1. Nice job dropping the entire point of my response—that what you think is the law is NOT the law in most places in the US. I conclude your think it should be the law, and you base that on the thinking it improves traffic flow.

That's nice. I have no interest in commuting at 100 mph, and I have even less interest in anyone else around me doing it, either. The simple, hard facts prove that any time you have a speed differential between cars, you create a hazard, regardless of how well-trained drivers are.

It is only the rule of the road if the law encodes it, which it does _not_ in the majority of US states. Do not assume the law is the same everywhere, because it is not, and that means expectations of drivers is also not the same.

All laws against passing on the right (when in an actual lane of traffic) should be utterly deleted from existence. Each lane is its own flow of traffic with its own behavior. (E.g., sometimes left lanes back up because of people turning, or right lanes need to be kept open so people can turn/merge/exit more easily.)…

It's funny how everyone seems to think that every road works the same way. In my area, there is no such thing as a 'passing lane' nor a 'fast lane.' Traffic is sufficiently heavy that all lanes are needed to move traffic, and any attempt to reserve a lane for passing would grind everything to a halt.

No. That other traffic isn't some sort of projectile that you must stay in front of to be 'safe.'

Certainly, this is a concern, but it's not really any different than the concern about hydraulic brakes. Before they became commonplace, who would have thought they could have been nearly as reliable as they are?

Also, I just don't buy this claim:
"If applied to a current engine, it will provide 30 percent more power and torque, and up to 50 percent better economy."

"Christian said it can run diesel or gas. You can't mix them together and expect it to work, but maybe two separate tanks depending on what you want to do."

Yes, "quick" is the better word for acceleration while "fast" is better for describing top speed. The idea of counting is a decent method because there could be a biological reaction associated with a time limit; however, the 60 mph end speed is arbitrary, so that doesn't work.

6.7 s is fast enough for me, and nearly 3 s faster than my DD, so I certainly call it "fast." IMO, it's a case of a luxury enjoyed twice becomes a necessity.

Why should we expect that then when they've yet to demonstrate it now? It seems perfectly reasonable to expect that the pace of innovation will increase and old devices/standards will be abandoned even more harshly (and supported more thinly) than they currently are.

Still sucks.

Yes, that weight is definitely too low. IIRC, Mazda said they were backing off their goal of 1000 kg. I expect it will end up around 2400 lb for the US market.

No.

Love Doug, hate kinja.

On the "if it's not broke" topic, remember that we've had half a century (or more) to optimize & perfect certain car controls, like the radio & AC. I don't fault anyone for trying to find a better mousetrap, but the odds are after all that evolution, any changes are going to make it worse.

Since you like fallacies so much, what's the fallacy associated with being an asshole? (Because, you know, your reply offers nothing of value other than to say "But, but, but—look at what I said!")

However, his comments about finance have been proven to be effective, and so he is a reliable source for how to build wealth.

It is a fact that what we don't see, we don't think about. Automatic deposits into savings and withholding for 401(k)s is money we don't see, so we don't think about spending it, which is why it is so effective.