an empty freeway, i'm talking about those idiots who are racing at 5pm through a street with a school of something like that.

to MamiyaOtaru: We're having all energy that we need and can make almost infinitely more, that's no problem. The "only" problem is that we have no effective way to store enough of this energy in thing small enough to fit in a car. Nowadays we are using chemical way to store energy, but there is a limited supply of chemicals with already stored energy (e.g. crude oil) and manufacturing of artificial ones (i.e. alternative fuels) is very complicated, because of needed volumes which are way too big.

What I don't get at all is why people need to have cars that run fast in the first place.

I see no advantage in city dense area's for 1 to have a gazillion horsepower beneath ones butt. Speed in city area's are a big no no anyway.

The only reason for a big fast (whatever car) is to please those that try to (over)compensate something else.

A car is just a way to get from point A to point B. I would assume in a regulated route-system people would be be getting there faster if all the cars are powered equally.

Anyway boyz will be boyz (even when they get past their 40-years itch).

(btw that communist remark: we outlived the cold war body boy. Get in touch with todays history, kkthkx)

Most economy cars now days can match the performance of yesterdays sports cars. The new exotics and sports cars have had no where to go but into the realm of the ridiculous. 600hp. 200mph is rediculous, Where are you going to drive that fast? I remember driving an early Porsche, it had 80hp yet was sporty and fun to drive.
It is also obscene the resources these vehicles use when you consider we have invaded foreign nations illegally to steal their oil.

HAHAHAHAHA

Only an English guy could come up with such a stupid proposal. Since i live in Europe i can tell u for sure this is not going to happen.

And to say something about the CO2 emission... The whole Europe is spare-s on everything just to lower the emission, but when u count up how much lesser CO2 is produced at a year rate... China produces it in a single day =)

People - please dont bash something because you dont understand it... Not everyone who ones any kind of fast car is compensating for something, and not everyone who has a "fast" car drives like a moron. In fact theres people that actually enjoy owning fast cars, drive them resposibily on the street and *gasp* take them to the track as well. And before someone says it, not everyone can afford to have two cars. I know I cant. If you think a car is nothing other than a way to get from point A to point B you should considering walking, mopeds and public transportation... they are all a lot cheaper than owning a car. and seriously.... what kind of idiot thinks this is an enviromental thing...? how on earth is this going to do anything for the environment? Theres plenty of 4 cylinders that put out more power than some of the old v8s and 6s and almost every car produced in the past 20 years can go at least if not over 101mph. Lets not even start the argument about where the vast majority of co2 in the atmosphere comes from.... hint: its not cars.

Wow I haven't laughed this hard in a long while. All of the above good comments aside, does anyone actually think that any government still has the power to sway what any corporation will do? Anyone? Big business OWNS the government.

how many people are going 101 on a regular basis anyways... if you are, you suck and you are partially the reason why this should take effect. what do i care if my car does 100 if i'm only going 75? its amazing what people do when change is proposed... and yea, this likely won't happen, but that doesn't mean the pro's wouldn't outweigh the cons. what are the cons again? economy isn't really the right arguement because honestly, if you can make cars go that fast, instead that money should be spent in other departments of the auto industry, perhaps in gas economy...

Great, I cant wait. Who needs 200 horsepowers and 300kmph cars anyway... Bloody americans with their hummers..

This is more work of the communists/democrats/socials they are all the same wanting to control freedom well keep it up, keep pushing us and one day maybe we will have a war, freedom will prevail

can I say, after reading the posts from 'jose' that i am an american and i REALLY think his post is ridiculous and PLEASE when you read things like this, don't think this represents intelligent american thought. granted, my typing may not convey intelligence either as i'm too lazy to press shift at the moment, but seriously his comment above me is retarded. it just so happens that the stupid speak louder than the intelligent most of the time.

Speed limiters. Can you see them slapping a speed limiter on a 600HP car? LOL. It will get to 100 very quickly, but the computer will start shutting off fuel at 100mph. No worries. A chip can take care of that if one is so inclined.

I just like to see solid arguments why we need fast cars nowadays in the first place.

Most desk jobs are office bound and believe it or not that make cars less needed to commute between their home's and the work floor when those same people get better access to the work floor via remote desktop up links and what not... Sure not all activities can be done via such an up link I hope you get the idea.

The hole idea that it has to do with restricting people's freedom is a lame excuse if you would ask me. The only time I would agree to speed limits being a way to restrict people is when that speed limit is forcing you to drive slower then one can walk.

And even if you do own a fast car and drive it on the route according to the speed limits but still go to the track I would ask you why you need to do that.
The end result is see is that you still pollute the air more then needed as I already pointed out in my first comment.

Cars = transport = efficiently getting from point A to point B. Racing on tracks for pleasure is not part of that equation.

"I just like to see solid arguments why we need fast cars nowadays in the first place."

How about a solid argument for why I should only be allowed to buy what someone else thinks I need.

Come on. A good 0-60 time has real-world driving benefits. Combine that with a top gear that will get good highway mileage, and guess what, you have a car that will be _capable_ of going over 100 mph.

I'm so tired of people trying to tell me how I can and can't spend my money I earn.

Before I get on to the point at hand...

Jose Morales - You come onto this forum alot, but you have never posted anything except what a bunch of communists live in Europe and how we're going to go to war with them. First of all, the Cold War ended when the wall fell. Second, you may notice that those "socialist" European economies are beating the hell out of the American dollar. Post something about vehicles, maybe just once. Do it for me.

Now, onto the issue. Part of me thinks that this guy is really just proposing this bill as a publicity stunt. He has to know it won't pass. And I hope it doesn't, because it isnt difficult for most vehicles to reach 101 now, even with 4 or 6 cyls. But at the same time, I think driving a super car down the road is an inefficient use of your vehicle and gasoline.
I think the real solution here is more efficient design. Or more use of public transportation (well, that's my wish for over here in the US). The 101 rule, in my opinion, won't make a big enough difference.

Personally I do not see a need for really fast cars when the price of gas is so high and people are worried about co2 causing global warming. If they can afford such an expensive vehicle, why not be able to afford using on some race track?

How about really fast cars that do not pollute or have limited effect on global warming? Perhaps this argument could be used to limit or defeat the bill?

Cars that can accelerate and break quickly are safer than those that cannot. Braking distance is obviously a bigger contributor to safety than acceleration is, but if I am merging onto a highway or other high speed stretch of road, I want to get my vehicle up to the speed of all surrounding vehicles as quickly as possible. If it takes a 500HP car to get from 0 to 60MPH in 3 seconds, then that means I can safely pull into an opening (between two cars) of 550 feet safely from a dead stop while still giving the person in front of me and behind me a 3 second buffer. If it takes my car 7 seconds to hit 60MPH, I now have to find an opening between cars of 900 feet (64% more space between the cars) to ensure the car behind me has a 3 second buffer and doesn’t have to slam on his breaks.

If all cars on a road are going the exact same speed, the likelihood of an accident diminishes greatly. If you are on a long straight road posted as 120 MPH and you are the only one going 100MPH, you are increasing the likelihood of an incident for everyone around you. You can’t make contact with another vehicle traveling the same speed as you unless you turn into it.

All right, first off this is a pretty dumb proposal. To my knowledge, and correct me if I'm wrong, Germany is the only country in the EU that does not have a speed limit...well a speed limit everywhere. In towns and whatnot there are speed limits; once you get out to open road though, you’re free to go as fast as you want. My aunt and uncle lived in Germany for a few years, and even on the "no speed limit" zones, my aunt anyway, didn't go over 75-80, and she wasn't the only one, at times she'd pass people. Plus, Germans love their lack of a speed limit; just as much, if not more, than we Americans love our guns.

Another thing, my mom owns a BMW 328i. It's a 2.8L strait six that produces about 230hp, and has it speed limited electronically limited at 155mhp; it's a vehicle that many of you seem to have a problem with. Although, around town she averages 25-26 mpg and on the freeway 32-35. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd say that's pretty good, considering that my '87, 4-cyl, wagon can't beat that.

And what's the difference if a car gets bad gas mileage? Compare a bunch of cars, with today’s standards, to a coal power plant. They don't even stack up. If you’re worried about CO2, go over to nuclear power (2 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere vs. 60 tons of unusable nuclear waste, yearly). Come on people, the environment has nothing to do with cars!

Come on already.

Look, I drive a mid 90's Honda Civic.

This little thing NEVER gets less than 30mpg.
This little thing is still plenty fast enough to go more than 110mph.

So I suppose all the supporters would like my car to go away because it *can* go more than 100mph.

Why don't you people so worried about the safety of everyone else worry more about pollution reduction at places that really make any?
airports? refinement plants? manufacturing facilities?

Why don't we just go ahead and ban all nails that can penetrate someones skin? 'Cause you know if a nail can *possibly* penetrate the skin then everyone would use it as a weapon.

The mindset behind a lot of you people is just astounding.

I personally don't mind if FUTURE new cars are limited to 100mph.
I never in my life needed to go that fast anyway.
I hate boring and like fast cars, but after living in South East Asia a few years, I can appreciate what small cars can offer. Gas won't be around forever.
I think this will happen anyway when gas prices go up and people start buying smaller cars (like the Smart Car).

I have to agree with someone that said it will be a tax on the poor and that is exactly right. This type of legislation is proposed by a very short sighted politician who forgets that not everyone is on the same economical standing as eveyone else. Our system is set up to keep the poor down and I don't think that its fair. If we should do anything it would be to prohibit the manufacture of the shit period instead of taxing. It's not the owners fault that he drives what he drives. The person making 20k a year is going to buy what is cheapest which right now happens to be SUV's because no one wants to pay for the gas. Then they go into debt to pay off the gas. They don't have the means to spend 30k on a new fuel efficient car. Since I'm sure that some idiot will correct me and say 20k, I want to clarify that it really doesn't matter. There are tons of people in America who are at the poverty line and can't afford to eat let alone buy a fuel efficient car. The problem is Corporate America and not necessarily the consumer. I mean don't get me wrong, the consumer is at fault but they already bear all the burdens of our society. The corps don't have to deal with anything. If they don't like something then they merely jump ship and go over to some third-world country where they don't protect workers and do whatever they please over there. It's pathetic. People are always so focused on what the little guy is doing and play off the crap that the corps create as "business". To put my rant in a shorter context, taxing is not the way to solve this problem.

haha

-what is sad is we will be next

Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for the North West of England can be credited with the proposal.

he knows nothing about technology and passion for cars.
or...
he doesnt drive or not do his job well.

anyways, the writer of the article did a very good job of making a good title creating all this fuzz.
How could it be Europe if its only passed by a person? as said by some comments above.

A couple of things

1) "Too often we see people kill themselves and others because of speeding."

No one has ever died from speeding. No one. Going fast does NOT kill someone - not knowing what you're doing gets you killed. Germany has higher speed limits than the US, yet has fewer deaths per mile. Why? Because they have to go through much more training to get their license. In the US it's "can you figure out how to get the car to move forwards and backwards? ok, you get your license".

2) All these people use the "you can't drive that fast on public roads" argument - except that an ever growing number of people buy fast cars and drive them on PRIVATE TRACKS

Oh hell, lets add number 3 because I just noticed another comment left by someone:
"I personally don't mind if FUTURE new cars are limited to 100mph. I never in my life needed to go that fast anyway."

You haven't needed to yet - lets say your child is horrible hurt and you have no phone. I'm willing to bet you'd fly down the road to get them to a hospital.

Whatever the actual story underlying this hilarious thread.

Limiting car's max speed would be a limitation of personnal freedoms typical of the "communist countries", but authorizing governments' checking out your mail and listening to your phone calls makes sense to protect the country???

Double standards anyone? :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

What a joke. I bitch about Canadian politics but this is insane. If this is the best idea he can come up with then the people who voted this guy in are screwed.

Even if they were to electronically limit every car to 101 mph, people would bypass it overnight.

I wonder what puts out more CO2 emissions.... a 10 year old Ford pickup, or a finely tuned 400bhp BMW.

If emissions are truly the goal, then an exponential tax based on CO2 emissions would be the right answer.

If this law goes into effect, that car company that makes that electric car that goes 0-60 in 3.x seconds would be a nice investment. Assuming that law could not apply to a car that put out zero emissions.

Its impressive how people can distort things.

1st of all: Why it took a couple of decades for the industry to build new cars than can keep up against the beasts from the 60's and 70's? Off course we had the petroleum crises , but, those cars had extremely high emissions and they are "against" the law now.
If you wanna control something, control emissions not speed.
For example the new carrera gt has lower emission than a regular midsized 4 cylinder sedan.

Another thing a lot of people forget... is that some times you need a more powerful car.. driving by your self in a plain highway is very different from driving with 5people and bags in a mountain area.... maybe.. i do need a 200+ bhp sedan... and im not even talking about towing pick ups....Of course you could put electronic limits to speed.. but who believes that the irresponsible drivers of today would not take that out?!

(irresponsible drives are not the ones that go fast, but the ones that think a crowded ave is a race track... what difference does it make when you are driving in the middle of the desert with no one around?! (anyone already been to Nevada-US???)

Another huge problem are unprepared drivers... come on.. anyone here thinks that the way you get a drivers license in the US is right?! are you able to out maneuver a child that come from no where in our SUV?! yeah.. you should... but most of the people have a hard time doing a regular "high" speed corner on them..

This is obviously not an emmisions thing, because then folks would do what Japan does and outlaw cars with over a certain number of miles on them, or at least tax them to oblivion.

This is about government control. One person doesnt happen to like something, and so he wants to gain the control to stop it. He uses the government to do that in this case. this may seem extreme, but lots of folks use what they have in hand to control things. Look at organized crime, they are all about control.

The point is, just because you CAN control something, that doesnt mean it needs to be controlled. As a very smart guy once said, "A person who is willing to trade his freedom for security deserves neither" (not an exact quote). This is a similar concept. When you are willing to trade freedom for control, you deserve what you get, and tightly controlled society with no freedoms. Once you give the government the right to control something, the will "control" it to oblivion.

Also, like someone else said, just cause someone likes powerful cars, doesnt mean they are compensating. I happen to like to merge with traffic on the highway without concern that i may get rear ended accidentally. I like the feeling of the back of my seat pressing into my back. I like twisty roads at 30 mph, and then accelerating out of the turn on the straight road leading out of it. If you are not a car person, you wouldnt get it.

Tell you what though, i'm not a Latte person. What about all the hardships a coffee grower in columbia goes through. Maybe we should stop drinking Lattes to save the farmers thier hardship?? Of course, the farmers will just get pissed at you for taking thier income, but now you get to feel good about having "done something" for the little man. This proposal makes about as much sense as the car thing under discussion.

Why is it that people think that just because they have no desire to own a car which gets less than 60 miles per gallon, that no one else has a right to? Personally I actually ENJOY driving my sporty car, and it still gets ok gas mileage. If a person is willing to pay a premium (ie higher initial cost, higher insurance, higher cost of ownership) for a sports car, then they have every right to own that car, and enjoy it to the fullest. I fail to see how limiting the cars top speed has anything to do with enviromental friendlieness... it really seems to have more to do with protecting the majority of owners of these types of cars, who in my opinion are stereotypically better than average drivers, from the stupidity of the minority of car owners. Regardless, if i feel like going 100mph or even 200mph (not that many cars can do that) on the highway in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere... who am I hurting? Even if I do wreck I'll only kill myown dumb self, and that, my friends, is natural selection at its finest.

It makes so much sense how can you argue?

From a safety point of view, I would recommend dropping it down much, much further, something like 99 mph. If you crash into a tree at 99 mph, I think you'll be really really glad you were not doing 101 mph.

As for cutting emissions, it is just logical. Since we have done everything else possible to cut emissions, this is just obvious. You must see it every day, all those cars on the road going faster than 101 mph. It's just crazy. All those people are the reason we still have global warming. 101 mph is okay and very reasonable, but more than that? That's just increasing emissions and wasting gas. If it takes a new law to slow all of them down to 101, then I'm all for it. It will be a dream to drive 101 mph on the road and not be the slowest person on it like today.

So, even without the new law, I personally will start limiting my speed to 101 mph. (I know, you say I should go the safety speed of 99 mph, but sometimes I like to live on the edge.)

And this should be just the beginning. What about planes? Those commercial jets go 500 mph. Propeller planes and gliders are 101 mph and slower, with far less emissions. And jet fighters? With only 1 or 2 occupants, they don't even qualify for the HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes.

Once we can slow all the cars to 101 mph, then we need to get started on all those motorcycles that are blowing by us faster than 101. On second thought, maybe we should start with them - they might be the real cause for all those emissions. If so, we can leave the cars alone so we can cruise at 102 mph (or faster if you wash and wax your car) just like we have all of our life.

Question:

When you drive fast do you consume less or more fuel?
My bet would be on more so you are hurting everyone.
Not only the fuel is used more but also oil to keep those gears from locking up. You use more rubber from your tires etc etc etc etc.

Another thing, unless you are superman you can react to things happening on the road only that fast. The risk of accidents at high speed is therefor higher so again you have the potential to hurt more and not just yourself.

Also more pollution is less millage on that body of yours and others around you. Thing is you don't care about that since it may not effect you now but it could for generations to come.

So If you wrecked/killed yourself during 1 of those speedy-consalis actions I will cheer you to high heaven/hell or whatever comes next... Better yet. I love to put a brick wall smack in front of speedy cars just to see the drivers splatter themselves all over the place.
Anyway if you have kids I hope they avoid drivers like you at all costs. Then again maybe those that love to drive on the edge need to see theirs kids get killed by a speedy driver before the message get through those thick skulls.

People that state: "I have the cash so why would I get lesser car when I can get a bigger one for my cash. I can pay for it right?" Boy how selfish can one get.

Then there are those that point to others to avoid the issue they themselves can help reduce. Lame in my view. Grow yourself a backbone will you. Start protesting/sue'ing the offenders or whatever to get the "others" to do right thing too.
Closing yours eyes and pointing fingers is not an option.

@MamiyaOtaru:

Ethanol is no emission free I agree. However, its emissions are more controllable.

Hydrogen can be extracted using solar/wind/hydro energy without the need of fossil fuel generators.

So, Gumblepuppy, you're using the deluded notion that if someone has a fast car they're a crappy driver (if most of them were though, they'd be dead) and some "OMG!! THE SKY IS FALLING" gibberish that is completely made up by people who hate cars (for whatever reason).

It's nice to know that you're being rational here *note sarcasm*.

What are the important things here, if you ban cars that go beyond 101, how fast will the European car manufacturers go aout of business? this Quickly is followed by how fast will this cause a second "great depresion" because the economies of Europe collasped? this person making this proposal is being more political than anything. I seriously doubt that any one will be giving up their Porsches, TVRs, or Lamborginis. Oh wait, all of these companies make the most of their money out side of Europe. The point is that if this passes, the EU will be decimated. Maybe Chrystler has a chance after all.

Reading is something that need skill I think

I never used those words where as I implied that anyone that owns a fast car is a crappy driver. But if you think I did well sorry. Read my first sentence.

What I said is that fast cars are at some point beyond the control of your average Joe. That's it.
There, did that clear it up for you?

I do believe none of what I wrote further is gibberish. And where did I write that I hate cars?
I dislike wasting resources on non-efficient cars. Fast cars are not efficient no matter how you turn it.
If I get myself a Diablo (2-seater supercar) where is the efficient fuel consumption to the mileage uhmmmm?

If I were to put the horsepower that car has into a different kind of car I might be able to drive more people simultaneously around making better use of that engine would you not agree?

Granted it is not flashy but effective.

I think they should make fast cars faster and minimum speed limits compulsory.
The human race is peeing in its own gene pool by slowly removing all the ways that people with no skills could kill themselves.

personaly i see this (at least in an automotive forum) as a pro life or pro choice debate. lets force everyone to save the environment, or lets give everyone to drive their choice. people fail to realise that there are people all ove the world that truly have a passion for cars. the people who are saying that cars that go over 101mph arnt necessary are absolutely corect. but to that point no car is. take the bus. walk. a car is transportation but so are your feet. so is a bike. im sure someone could do a study on the trace amounts of rubber left by tennis shoes that harm the siberian albino long legged ant and then wed have lobyists trying to tell us what kinds of shoes we can own. is it better for the environment? maybe. but all those people who like to jog and run and hike will cry foul just as the people making comments are.

a second note, having a 300hp engine thats made to use those 300 horses will get less efficiency if you slap a speed limiter on it. the only way this would be possible and actually help the environment is to re gear transmissions or completely re design engines.

I'm not sure that biking or walking is really better for the environment than driving. Riding a bike at 12 mph/19kph for an hour consumes about 1600 calories. Replacing those calories with meat would require about 24 oz or 0.7kg. That certainly costs more than the equivalent in gasoline before taxes, which is an indication of the amount of energy used to bring the meat to market. A vegetarian replacement for those calories would be cheaper and likely use less energy, but not everyone is a vegetarian.

How many of you have ever driven a 101 ? Doesn't sound like many. You must be to afraid. Do you all were those stupid little hats (helmets) when you ride your bicycle in your spandex shorts while rinding in the street. Jeepers if you chain every one to a tree we can't hurt ourselves or any one else. Go gnaw your nails. I'm going racing and be smart.
Rainman

what kinda dumb crap is that?!?!?!?

who cares GOD is coming soon look up something that matters..its all going to burn one day:) we all die..invest in something that matters something eternal!

Hello,

Here is part of an article posted on my blog that suggests that less traffic control is sometimes better than more. This article is summarized from the online version of Der Speigel a popular liberal magazine in Germany.

>>><<<

(Drachten in the Netherlands
has gotten rid of 16 of its traffic light crossings
and converted the other two to roundabouts.)

"We reject every form of legislation," the Russian aristocrat and 'father of anarchism' Mikhail Bakunin once thundered. The czar banished him to Siberia. But now it seems his ideas are being rediscovered.

European traffic planners are dreaming of streets free of rules and directives. They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren -- by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs.

A project implemented by the European Union is currently seeing seven cities and regions clear-cutting their forest of traffic signs. Ejby, in Denmark, is participating in the experiment, as are Ipswich in England and the Belgian town of Ostende.

This utopia has already become a reality in Makkinga, in the Dutch province of Western Frisia. A sign by the entrance to the small town (population 1,000) reads 'Verkeersbordvrij' --'free of traffic signs.' Cars bumble unhurriedly over precision-trimmed granite cobblestones. Stop signs and direction signs are nowhere to be seen. There are neither parking meters nor stopping restrictions. There aren't even any lines painted on the streets.

'The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,' says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. 'The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles.'

Seven European cities and regions are doing away with traffic signs, 'dreaming of streets free of rules and directives.' They want drivers and pedestrians to interact in a free and humane way, as brethren — by means of friendly gestures, nods of the head and eye contact, without the harassment of prohibitions, restrictions and warning signs….

They demand streets like those during the Middle Ages, when horse-drawn chariots, handcarts and people scurried about in a completely unregulated fashion. The new model's proponents envision today's drivers and pedestrians blending into a colorful and peaceful traffic.

'It may sound like chaos, but it's only the lesson drawn from one of the insights of traffic psychology: Drivers will force the accelerator down ruthlessly only in situations where everything has been fully regulated. Where the situation is unclear, they're forced to drive more carefully and cautiously.'

Right now, speed limits, red lights and clearly marked and separated areas for cars and pedestrians are the norm in cities all over the world. But that thinking is 'all wrong' according to Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, who says it is much safer to build what he calls 'naked streets.' 'We removed anything referring to the traffic, made it just a square and please find your own way. This is the middle of the city. This is social space, and in social space we don't want to interfere as government,' he said. What he has done with intersections all over Holland — and even on a section of Kensington High Street in London — is abolish the rules. No more speed limits, no traffic lights, not even any curbs to separate sidewalk and road. Monderman says this scares drivers so much they slow down and move carefully to avoid hitting anyone.'We have to find a way to convince our politicians that avoidance of risk is not the right strategy. We have to try to manage risk with a certain amount of it in our designs.' The naked streets project has resulted in a 60 per cent drop in accidents involving pedestrians. Monderman says that's because it appeals to the human ability to collectively solve problems. "