Skip to Content
Streetsblog California home
Streetsblog California home
Log In
Streetsblog USA

Why Are Carmakers Allowed to Sell Products That Go Faster Than 100 MPH?

Dash cam footage from a West Midlands Police unit caught a U.K. driver going 115 mph in a 30 mph zone. Photo: Sky News

A reckless driver made headlines in the UK city of Birmingham this week after he topped out at speeds of 115 mph on local streets while fleeing a traffic stop.

The driver, 30-year-old Kamar Farooq, eventually crashed into another car (the report doesn't note any injuries, miraculously). He will be jailed for two-and-a-half years and banned from driving for 10, according to Sky News.

At the end of the story, a local police officer notes "the outcome could have been much worse" because the BMW Farooq was driving is "a high performance vehicle."

Not only did Farooq exceed the 30 mph speed limit by nearly a factor of four, the BMW could have gone much faster.

The question is why? Why are BMW and every other carmaker allowed to sell vehicles designed to travel at speeds that are inherently dangerous and, in the U.S. at least, illegal on any public roadway?

Car companies must find some marketing and sales advantage in equipping their products with such excessive power. There's even a Ford Focus model that tops out at 165 mph.

In the U.S., the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for automobile safety standards. But carmakers a great deal of influence over the NHTSA.

In a 2015 USA Today piece, two environmental watchdogs described the revolving door between the agency and the automobile industry. The NHTSA's ability to pursue public safety and environmental goals has been compromised over the years as dozens of officials have left the agency for lucrative jobs with auto companies.

Nor is there any great public pressure to regulate the destructive power of cars. Despite the rising death toll on American streets and highways, we allow car companies to design products that can cause great harm and no one even questions it.

More recommended reading today: Lisa Schweitzer considers an under-appreciated factor behind opposition to congestion pricing. And Jarrett Walker at Human Transit says people are drawing the wrong conclusions about declining transit ridership from an influential paper published by the Mineta Transportation Institute.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog California

Tuesday’s Headlines

Traffic returns, protests continue, Highway 1 Is...Wait a second, does that say a baby fell out of an SUV window?

January 27, 2026

What’s A Transportation Reformer’s Role In the Fight Against ICE Violence?

Migrants and protestors are being killed in the streets by ICE agents. What should transportation reform advocates do?

January 26, 2026

Hearing Held on Extending the Central Subway

It's a big lift. But Supervisor Sauter wants SFMTA to keep it on the agenda.

January 26, 2026

Eyes on the Street: 6th Street Viaduct ‘PARC’ Construction

Sixth Street PARC - Park, Arts, River & Connectivity - construction is nearly complete, and expected to finish this year.

January 26, 2026

Los Angeles Anti–Housing Law Push Escalates as Metro Board Seeks SB 79 Exemption

Metro staff warn that state law facilitating transit-oriented housing could “harm transit expansion... by galvanizing housing opponents against new light rail stations and dedicated bus lanes.”

January 26, 2026

Monday’s Headlines

People are fed up with ICE and unsafe streets.

January 26, 2026
See all posts