Do you feel car manufacturers should be forced to make less than superior automobiles for your own good?

I don;t think any business should be forced to change their products in any way. People will buy what they want to buy. If its a piece of crap, dangerous, or perfect and safe, the decision is up to the customer. If the customers don't buy, then it's up to the manufacturer to make the changes necessary to complete the sale. It is NOT the business of the government to dictate trade, it is the business of the consumer.

I'd say the opposite would be true. Sometimes you need speed to avoid dangerous situations.
I guess though it would be okay to have governors on cars so you couldn't go over maybe 100 mph.
Around here I hit 90 failry often so I woulnd't say under 100

Automobiles need speed to get out of dangerous situations. I would never have a car that couldn't get me out of harm's way.

Gremlin.

They should make cars like they were back in 1685

We should try to avoid forcing any entity to do anything.

government forcing large corporations to do stuff is called communism, and i oppose it. thus, no, corporations should not be forced to anything.

They already do. I own a car which has an internal computer that limits its speed to 140mph... in part because that's what the normal tires are rated for. The car manufacturer chose to put in that limitation.

They shouldn't be forced to.

The autobahn..Duuuh

No, of course not. It's not their business to control what I can and cannot do. If they did this, other manufacturers would just make better cars and the ones making the crappy cars would fail.

A note to the Americans: Remember! Driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't forget that it's not your right to drive as fast as you want; that is abusing a privilege and endangering the rest of us. (The odds are that you're not that good of a driver anyway.)

I think more people think they have the right to drive as slow as they want.

I don't think so. People will always be able to enhance their automobiles after market anyway and therefore kill themselves in a fiery wreck if they want to. Free enterprise baby, free enterprise!

Happy Birthday!

Yeah, Happy B - Day Scratchy!

No. I consider watching speed chases on TV entertaining. Don't fudgeen take that away from me. Besides, allowing idiots to go that fast does our gene pool a favor.

I feel that this is completely justified. However, that does not stop me from wanting to cruise the freeway at 100. There should be long stretches of unused road where you can take your car to play around. It should be free. But, this will be a moot point when our cars begin to float...

I think our cars should be able to fly. Even if you are only allowed to use the flying feature to pass people who insist on going granny speed on dry roads in perfect visibility, I'd like that.

No way!

My truck starts to do weird crap with the electrical system at 100mph. At first I was pissed off. I mean, what gives GM the right to tell me that I "absolutely cannot" go faster than 100? Then I thought "What the fudge do I ever need to go 100mph for anyway". Thank you, GM, for looking out for me.

Thanks, Kate.

*itches itches itches*
Thanks!

I think, at this point, it might cost MORE to manufacture cars that limit the driver's speed, so I don't think we should pay extra to do this, but if the adjustment cost nothing, I would have no objection to having to buy a car that couldn't exceed 80 mph (some parts of the US still permit speed limits of 75).

You're welcome.

I would imagine that their may be times 100 is neccesary.

Let's go back to Thanksgiving morning in 1992. It was westbound I-80 in the middle of no where Nebraska. There wasn't anyone around for miles, and believe me, you can see miles. Late for dinner-Dodge Colt-open higway...100 miles per hour good.

No, there are times that it's necessary to accelerate more than usual, such as when passing someone or entering a freeway from an on ramp. You may also need to accelerate past a certain speed to avoid an accident.

> No, there are times that it's necessary to accelerate more than usual,
> such as when passing someone or entering a freeway from an on ramp.
> You may also need to accelerate past a certain speed to avoid an
> accident.

I know what you mean... I hadn't thought about that when I created the survey, as I often have to accelerate well over 100 mph to "safely" get on the freeway. Also, I know exactly what you mean by speeding up to avoid an accident - as speed is definitely what you want when you're driving in a (potential) danger zone.

> I would imagine that their may be times 100 is neccesary.
>
> Let's go back to Thanksgiving morning in 1992. It was westbound I-80
> in the middle of no where Nebraska. There wasn't anyone around for
> miles, and believe me, you can see miles. Late for dinner-Dodge Colt-open
> higway...100 miles per hour good.

That is not what I would call "necessary". Also... I had a Dodge Colt... how the hell did you get that thing up to 100 mph??? Was it safe???

Maybe the fact it was open road no one around...it was neccesary. I wanted to see if the Colt could do it. Indeed! I kept it up for about 8 miles. The adreneline rush was too much for me. It was a tiny shaky, not bad, I loved that car, it kicked ass.

That is what I was thinking along the lines of it being neccesary for safety reasons.

My Dodge Colt was a clunker... I did not love that car.

I had 110,000 and going strong. I had to sell it because here in the land of trucks and SUV's, no one could see me and I got hit 5 times, once by myself.

I think there should be an option to purchase one.

i think they should make an all rubber car for drunks, and then make an all gas tank car for aggressive drivers and then make a really super fast car with a 20mm cannon in the front for me,and all gay guys should be required to drive a car with a big opening in the rear so that the aggressive drivers could slam into them and they`d both explode.....yeeeeaaaaaa yyyyyyyyyyyyy cheese!

No. For one speed limits are too low. It is also true that at times certain technologies which increase burn efficiency have been outlawed, for fear of them being used to exceed speeding limits. Lowering the Burn Efficiency also means a vehicle will polute more. Does this make sense? Speed is not what kills so much as bad driving anyway. Bad drivers will drive badly whether the car is designed to be slower or not.

> government forcing large corporations to do stuff is called communism,
> and i oppose it. thus, no, corporations should not be forced to anything.
>

No Government forcing Large corporations to do stuff is called regulation. Government OWNERSHIP of business and property is called communism. Shouldnt corporations be forced not to dump nuclear waste in your back yard? Hmm guess you took that one for granted.

Yes! What is the point of having a car that can go way above the spped limit? It's just tempting people to break the law.

> Yes! What is the point of having a car that can go way above the spped
> limit? It's just tempting people to break the law.

You're absolutely right! As the results show, we're a minority on this stance.

I know! I think it's the 'status' that people think they have by having a fast car - people wouldn't want to give up something that makes them feel better about themselves! lol

I think you're right. You know what's eerie though? Australia. No one speeds there. Not even a single mile over the speed limit. Not even young people. Not on the entire continent do I think folks speed the way they do in other parts of the world. It was just... nice, but also a little creepy.

Lol it's an australian stereotype that everyone is really laid back. I'm not sure if it's true though, I've got australian family and they are the opposite!

I think manufacturers should still try and make their cars go as fast as possible

They are already, aren't they?
Are they?