In the US, there's plenty of places with a speed limit of 80: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta...

And many more places with 75 - which people effectively treat as 80.

There are also private roads without speed limits.

> Automobiles in America should obviously be speed limited to 75mph

Why? There are speed limits greater than that in a few states. The flow of traffic in Southern California is often even faster.

> The flow of traffic in Southern California is often even faster.

Which is exactly the problem GP wants to fix.

I'm more worried about the growing pedestrian deaths since vehicles have no requirement, like in Europe, to be as safe as possible when hitting pedestrians.

> Which is exactly the problem GP wants to fix

pedestrians being struck at speeds in excess of 75 mph while crossing freeways?

No, I'm worried about pedestrians, who aren't found on freeways. So a speed limiter doesn't help that problem.

> Which is exactly the problem GP wants to fix.

But it's a good thing that we should make sure can continue, not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Yeah, normal people largely do what they ought and rich idiots get to pay and get a pass. What a lovely future.

It's also possible for a person to drive on private roads with no speed limits. It may not be common, but a vehicle's speed shouldn't be limited unless there's a way to remove that limit.

I agree there should be a limit to speed and size. We've been okay putting restrictions on guns for decades. 2020 Firearm deaths: 45k, 2020 Vehicle traffic deaths: 40k.

You could combine those deaths , and double the combined figure, and you'd still be nowhere near the number of annual deaths attributable to medical errors: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...

Reminders of scale aside, I posit that the limit for vehicles needn't be speed or size, but braking distance. If a manufacturer can make a 6600 pound SUV that stops from 75 mph in the same distance that a 3300 pound sports car with track brakes and extra grippy, super-wide tires, brakes from 75, I say more power to them.

Until then, this metric will naturally lead manufacturers to downsize, and for the ones who still produce SUV's anyway, they will need to be as good at stopping as regular cars, which might make them more cost-prohibitive and dissuade their ownership via market pressure.

After all, it's not speed or size that cause automotive fatalities, it's cars being unable to stop in time before impacting other vehicles, pedestrians, or impassible barriers.

Note that I did not actually claim that it was the third leading cause of death, just that it eclipses auto deaths and firearm deaths combined and doubled.

It’s a subject that gets quite hot quite fast, but as tactfully as possible: Looking in from the outside, the restrictions on gun sales in the US are pretty tame compared to a lot of other countries.

Speed is a poor metric for safety and speed limits have a history of being set at levels optimal to generate revenue, not optimal for taxpayer convenience or safety.

The speed-unlimited sections of the German autobahn have far fewer accidents per million miles travelled than any US highway, in spite of the fact that many people are routinely doing 150+ mph / 250+ kmh on a daily basis through those stretches.

If you're arguing from an environmental perspective, just remember that even if the entirety of the USA and western europe hit net zero carbon emissions tomorrow, it would still be impossible to avoid 2° C of global warming thanks to India and China alone, to say nothing of the rest of the world.

I forgot which study it comes from, but I read that several dozen Chinese coal-powered industrial cargo ships produce more CO2 than all North American personal automobile emissions combined.

Try spending a few minutes to see the "climate debate" here in canada.

I'm not a climate denier, and we should do more to improve things but what would the impact be if 32 million people cut back?

We already have massive taxes on our gas, and now we have a "carbon charge" on top of this.

if canada's consumption fell to zero would the world notice?

If we really want climate change, we need to stop focusing on small consumer usage and look where the real problem areas.

Convincing people in Saskatoon to buy electric cars, which are powered by coal plants is not going to "save the planet".

Helping remove coal as an energy source globally will.

Removing coal as an energy generation source in the west is a step in the right direction, but without real enforcement mechanisms against China, India, and other hyper-polluters, none of our efforts matter, ultimately. It's a nihilistic view, but unfortunately it's also the reality. Toothless agreements like the PCA, which don't even see China or India setting a firm date on when their "peak carbon" will be (after which their emissions start decreasing) simply aren't going to be enough if we want earth to be a hospitable planet for human life in 2100.

If the speed limit was 25mph it would be even safer. And if cars were abolished all together nobody would ever die from a car accident. But life isn't about maximizing safety.