Speeding, test pipes, and morality
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,202
Likes: 0
From: Pleasant Grove, UT
in my opinion, speeding has its own time and place, test pipes i have nothing against either. I would get one if I was modding the car right now. I personally dont like it very much when tree huggers come out and say it is wrong to do this or that because it is bad for the enviroment, but they are entitled to their own opinion. Chances are nothing that anyoe says is going to bring ore than a couple people from one side of the topic to another, so I wont even try. OK, so now tree huggers go tie yourself to a tree in the rain forest and test pipe users, go drive around without a cat. That way everyone is happy.
-Ian
-Ian
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
From: Berkeley, CA
I think this may tell us something about how to get people to obey, and maybe even like, laws in general. For example, suppose we're concerned about compliance with income tax laws. One thing that might help is any change that makes it seem to people that they are all being taxed in the same way. Emphasis on seems -- apparently people interpret different regs on the emissions of other vehicles etc. to mean there are no regs on those emissions -- complexity gets misinterpreted.
It would follow that a flat tax rate with zero deductions available would tend to be complied with more (and resented less?) than our current (U.S.) system. Not surprising, but this is a rationale for it that I hadn't thought about much.
It would follow that a flat tax rate with zero deductions available would tend to be complied with more (and resented less?) than our current (U.S.) system. Not surprising, but this is a rationale for it that I hadn't thought about much.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 3
From: Covington WA, USA
Originally Posted by shrike,Jan 21 2007, 07:01 AM
It would follow that a flat tax rate with zero deductions available would tend to be complied with more (and resented less?) than our current (U.S.) system. Not surprising, but this is a rationale for it that I hadn't thought about much.
The thing is, I flat-out don't believe these guys who say "I'm only running a test pipe because there are worse emissions coming from XXXX." That's just a rationalization, especially since most of them have no idea what emissions their own car produces, much less XXXX. They are running a test pipe because they want to, and they are inventing rationalizations for doing it because that's one thing humans are very skilled at doing.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,343
Likes: 2
From: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by shrike,Jan 20 2007, 01:33 AM
Every time someone makes a post here that mentions speeding, a majority of the responses are to the effect that the poster should slow down; some of these are quite strident. A majority of the people on this forum seem to believe that violating posted limits by a lot (basically, more than about 10 over) is immoral because it endangers the health of others.
On the other hand, it seems that a majority of posters feel that it's not immoral to replace (illegally) catalytic converters with test pipes. While many S owners haven't done it, most who have explained their rationale cite the risk of getting caught, or the smell, or the O2 sensors; few seem to consider that is arguably immoral, because polluting more endangers the health of others.
Each law is intended to promote health and safety, yet people's attitudes about violating them seem to be completely different.
Now, I admit to being inconsistent on these matters also, but the other direction: I wouldn't use a test pipe because I believe it's morally wrong to poison other people, even incrementally, when society has deemed such pollution to be unreasonable; but I am perfectly fine with speeding by 20, 30, or 40 over on a regular basis. I don't know why I feel differently about those laws, but I do.
My question for you all: if you feel that speeding is wrong but test pipes are OK, or that test pipes are wrong but speeding is OK... why?
On the other hand, it seems that a majority of posters feel that it's not immoral to replace (illegally) catalytic converters with test pipes. While many S owners haven't done it, most who have explained their rationale cite the risk of getting caught, or the smell, or the O2 sensors; few seem to consider that is arguably immoral, because polluting more endangers the health of others.
Each law is intended to promote health and safety, yet people's attitudes about violating them seem to be completely different.
Now, I admit to being inconsistent on these matters also, but the other direction: I wouldn't use a test pipe because I believe it's morally wrong to poison other people, even incrementally, when society has deemed such pollution to be unreasonable; but I am perfectly fine with speeding by 20, 30, or 40 over on a regular basis. I don't know why I feel differently about those laws, but I do.
My question for you all: if you feel that speeding is wrong but test pipes are OK, or that test pipes are wrong but speeding is OK... why?
I believe S2000s are Ultra Low Emissions vehicles in the first place, and you bring up an interesting point by mentioning the negative effects on the atmosphere that removing the catalytic converter brings. (I still have my cat! no intent to ever remove it!) To be honest, I had never considered this consequence. Nice question- I think more people, both those equipped with test pipes and cats should ponder.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by FISH22,Jan 19 2007, 10:47 PM
i have to agree.
speeding- can be dangerous to others, but if done smartly, can be safe.
test pipes- a long term effect on others. the damage on the ozone has already been done, and its not gonna get better. so if someone wants to put a test pipe on, so be it. i'm not a tree hugger in any way
speeding- can be dangerous to others, but if done smartly, can be safe.
test pipes- a long term effect on others. the damage on the ozone has already been done, and its not gonna get better. so if someone wants to put a test pipe on, so be it. i'm not a tree hugger in any way
Banned
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 7,662
Likes: 1
From: Long Beach, CA
Originally Posted by achtung6,Jan 21 2007, 11:17 AM
How much "actual" power is gained by removing the cat?
......therefore I'm a perfect citizen 
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Jan 20 2007, 05:00 PM
Most people don't rob houses. So if only a few people do it, does that mean it's OK for them? They really like doing it, and it enhances their quality of life. It's their favorite lifestyle mod. Since it's only a few of them, that's OK, right?
Where on earth in your mind can you try and draw some moral equivalence between committing a felony act like robbing someone