2) That's his risk to take when he's on the race track. Not on a public road. The harm he has potential to do increases, and he has no right to take that decision for everybody else on the road.
3) More fuel burned, more pollution. WTF does cost have to do with anything? People nearby breathe in more pollution, that's harm. And if you agree with +90% of the climate scientists you also contribute to global warming, admittedly not by much though. Still harmful to the environment.
2) Still not actually harming anyone. Should you be arrested because you
might throw a brick through a window?
3) You're defending a Speeding ticket (Charging him a fine) by saying that goes to defray costs caused by increased pollution. That cost is already factored into the price of the gasoline.
2) So if I have this straight, someone can fire their rifle into a public park full of children repeatedly, and as long as they don't actually hit any child they should be allowed to continue? Sure there is a risk that they could hit a child, but risk is not harm.
3) I don't think he was saying that the fine defrays costs of increased pollution. I think he was saying that increased pollution is a harm that is caused by speeding, and that the fine is intended to be a deterrent. For a deterrent to be successful it must be significantly higher than the associated costs. This would be the difference between a fee and a fine, wouldn't it?