I saw my first 55 mph sign today on 59. I was suprised to see people actually driving 55-60 mph. It sucks when these people get into the far left lane thinking they're driving fast Please leave a lane open for those who drive at least 65-70 mph.
I'm going to need something other than word-of-mouth confirmation before I believe that a Honda Accord produces 40 percent more pollution at 59 mph as compared to 55 mph, or 200 percent more pollution at 70 mph than it does at 60 mph.
I care because I believe the children are our future. We should treat them well, and let them lead the way-- you know, show them all the beauty they possess insiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide. Also, if my car is in fact a lean mean pollution-producing machine, I can begin Phase 1 of my Evil plan to take over the world. In conjunction with the nation's Accord drivers, and the Trilateral Commission, we will begin driving our vehicles at 80 mph everywhere (I have already begun this portion of my nefarious plot personally). Unless the world capitulates to our demands, you will suffer the consequences of terrible, heavy pollution caused by automobile emissions. Whatever those may be. No one actually seems to be able to say specifically.
BK: HA HA!!! Unfortunately, the numbers aren't posted anywhere online, but the people I spoke to about it (well, truthfully, I only spoke to one woman, but I watched presentations from others) were the head of Houston's committee on pollution and the environment and members of the Greater Houston Partnership. They each gave presentations on the good, the bad and the ugly when it came to Houston pollution. The covered everything from refinery and auto emissions to brownfields and recycling. The GHP gave the most compelling discussion, especially considering a big chunk of their membership consists of energy companies who own refineries in the area. The consensus of their study of the Houston area and emissions from automobiles was that the AVERAGE emission response of a car to speed in Houston was what I posted earlier. However, as they mentioned in the discussion, some cars are better and others are worse. Your Accord is probably more efficient than an SUV (probably being a BIG stretch - I'm sure it most certainly is) or even than my truck. The fact is that Houston is skewed towards the big car. More people here drive trucks and SUV's, plus we have an awful lot of diesel rigs maneuvering through our freeways as well. All that adds up the average above. Bottom line, however, as they said was that all cars are much more inefficient when it comes to emissions production at higher speeds. How much depends heavily on the car, the age of the car and how functional it is.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, and while I remain skeptical about a lot of what purports to be hard science dealing with this issue, I do think that pollution in Houston is a problem and that steps have to be taken to control it (given that complete elimination is not currently feasible). The problem I have with this thread isn't even specific to this issue: The use of unproven statistics and wide acceptance of them. It just bothers me. "Facts can be used to prove anything-- 40 percent of people know that!", as Homer Simpson said. The specific figures you used are probably accurate for certain vehicles under certain circumstances. What irritates me is that such figures are so often taken out of context. Thus, "A 1972 Dodge pickup running on 87 octane gas in 105-degree heat will produce higher emissions for every mph over 55" becomes "Driving 60 produces 50 percent more emissions than driving 55". That particular statistic also leaves out any exploration of how many drivers use vehicles to which the statistic can be accurately applied. Does it fit 50 percent of the cars on the highway? 30? 15? You acknowledge these limitations, which makes me feel better about it. What irks me, I suppose, is the amount of mistaken conventional wisdom out there. People advocate political solutions to problems they barely understand, and they justify their advocacy with dubious statistics they've picked up along the way. Anyway, I would still need to see documented scientific proof before I accept that particular statistic as fact. I don't doubt she believes it, or that some study purports to prove it. I just think the math involved looks strange. It's a bit too conveniently or coincidentally neat.
