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?

 

Personally i think both are wrong.... but I am guilty of both.

I've noticed people doing this aswell...Either start walking or shut up is what I have to say!I'm sure one time or another everyone is guilty of speeding.

drinking and smoking are wrong but i do both aswell.

 

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

 

we know it's wrong.......but it feels so right

btw...my car is bone stock. And i don't speed...it's pointless, you'll still get to your destination in the same amount of time...give or take a minute. I stay within the speed limit so i can enjoy the drive for a longer period of time.

 

speeding - when i first got this car i was 90+ on freeways everyday, now i just chill at 65 in the slow lane. no point in rushing for me anyone, i do speed when the roads are wide open though.

test pipe - i was running one for a while and i got tired of the smell so i just took it off, i dont care if people run it or not like FISH said, the damage has been done.

 

Interstate speeds limit have gone down from 65 to 55 then up to 70 and in some states now up to 80 over the past 15 years.

What was the 'safe' speed? Was it 55? Why now 80 then?

10mph is safer then those other speeds, so let's make that one law.

The posted speed has very little to do with safety, and is more about economics (and not just ticket revenue for the state, it touches private industry in a strong way).

Argue about the importance of being earnest (and obeying speed limits), but please don't use safety as your driving point. If you wanna be safe, let's put governors on cars that keep you under 25.

The posted limits are driven by pure economics. The 'safety angle' keeps all the sheep and natives comfy...kinda like Oprah selling you a weight loss pill (it's from Oprah, so it must be good).

 

I don't think either are immoral. I don't think either violates a principle of humanity or inherently causes undue harm.

Speed limits are man-made guidelines. But be prepared to be bent over by the "man" if you choose to violate those guidelines.

I think a junker without seatbelts or functional brakes at 30mph is less safe than a Ferrari Enzo at 50mph. It's not that the speed parallels the harm to others. It's just that those that choose to flagrantly violate "the law" may not have judgement conducive to general safety.

There are plenty of illegal things that are not immoral. Jaywalking, for example.

Test pipes are illegal, but not immoral. Any NASCAR race emits more unburned pollutants than an average test pipe user will make in a year. And people pay for the pleasure of sitting up close and sucking fumes. Not a huge impact on their long-term health... especially compared to the effects of obesity that they'll willingly endure.

So don't confuse illegal with immoral. Morality transcends "man made law" sometimes. And vice versa. There are plenty of legal things that will send you straight to Hell.

 

Between Oklahoma City and Dallas, there is a stretch of I 35 in south OK that is known locally as the "American Autobahn." If you are not doing 90 there (speed limit 70), you had better be in the far right lane. It's fine with me, as this area is just plain wide open road. No intersections, no on-ramps, no nothing. I've been to 130 there. No regrets.

On the other hand, I've actually got a test pipe, but never installed it. Don't know why, but I've always hesitated to do it. Maybe the possibility of stench. We have no emissions testing here. Only a law stating that I could not sell the car without the cat. re-installed. Maybe it's because I just don't think the test pipe would result in much of a performance increase. I don't know, but I just can't bring myself to removing the cat.

So, I suppose I am just the opposite of the OP's statements. As far as speed goes, I and the car know the road better than some hack that puts up speed limit signs. If it's safe, the car and I know it. If it's not, we know it too. But even though I've got a test pipe, it's still sitting in a box in the garage.

 

i run no or punched cat no dramas
i was off the clock in my daily skyline yesterday no dramas

i have morals and priorites, it is just what ever is important to the person in question

 

So almost everyone replying is among the ones who think one, the other, or both violations are not immoral. (I disagree about the test pipe, but that's another issue.) Where are all the people who jump on the speeders, as happened here?