[valine]

You’d eliminate all traffic fatalities if you limited cars to 5 mph. We as a society have collectively decided that X number of traffic fatalities are acceptable. It’s the price everyone pays for efficient transportation.

Why 150km/h and not 40km/h? Are you too impatient to drive 40km/h even though it could save lives?

[Raed667]

This is a bad faith argument, but I'll respond: 150km/h is not arbitrary.

In most Europe, highway speed-limits are between 110km/h and 130km/h [0] give or take 40km/h to 20km/h to get out of a dangerous overtake and 150km/h should be more than enough for most cases.

Notice I added (consistently) for clarity, there are very rare cases where one needs to accelerate, but I find it very hard to justify a car going almost twice the highway speed limit for 30 minutes non stop.

[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Highway_speed_limits...

[stefan_]

Oh no, we will just limit it at the speed limit. What could be the problem with that?

No one has accepted anything, certainly not the increasing number of dead pedestrians from ever larger cars. You surely recognize the massive moral hazard.

[valine]

Driving the speed of traffic is safer than driving the speed limit. Or what about when you’re seeking shelter during a tornado warning or bringing someone to the hospital. Or maybe you just want to get away from a road raging a-hole.

People die all the time on roads it’s true. Enforcing a zero tolerance policy for speeding wont stop that. It will have many unintended consequences.