"Speed Kills" - not any more.

Breaking news on the BBC radio this morning is that diesel fumes cause cancer. Who says this is so? WHO that's who. Thee World Health Organisation have done a two week study and decided diesel is evil.
But this is not the bad news it might appear. Diesel and petrol as we know, are made out of dinosaurs which have been lightly killed for several million years during which time chemistry happened, to produce oil. When man invented the automobile he initially decided that petrol was the best fuel, because it was cheap and smelled nice, whilst diesel was dirty and smelly and was reserved for lorries and taxi drivers.After 100 years of practice we have managed to make burning diesel quieter, cleaner and more efficient than ever before, but it is still a very inefficient way to produce power. And obviously there is a way to go, as we need to work out how to burn the bits that cause cancer. A catalytic converter helps trap some of the cancer, but these are expensive to make and easily stolen by "travellers" for the precious metals they contain which are worth a lot of money as scrap, due to their value in the manufacture of catalytic converters. We need a way, today, to reduce the amount of this newly discovered cancer leaking out of our exhausts.
Happily I have the answer. Remove all the speed bumps and speed cameras, reconfigure the traffic lights and improve the road network to get things moving. Cars sitting in queues and driving slowly are inefficient. Cars driving at sensible speeds and allowed to maintain that momentum, instead of stopping and starting needlessly are by comparison very efficient indeed. My Vectra diesel, for example, will happily do around 60 mpg at 70 mph. At those speeds it is producing less diesel fumes per mile than it is sitting idling at traffic lights, where the fumes it produces are causing cancer. If I slow down to 30 mph the Vectra is unhappy and will only do around 40 to 45 mpg, so the old adage that "Speed Kills" is actually reversed. Speed will save your life. Not only am I producing less cancer if I drive faster, but I'm not hanging around spreading it all in one place. I bet there is a close correlation between kids with asthma (and eventually cancer) on council estates to the ratio to speed bumps on that same estate. So by driving slower we deprive them of the swift death by being run over, that Darwin reserved for them (survival of the fittest) but instead we kill them slowly and painfully coughing up their lungs.
I know some people will disagree and say that driving quickly wastes fuel and causes more pollution. I agree, up to a point Most cars are at their most efficient in higher gears at speeds of around 50 to 60, so that is what we should be striving for. I know only too well that if I thrash the job car, a Volvo V70 D5 up to 140mph it will reward me with single figure economy. But driven steadily at 60 this fully laden two tonne behemoth will still return 40 mpg.
So what I am saying is that whilst speed (allegedly) kills, so in the long term does lack of speed. And surely it is better to arrive at the Pearly gates with your arse on fire having enjoyed the ride that to turn up late, mumbling an apology and with half your internal organs missing?
Best of all, my plan is good for the economy - it gets Britain moving, and mobility is what advanced Britain as an Empire in the first place. Worth a thought I think.