no offense, but who the hell cares!

you making a post about it, wont change anything

if people want to speed, they know it's illegal, but they do it anyway, so who cares

i speed, i know its bad and unsafe

i also run a testpipe, i know that it pollutes

do i care?

no

should i care? probably

does your post change how i feel about test pipes or speeding? no

BUT! HERE IS THE BIG PART OF IT ALL, I DONT LECTURE PEOPLE ON RACING OR TESTPIPES! because i am guilty of both...

 

Oh yeah, I forgot:

4) It's OK because:
a) I don't get caught, OR
b) at least I admit it so my honesty makes up for my recklessness, OR
c) cops are just revenue agents

 

The 55 mph speed limit was indeed instituted back in the 70s to save gasoline and cut dependence on foriegn oil. Highway safety was not the reason. It may (or may not) have made cars of that era use less gas. But my S 2000 gets better highway mileage when run in the 85 to 90 range than in the 55 to 60 range. I don't know why. It just does.

There is a safety "downside" to setting speed limits too low for a particular road or highway, such as an interstate. It INCREASES traffic density, because all vehicles are on that highway longer to reach their destination. High traffic densities are a major cause of accidents, too. The cheapest way to reduce traffic density and congestion is to increase the speed limit. And this works great in areas where sparse population, few or no intersections, and good road conditions make higher speeds feasible. The only other way to reduce traffic congestion on a given highway is to add more lanes, and that means big $$$$!

I haven't mentioned speed limit increases as a way to ease urban congestion, as it isn't a problem here in the Oklahoma City metro. They've already raised the speed limits on major, multi-lane urban and suburban streets to accomplish this purpose, and it's apparently working. In a recent survey, OKC was determined to have the LEAST traffic congestion among all metro areas of our size, or bigger. Generally, the urban and suburban speed limits on these streets is 35 in larger business districts with many cross streets, 45 in districts with more sparse business density, and 55 in areas with only a few residential cross street intersections. I never speed on these streets, as I feel that these limits are about as fast as its safe to go in those areas -- in light of all factors.

But we do have some Interstate and turnpike segments where the speed limits are way too low for conditions. They are now set at 70 or 75. As I stated earlier, traffic ACTUALLY flows much faster than than on many of these segments.

Thanks,
Richard

 

Mike, you need to add:

5) Speeding is good because it reduces traffic congestion

 

I live by a simple and humble credo.

Go as fast as I can, whenever I can, all the time.

Speed is more than just a calculation of velocity, it is core wiring that you are born with (or without).

Some folks like to coast or skate thru life, but some want to squeeze it for everything it can offer. Ambition, motivation, drive.

It separates the wealthy from the poor, the underachievers from the all-stars.

Life will only 'give' you so much for free. Some times you have dig deeper to find the reward.

Better, Stronger, Faster...don't be a man that is barely alive.

 

They are revenue agents and assholes, morons fail to realize that speed is not the problem and limits were set to generate revenue. Sucks some cops become pigs to **** other people over and give good cops a bad name by pissy-dicking cause they are cowards to do real police work and feel that writing tickets does any one any good.

 

Don't worry, if your post was serious, you won't be alive long (much less "barely alive").

 

Why do I think driving with a test pipe is not bad nor immoral? Because it isn't. If you saw the big picture, you'd agree. I think it is great that people take personal responsibility for their impact on the environment and I buy all eco-friendly cars and give credit to lexus/honda/toyota/acura etc. for making the cleanest cars on the planet. I do think in the long run that type of progression will help.

I understand why you think it's 'bad', because it harms the environment unfairly/selfishly. If that was* the case, I'd agree with you. However, the problem is that is a lost cause. I have an economics degree but the majority of the information I've learned on the subject of auto pollution as well as speed limits etc. is due to several work experiences. First, I'd like to agree strongly with the previous poster saying it's all $$$ and politics. Speed limits are man-made instruments to serve a purpose, and safety usually makes the top 5, but not he top 3, when decisions like that are made.

Let me tell you what is immoral and at the same time what IS worth your time fighting for. SITUATION 1: The average commercial 18 wheeler produces as much pollution in a year as 120 s2000's with NO catylic converters per year, with the s2000 driving 15,000 miles annually. I did an extremely rough, conservative calculation because finding the pollution output on the s2000 without a cat isn't 100% accurate. Ever seen a highway with a train of 10-20 18 wheelers in the slow lane? Ever seen the cloud of smoke/pollution everytime they shift? Why do they get away with that? It's $$$. That's how. If you stuffed millions into politics you could drive your s2000 and dump a bag of garbage every 50 ft and not have an issue. Is that wrong? right? The law is a man-made creation that isn't always created with morality and fairness as the top priority. My father and many friends are lawyers. I plan on getting a law degree in the next 8 years as well.

SITUATION 2: Before the introduction of unleaded fuels, cars produced 100 times more pollution over their lifetime. Much of that has to do with ruined parts and the additional cleaning/maint. caused by the fuel, not just the immediate outpot. Add a cat, and it's even slightly better. In many, MANY countries, they either still use leaded fuel or have criteria similar to that pollution wise. China, where I do a lot of work/consulting, pollutes so much it is almost unfathomable right now. Once you get a tiny bit of comparison between their output and ours, you realize getting pissed off about a s2000 with no cat is a JOKE. To put it into perspective that the avg joe can understand, a factory in shanghai that I ship power cable to from a distribution center in Houston of Nation OilWell Varco emits over 10,000 times the pollution than a similar refinery in Pasadena [southeast Houston] emits. They have thousands of factories. And they will get cars soon/now. MILLIONS of cars. Now look at India. Similar situation. TONS, literally, more EVERYDAY than the U.S.

What I'm trying to get across is that it's great to worry about your s2000's pollution output, but if you really* wanted to make a difference there are a lot better avenues than pointing your finger at other s2k owners to show your dedication to the environment.

Most motorcycles, btw, don't have cats and many never will. Up until 2006, NONE did. Many motorcycles are near 1.5 liters in displacement and output more pollution than a s2k UNcatted by a long shot. No one tells them they are 'immoral' for doing so.

 

Very well said!

 

Interesting. You have an economics degree. I have an engineering degree, and do emissions engineering for a living. You say not having a cat does not harm the environment; I say it does.

The answer to pollution from other sources is to clean up the other sources, not to add even more pollution from your own vehicle. And diesel trucks are finally going to be cleaned up quite a bit now that the new low-sulfur diesel is being mandated. Up until now they could not put cats on diesels because the sulfur would poison the cat. With the new fuel, that will change. Of course, it will take a long time for the fleet to turn over, but at least now it can start doing so.