You shouldn't be driving over 100 MPH-and your car shouldn't let you
Calls to mandate electronic speed limiters in cars—potentially tied to GPS and speed‑limit databases—spark sharp disagreement over how far governments should go in curbing dangerous driving. Supporters argue that capping speeds and geo-fencing limits could significantly reduce fatalities from extreme speeding, especially in cities, while critics warn of technical failures, new cybersecurity risks, and creeping surveillance or control over where and how people can drive. Many commenters suggest that driver training, enforcement, vehicle design, and cultural attitudes toward cars may matter more for safety than a blanket 100‑mph cap.
Overall sentiment
- Thread is highly polarized.
- Some see speed limiting as a reasonable extension of existing safety regulations.
- Many others view it as overreach, technically fragile, and a step toward broader control and surveillance.
Safety benefits vs effectiveness
- Proponents argue lower speeds reduce crash likelihood and severity, especially in cities; a 100+ mph crash in a 35 mph zone is cited as a case where a limiter would likely have saved lives.
- Critics point out that 35 mph can still be lethal and that reckless, intoxicated drivers will remain dangerous even at lower speeds.
- Several say a flat 100 mph cap would not address the most dangerous city driving, and geofenced limits would be needed.
Freedom, autonomy, “nanny state” concerns
- Many object to cars disobeying direct driver input; compare it to pre‑emptive punishment rather than post‑crime penalties.
- Slippery‑slope fears: from speed limiting to broader behavioral control (taxing distance driven, lockouts during curfews, political retribution).
- Some argue law should constrain behavior after the fact, not preemptively remove capabilities from everyone.
Technical & implementation issues
- Concerns about outdated or wrong speed‑limit databases creating unsafe speed differentials.
- GPS errors, loss of signal, and mis‑location are seen as serious risks.
- Geo‑aware Intelligent Speed Assist is viewed as complex and costly in practice, even if basic governors already exist.
- New attack surface: compromising automaker systems to impose arbitrary speed caps or target specific vehicles.
Use cases: racing, emergencies & edge cases
- Track‑day and rally users object; ask how limits would be lifted on private property or race circuits.
- Conflicting views on emergencies (medical, fleeing danger): some say exceeding limits can be rational; others argue panicked speeding is more likely to kill.
Comparisons & alternatives
- Germany’s autobahn and stricter licensing are cited as evidence speed itself isn’t the only factor.
- Alternatives suggested: better driver training, infrastructure (roundabouts, speed bumps, medians), automated enforcement (cameras), breathalyzer interlocks, and cultural change around driving.