Why doesn't the government limit the ability for cars to go over 100km/h since it's the maximum speed here in Canada?

Answer #1

Because in certain condition you need to speed up more than 100km/h. Example if someone is dying in your car, you need to get to the hospital as soon as you can…

Answer #2

Even if someone is dying in the car, you shouldn’t be going that fast, it’s hazardous, and you could easily be pulled over as well. I wouldn’t chance it. If someone is in dire need of medical attention, then they should contact emergency assistance, and drive as safely as they can, as far as they can. Don’t try and race when you’re under stress and pressure, that’s an accident and a ticket waiting to happen in my opinion.

Answer #3

you have no idea how bad that would be for the car industry and the businesses and the economy of a country as a whole ! there would almost be no difference left between a ferrari and a toyota…that is a very politically correct thought but so was communisim

Answer #4

Lack of funding? I mean it’s the only reasonable thing that I can think of, you can have a law but it’s virtually nothing if you can’t enforce it and you need money to do so.

Answer #5

@Sri - this site does not approve of you giving advice that recommends or implies recommendation of ILLEGAL behaviour.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone (who probably is not a Doctor) has a right to decide that someone in their car is “dying”, and therefore they should be allowed to BREAK THE LAW by driving at excessive speed, ….. . ….. thus putting MANY other road users at very much greater risk of PREMATURE death by being hit at great speed by a reckless driver ?

Everybody dies eventually, and maybe it is time for the person in the car (who the driver believes is dying), to actually die naturally, rather than get a very brief respite in hospital gained at risk of killing many other people who might otherwise have lived a long and happy life.

Emergency servcie vehicles have sirens, lights and highly trained drivers to give reasonable warning to other road users of legitimate fast driving.

NOBODY buys a right to randomly risk other people’s lives illegally by merely owning a vehicle that is capable of moving faster than the legitimate authorities allow, after due consideration of professional advice by traffic and safety experts, via prudent legislation.

– Majikthise.

Answer #6

majikthise, that was a lowblow, she only said what a person would do naturally in a normal event !

Answer #7

@gooner_17 ….. I do not like people thinking they have a right to break the law or implying that others should have free license to do so either, simple as that.
To some people it is natural to maim or kill an enemy or be willing to risk doing the same “accidentally”. The fact that they think it is natural does not make it right or in any way acceptable whatsoever.

Answer #8

Thank you for being on my side GOONER. I did not respond to Majik..whatever because he sounds too much. I was saying (NOT SUGGESTING TO BRING A DYING PERSON IN HIGH SPEED) giving example of why cars should not be put at limit of 100km/h.

Answer #9

@Sri

ordinary citizens should not exceed the speed limit. ….. It is against the law. ….. No exceptions. ….. End of story.

Answer #10

Majikthise since when are you the site’s spokesperson? Did they hire you without informing us? As for speeding, please try to cut the holier than thou attitude, you may be the only person on this planet (well maybe you and every person over the age of 60) who has not gone over the speed limit, but the majority of people will admit to speeding at least once in a while. No one is suggesting going out and running over people for fun. While I dont actually think that is actually the reason they dont curb the speed limits on the cars, there’s no need to get overly dramatic

Answer #11

Sigh. Have the tea baggers hit the UK as well? Please, explain the link between curbing speed in cars, the car industry, the economy and political correctness and communism. Throwing a bunch of emotionally loaded words together sounds nice (ask glen beck and sarah palin), but I would like some sort of explanation.

Answer #12

This one is simple. Cars are manufactured to be sold world wide. Meeting criteria for speed limits in every country would be a little difficult.

Answer #13

@Ty I don’t need to be appointed ( or hired ) to stateFACTS that are consistent with the sites stated Terms of Use as they apply to ordinary account holders.. There is nothing “holier than thou” about taking a stance which upholds the law, or FunAdvice principles. I am not trying to suggest that I never break the speed limit or other laws, simply making it clear that it is wrong to do so.

Answer #14

I was thinking just that LOL X)

Answer #15

It is easy and comparatively cheap to insert speed regulators, that limit a vehicle to the maximum speed permissible within any given country. It is done routinely and frequently to many commercial vehicles.

Answer #16

it is not what you say, it is the way you say it!!!! too much!

Answer #17

You can’t legislate behavior. This is an old sage axiom. Governors… [I’m speaking of throttle limits] can easily be removed. Then the regime in power would have to criminalize the behavior or come up with incentives for a regression in innovation… which is the very definition of counterproductive. I will happily take on the homophobic slur of Teabagger……if the reverse means that I must consent to regressive authoritarian decree. This is the connection I believe gooner_17 was trying to establish. Political correctness…Communism ie the authoritarian form of socialism … and laws that attempt to criminalize harmless behavior eg vice laws… are all correlated. “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut used to be required reading when I was in High School… it illustrates how the attempt to legislate human behavior can quickly deteriorate into a dystopia.

Answer #18

For a start - Canada does have a law that states all big rigs have a speed governor installed to prevent going over a certain speed. It may, in time, be something that is added to the vehicles of the general public.

Answer #19

TY you have pretty much done the same thing as me , thrown a bunch of emotionally loaded words and made it sound fancy ! now let me ask you this…if a ferrari would not go 300 KMPH but was restricted to 100 then why would a person bother buying a ferrari when a toyota could do the same, surely it would just be down to looks then, the whole speed and power factor would be removed…hence forth not making a ferrari all so attractive now, removing the whole supercar fun ! which brings to this, the failure of car industry such as ferrari leading to massive layoffs, or even toyota cause of their supercars also going to waste ! massive layoffs bad for businesses as unemployment, less spending, bad economy, see my drift ?

Answer #20

@gooner_17 I don’t see your drift at all. Why would a successful, profitable business chose to go out of business, rather than actually providing a product that was acceptable to the countries (and laws) in which their customers reside. It makes no sense to me, but then again, I don’t see the need to be haring all over the place at 300km/h on public roads that are limited to 100km/h by law for the protection of pedestrians and other road users who are going about their lawful business, oblivious of the fact that some selfish moron couldn’t give a damn whether or not he obeys the law or kills people while disobeying it.

If an Italian company goes out of business rather than market a product that complies with the laws governing its customers, I say good riddance to them. Let the Italians worry what to do about the unemployment, and let the third world get on with manufacturing cheap economical vehicles that don’t encourage dangerous law-breaking.

Answer #21

@ majikthise, sure you dont see the need for speed and power which is why im going to assme you have not driven a car at a very high speed and enjoyed that thrill… be it agaisnt the law or not ! people will always want to go faster and faster which is what companis such a buggati thrive and basically survive on ! so by your logic you would recommend that a company such as buggati or ferrari adjust their products to the market and make 100 KMPH cars ? Well then where is the product differentiation in the market ? Its pertty much communisim in the car industry , every company is equal really… What i think you fail to understand is there is a price to pay for luxory ! people want to pay that bit extra, i myself want to do that ! sure roads can have speed cameras and cops but you are never going to stop people from going over the speed limit , its natural ! Plus you do realise its not just italian companies taking a hit ! companis with factories in canada will suffer to ! probably shutting down canadian plants first due to high wage rates…thats besdies the point, the point here is that such a thing is not feasable

Answer #22

I believe that some roads in Canada have a speed limit of 110 km/h or 68 MPH.

Anyway, Canada is a large country with long stretch of desolate roads. While 110 km/h may be the legal speed limit drivers often drive much faster due to the distances. I see similar areas in Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma where the speed limit may be 75 MPH but drivers routinely drive 90-100 MPH (144-161 km/h) with tacit approval of law enforcement.

Additionally there are times when it is safer to go faster. When passing another vehicle on a two lane road the quicker you can make the pass the safer so it is safer to pass as fast as possible instead of going the speed limit and driving in the oncoming lane longer than necessary.

Things do get ridiculous at the extreme end of auto performance. The Porche Carerra GT, Ford GT, and Lamborgini Muricelago can go triple the legal speed in Canada 330 km/h or 205 MPH. The Bugatti Veyron can go an amazing 400 km/h or 249 MPH. Is there really any need for a road car to have over 300 HP?

Answer #23

just to break all this really long convos i have to say LOL!

Answer #24

LOL TOO!!!!

Answer #25

agreed stephee ! :)

Answer #26

@ miscegenymiser, come on, seriously, you’re going with righteous indignation when you KNOW there was no homophobic intent whatsoever? It is a word used so often I forgot that isnt what the party is actually called. And gooner, I cited what you said. How exactly was I throwing loaded words around? As for legislating vices, are you kidding me? Lets talk about the tea party views on social issues. Abor.tion. Homosexuality. Although you will agree that does rather go off subject here. As for companies taking hits, people are still going to buy cars. Do I think it is stupid to legislate this, absolutely. Will it impact anything, highly unlikely. What exactly are adults going to do? Pout and refuse to buy cars (you’re confusing adults with 5 year olds)? They still have to drive around. They still want better cars (maybe not faster, but with all the other trimmings included). And I’m still going to protest against the use of political correctness leading to communism. We legislate seat belts, and somehow the U.S. hasnt ended up becoming communist. It is too easy to throw about these words which inflame people but at the end of the day, none of it matters… and once people have thrown their little tantrums, the world keeps moving and the U.S. manages to resist turning into a communist country.

http://funadvice.com/r/3lrkt1skm9

Answer #27

No righteous indignation… just pointing out a blaring double standard. I have seen posts in which you have chastised folks for calling something gay with the implied meaning that it is lame. I only sought to reinforce to the reader that the term was originally applied to the Tea Party movement as a means to belittle them and to emasculate them. I was inferring the question as to why the double standard is flouted by people who would not be so tolerant if the shoe was on the other foot… food for thought. I have no qualms with any name I am called… and there are many negative ones… but it is unfortunate that so many less informed people begin to make mental associations of someones character based on them. Regarding abor*tion and Homosexuality… I am not certain where the big tent Tea Party stands on these issues… but I consider one in the realm of harmless behavior… that being homosexuality… and I feel that a classically liberal populist movement as the Tea Partywas when it began would have to acknowledge this behavior as a personal freedom. Ab0rtion isnt as simple because there are the rights of other individuals involved as well as the definition of life. I don’t include it in the realm of harmless behavior… like a vice… but I understand the argument that the mother should have ultimate say. Regardless… I cannot defend every position taken by the big tent Tea Party… but I am on board with less government… more freedom. I didn’t mean to suggest that being politically correct would lead to communism… I was only trying to make a connection that I assumed gooner_17 was making in that… sort of like your use of teabagger… most people think of Maoist China or Stalinist Russia when we say communism… and these were both authoritarian regimes. This is the only danger I am concerned with…an oligarchy… it is the reason I prefer laissez faire capitalism to socialism because in my opinion collectivism is more prone to the threat of totalitarianism. The road to hell is paved in good intentions… and the paving stones are laid out one seemingly harmless stone by one.

More Like This
Ask an advisor one-on-one!
Advisor

VisaOne Canada Inc.

Immigration Law Firm, Visa Services, Consulting Services

Advisor

Maximus

public policy, government services, social services

Advisor

Sarkari Yojana

Government Schemes, Public Services, Social Welfare Programs

Advisor

Law Writers

Legal Services, Lawyers, Legal Consultation