Speeding, test pipes, and morality
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 0
From: Redmond, Washington, USA
Originally Posted by camera obscura,Jan 21 2007, 06:25 PM
I still find this debate to be comical in it's scope. 124Spider, I refuse to believe that you do not speed. Sorry. I know you "don't care" what I think as this is just the internet, but making obviously false claims in an attempt to further your argument just ends up hurting it. My 85 year old grandmother has been known to speed occasionally.
As for speeding contributing to traffic fatallities, I just did a simple google search for "speeding deaths, speed limits" and every link it showed me contradicted the "speeding increases deaths" argument that has so far persisted in this thread. Here's a sample:
Safe at Any Speed
With higher speed limits, our highways have been getting safer.
The Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008621
I think it's ridiculous that you're nannying people for speeding and polluting on an internet car enthusiasts web board. If you were as concerned about the environment as you claim, I don't think you would have an interest in motorsports, don't think you have ever purchased an S2000 and I know you wouldn't be tracking your car. What if everyone ran a test-pipe? What if everyone tracked and autocrossed their car?
You're no prince.
I think you're just bored today, don't have anything else to do and are looking for a little entertainment. If you really feel as strongly about environmental protection as you're acting like you do, there are far better ways you could have spent your day today than arguing over test-pipes here on the internet. The livestock issue is a perfect example. There are SO many other more relevant and pressing contributers to pollution than the group of S2000 owners who run test pipes.
As for speeding contributing to traffic fatallities, I just did a simple google search for "speeding deaths, speed limits" and every link it showed me contradicted the "speeding increases deaths" argument that has so far persisted in this thread. Here's a sample:
Safe at Any Speed
With higher speed limits, our highways have been getting safer.
The Wall Street Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008621
I think it's ridiculous that you're nannying people for speeding and polluting on an internet car enthusiasts web board. If you were as concerned about the environment as you claim, I don't think you would have an interest in motorsports, don't think you have ever purchased an S2000 and I know you wouldn't be tracking your car. What if everyone ran a test-pipe? What if everyone tracked and autocrossed their car?
You're no prince.
I think you're just bored today, don't have anything else to do and are looking for a little entertainment. If you really feel as strongly about environmental protection as you're acting like you do, there are far better ways you could have spent your day today than arguing over test-pipes here on the internet. The livestock issue is a perfect example. There are SO many other more relevant and pressing contributers to pollution than the group of S2000 owners who run test pipes.
You finally got something right--I don't care if you believe me.
As to your "proof" that faster speed limits mean more safety, that's also nonsense. Cars have better and better safety features, so, all else being equal, fatalaties will drop as technology improves. Control for everything but speed, and fatalaties increase with increased speed. And even more for large differences between drivers on the same road. When they dropped the speed limits 25 years ago, fatalaties dropped.
My issue is not with people who speed 5mph like everyone else (because 5 over is not enforced, it is de facto legal). It is with those who go faster than the speed limit and faster than the speed of traffic (the speed of traffic being, by definition, that which the local constabulary deems ok, de facto legal). That's the danger. And many of them, who think that they are Mario Andretti, also tailgate and weave in and out. Because they're too good to drive like everyone else. They are a menace. I don't care about petty speeding, since it's not enforced, and it's not a danger.
And there's no good reason to remove the cat in a street car--the power gains are miniscule, and the cat is there for the common good.
Finally, if you don't care about those with whom you share your air and your roads, at least admit it; the rationalizations are comical.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,423
Likes: 1
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by shrike,Jan 21 2007, 12:35 AM
because in each case my actions are in accord with the expressed will of society.
I think the liberal hippies need to figure something out: you're never going to make a difference - you're only going to reconfirm how you feel about things with other people who feel the same way.
The other night, at 2 o'clock in the morning, my roomate, girlfriend and myself were having this big anti-liberal conversation and got the idea to make t-shirts. We went to Wal-Mart (I LOVE shopping at large corporate environments - everything is so cheap and it's awesome!
) and the end result was this:
Take that, environmentalists!
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 708
Likes: 1
From: Downtown Dallas TX
Originally Posted by afwfjustin,Jan 21 2007, 10:27 PM
We went to Wal-Mart (I LOVE shopping at large corporate environments - everything is so cheap and it's awesome! )
This guy definately voted for Kerry.
)This guy definately voted for Kerry.
True, cars have gotten safer which has contributed to the decrease in fatalities. So has an increase in the speed limit. I remember watching the Defensive Driving videos a year or two ago at home for a speeding ticket I got. They actually state in the video that driving slower than the flow of traffic contributes more to accidents than driving faster. Oh, and by the way... apparently, speeding is only responisble for 5% of all accidnets.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/winsto...ving_means.html
"The last shred of pretense that speeding laws contribute to safety on the highways has just been tossed in the trash can of scientific balderdash. There are theories around about how driving slower gives a driver more time to stop, so less accidents will happen. This sounds like it might be true, like most balderdash. Unfortunately for the proponents, every scientific measurement made showed the opposite. "
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,423
Likes: 1
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by camera obscura,Jan 21 2007, 10:58 PM
True, cars have gotten safer which has contributed to the decrease in fatalities. So has an increase in the speed limit. I remember watching the Defensive Driving videos a year or two ago at home for a speeding ticket I got. They actually state in the video that driving slower than the flow of traffic contributes more to accidents than driving faster. Oh, and by the way... apparently, speeding is only responisble for 5% of all accidnets.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/winsto...ving_means.html
"The last shred of pretense that speeding laws contribute to safety on the highways has just been tossed in the trash can of scientific balderdash. There are theories around about how driving slower gives a driver more time to stop, so less accidents will happen. This sounds like it might be true, like most balderdash. Unfortunately for the proponents, every scientific measurement made showed the opposite. "
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by Craigers,Jan 21 2007, 08:16 PM
At least most speeders actually know whats going on around them. I can't say the same for those that can't meet the flow of traffic.
Some of the good drivers I know speed all the time, and others never do. The same with bad drivers I know.
Being a good driver or a bad driver is mostly a matter of education about driving and a certain amount of reflex, vision, and coordination. Being a fast or agressive driver is mostly about personality. There's no real reason to think the two are linked.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,419
Likes: 0
From: The Antagonist
Originally Posted by camera obscura,Jan 21 2007, 10:35 AM
"This UN study estimates that the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of carbon dioxide, 65 percent of nitrous oxide, and 37 percent of methane produced from human-related activities.
