If everyone would drive GEO metros

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:23:07 -0500, David Kerber
<ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

>> Apparently more people have been killed by motor vehicles since the invention of the infernal
>> combustion engine than in all the wars in the same period.

>Hardly. It would take 500 years at that rate to get anywhere near the toll that WWII took (20M+).

Sit down, take a deep breath and prepare yourself for some shocking news. America is not the only
country in the world. Not only that, America is not the only country with cars.

You might need a brandy to help you recover from the shock.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:26:41 GMT, "." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Let's get some perspective here. Until the day comes when cars are entirely run by computers,
>there's always going to be an inherent danger in driving.

True> At present the level of danger per mile travelled is about
twice as high in the US as in Germany, which is in turn significantly higher than in the UK. That
suggests that some things which other countries do to mitigate that risk, are not being done in the
US. These things which mitigate the risk in the UK and Germany do not appear to have fundamentaly
undermined the utility of the car, nor the desire to own and drive them.

>And compared to the millions of drivers who DON'T kill anybody, 40000 people is relatively very
>little - it's surprising there aren't a lot more deaths.

In the UK your chances of dying as a result of a car crash are about 1 in 200. That is lower than
for heart disease, especially since people now drive everywhere so obesity is spiralling out of
control. On the other hand, car crashes are the leading cause of death in children.

>As for your comment about the invention of the oh-so evil "infernal" combustion engine, are you
>perhaps implying we should go back to riding horses?

No, I've just been watching too much Catweazle. I also refer to the telephone as the "telling bone"
on occasion. You are way too sensitive

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Stephen Harding]

Bownse wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:24:22 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> SO what are you doing here, denying that you are more likely to crash in given conditions if
>>>> you are going faster?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I would deny that such a statement is accurate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Clarify: you are more likely to crash in a given set of conditions if you are going fast than if
>> you are going slow. Agree or disagree? The evidence to support agreement is rather stronger than
>> the evidence to support disagreement, in my view.
>>
>> Guy
>
>
> Slow. Bikes fall over.
>
> Real answer: It's unknown with the limited data you present. It's completely situationally
> variable.

This reminds me of a theory of [some] Japanese driving, at least prevalent during the early-mid
60's.

You drove as fast as you could. You did not stop at train crossings as a train was about to pass.
Pass perhaps when you shouldn't. Make sudden, un-indicated turns.

All to keep the evil spirits following you from catching up, which would be a very bad thing.

SMH

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:23:07 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Apparently more people have been killed by motor vehicles since the invention of the infernal
>>>combustion engine than in all the wars in the same period.
>
>
>>Hardly. It would take 500 years at that rate to get anywhere near the toll that WWII took (20M+).
>
>
> Sit down, take a deep breath and prepare yourself for some shocking news. America is not the only
> country in the world. Not only that, America is not the only country with cars.
>
> You might need a brandy to help you recover from the shock.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

So you're saying that, at your claimed 40k-a-year rate, it would take MORE than 500 years because
there are more wars than just WW2? Seems to punctured your own argument.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:26:41 GMT, "." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's get some perspective here. Until the day comes when cars are entirely run by computers,
>>there's always going to be an inherent danger in driving.
>
>
> True> At present the level of danger per mile travelled is about
> twice as high in the US as in Germany, which is in turn significantly higher than in the UK. That
> suggests that some things which other countries do to mitigate that risk, are not being done in
> the US. These things which mitigate the risk in the UK and Germany do not appear to have
> fundamentaly undermined the utility of the car, nor the desire to own and drive them.
>
>
>>And compared to the millions of drivers who DON'T kill anybody, 40000 people is relatively very
>>little - it's surprising there aren't a lot more deaths.
>
>
> In the UK your chances of dying as a result of a car crash are about 1 in 200. That is lower than
> for heart disease, especially since people now drive everywhere so obesity is spiralling out of
> control. On the other hand, car crashes are the leading cause of death in children.
>
>
>>As for your comment about the invention of the oh-so evil "infernal" combustion engine, are you
>>perhaps implying we should go back to riding horses?
>
>
> No, I've just been watching too much Catweazle. I also refer to the telephone as the "telling
> bone" on occasion. You are way too sensitive
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

How they've mitigated it is by taxing fuel so much that it's many times higher than in the US.
Additionally, their tax structures for ALL things are higher so that all vehicle-related costs are
substantively higher. The end result is that the cost of driving is outside the reach of many people
(at least the quantity of driving as within the US). So yes, if you mean to mitgate mobility by
punishing the masses with onerous taxation in order to control their movements, then there is a way
to impact total miles driven per year in the US.

Most people outside the Geennicks and socialists see such actions as unacceptable.

 

[Bownse]

> The idea of speed and cluelessness as separet sources of danger, as you suggest, is a false
> dichotomy. If you can't bring yourself to accept that, then I'm glad I'm driving in a completely
> different country.

So, what you're saying is that, in spite of living in another country, you want to modify the
actions within the borders of the US. I get it. Violation of the Prime Directive. Never you mind
your widdle head. Such UN-ish mindsets are justifiably ignored by everyone here. You're dismissed.
Go away kid, you surely have something better to do than all that mental masturbation in front of
all of usenet.

 

[Bownse]

I Then you are at odds with the statistical evidence.

I keep seeing you make these claims (as well as those of some association with university training)
but I have yet to see you cite your sources for these (as yet) unsupported claims.

 

[Bownse]

> Nope. There is actually a U-shaped curve, with risk increasing with speed above the mean and, less
> sharply, below the mean (mainly due to the danger of turning manoeuvres). But if everybody is
> driving at 55 there will be fewer and less serious crashes than if everybody is driving at 75.
>
> Guy

Typical academic utopianism. Under no "real world" situtions will you ever get "everyone" to go at
the same speed.

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:23:07 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> >> Apparently more people have been killed by motor vehicles since the invention of the infernal
> >> combustion engine than in all the wars in the same period.
>
> >Hardly. It would take 500 years at that rate to get anywhere near the toll that WWII took (20M+).
>
> Sit down, take a deep breath and prepare yourself for some shocking news. America is not the only
> country in the world. Not only that, America is not the only country with cars.

So? I was simply dividing 40K (the number quoted in the msg) into 20M.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 19:03:38 -0500, Stephen K. Gielda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So you do agree that other factors present far more causality to crashes than speed.
>
>
> Excessive speed is primarily to blame in about one ion three fatal crashes in the UK, making it
> the largest single cause but far from the only cause.

cites

> That is not the point.
>
> The point is that, statistically, (a) you are more likely to crash at higher speeds than at lower
> speeds, all other factors being equal, and
> (b) if you do crash, the probability of fatality increases with the fourth power of speed.

cites

>>Shouldn't you be focusing on the bigger causes if your goal is really to reduce crashes?
>
>
> Speed being the single largest cause, actually I am focusing on the biggest - but this argument
> has not even touched the other causes, because it's a standard speedophile - versus - safety
> argument.

not in the US - check the Hurt Report (and it's ancient by research standards so you should already
know about it)

There's MY cite.

 

[.]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 20:23:07 -0500, David Kerber <ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:
>
> >> Apparently more people have been killed by motor vehicles since the invention of the infernal
> >> combustion engine than in all the wars in the same period.
>
> >Hardly. It would take 500 years at that rate to get anywhere near the toll that WWII took (20M+).
>
> Sit down, take a deep breath and prepare yourself for some shocking news. America is not the only
> country in the world. Not only that, America is not the only country with cars.

Comparing war and automobiles is not a valid analogy. One can always argue whether war is bad or
unavoidable, but transportation is absolutely essential for day-to-day living. People, believe that
the benefits of cars far outweigh the risks, and that's why we choose to drive even in the countries
with the least safe roads. If the government imposes too many rules and restrictions on personal
transportation without providing practical alternatives, you ultimately end up with a country full
of unemployed people who can't get to work and you cut down on the nation's productivity, as well as
causing other problems. Like everything else in society, it's a trade-off. Freedom or safety, take
your pick.

- [email protected]

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot
of useless noisy baggage behind."
-- Jed Babbin

 

[Bownse]

> Comparing war and automobiles is not a valid analogy. One can always argue whether war is bad or
> unavoidable, but transportation is absolutely essential for day-to-day living. People, believe
> that the benefits of cars far outweigh the risks, and that's why we choose to drive even in the
> countries with the least safe roads. If the government imposes too many rules and restrictions on
> personal transportation without providing practical alternatives, you ultimately end up with a
> country full of unemployed people who can't get to work and you cut down on the nation's
> productivity, as well as causing other problems. Like everything else in society, it's a trade-
> off. Freedom or safety, take your pick.

Those are irrelevent facts. The end justifies the means. Total abollishment of personal transport
and consumption of natural resources (at all costs) is the ends. [1]

[1] See preveiously-used emotionalism expressed by the use of the term "infernal cumbustion engine".

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:04:53 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:

>How they've mitigated it is by taxing fuel so much that it's many times higher than in the US.
>Additionally, their tax structures for ALL things are higher so that all vehicle-related costs are
>substantively higher. The end result is that the cost of driving is outside the reach of many
>people (at least the quantity of driving as within the US).

So are you suggesting that the poorest 10%, who are the ones who canb't afford to drive (the major
costs being finance and depreciation, both of which are much more than taxes, by the way) are the
ones having all the crashes? Because the stats show that actually the ones who are doing the
crashing are commercial travellers, who are twice as likely to crash (mileage adjusted) as other
drivers. That's why commercial travelling is excluded from standard car insurance.

Or do you mean that some people here choose not to use the car for trips under two miles? Sadly an
increasing number do, of course, and then they complain, without apprent irony, about the traffic
and the fact that it would have been quicker to walk.

The number of poeple deterred from driving by excise duties is very small. They would fail if large
numbers were deterred. The number who commute by train ismainly down to our congested cities and the
fact that from here to central London by car takes two and a half hours, whereas by train it takes
under an hour.

>So yes, if you mean to mitgate mobility by punishing the masses with onerous taxation in order to
>control their movements, then there is a way to impact total miles driven per year in the US.

Nope. The rates in the US are nearly twice as high per mile travelled. That controls out your
proposed effect.

And "punishing" people with "onerous" taxation? Motoring taxes in the UK have only just begun to
cover the costs of car transport to the economy, anyway. For the last fifty years or more car
transport has been effetively subsidised by the taxpayer, as I understand it still is in the US. The
cost of motoring taxes is in any case tiny compared with overall taxation. At least we get a
guaranteed health service in return, even if it is a bit ropey at times (probably because it costs a
third less per capita than the US system).

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:01:26 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:

>So you're saying that, at your claimed 40k-a-year rate, it would take MORE than 500 years because
>there are more wars than just WW2? Seems to punctured your own argument.

I thought the idea that other countries than America have an use cars might be a bit much for you to
take in. Clearly I was right.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 10:15:05 -0500, David Kerber
<ns_dkerber@ns_ids.net> wrote:

>> Sit down, take a deep breath and prepare yourself for some shocking news. America is not the only
>> country in the world. Not only that, America is not the only country with cars.

>So? I was simply dividing 40K (the number quoted in the msg) into 20M.

And what allowance did you make for the 95% of the world's population who do not live in America and
whose road vehicle fatalities don't get counted in the 40,000?

Oh, and don't forget we've halved the number killed (total numerical, not rate per unit distance
travelled) since the mid-60s.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:26:18 GMT, "." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Comparing war and automobiles is not a valid analogy. One can always argue whether war is bad or
>unavoidable, but transportation is absolutely essential for day-to-day living. People, believe that
>the benefits of cars far outweigh the risks, and that's why we choose to drive even in the
>countries with the least safe roads.

Of course. But that's not an excuse for complacency, or for failing to do what we can to mitigate
the danger.

>If the government imposes too many rules and restrictions on personal transportation without
>providing practical alternatives, you ultimately end up with a country full of unemployed people
>who can't get to work and you cut down on the nation's productivity, as well as causing other
>problems.

We don't seem to have that problem here. We have lots of people gainfully employed, not least
because the cost of road taxes is less than the costs of depreciation, finance, servicing and such.

>Like everything else in society, it's a trade-off. Freedom or safety, take your pick.

Or somtehing partway between, which is where evry country in the world pitches it. It's just a
question of where you draw the line.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Don Quijote]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:57:21 -0800, John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >So long as the authorities post lots of way-too-low speed limits and other overprotective signs
> >(which any reasonable viewer MUST assume are aimed at an audience much dumber than himself), most
> >people will naturally believe they are above average drivers. After all, if you define "average"
> >as someone who needs that kind of overprotectiveness, nearly all drivers ARE above average!
>
> Amazingly, all those above average drivers are responsible for 40,000 deaths in the USA every
> year. Apparently more people have been killed by motor vehicles since the invention of the
> infernal combustion engine than in all the wars in the same period.
>
> And for some reason all the solutions proposed seem to involve someone else doing something, and
> strangely never include the idea of people perhaps driving a bit more carefully. One of the great
> wonders of our time.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Picture this: Busy highway and two cars speeding at max speed, zigzaging around other cars. Where's
the first infraction? Why is it though that one is penalized while the other is casually ignored?

Note: Real life situation witnessed last night.

 

[Don Quijote]

"." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> > > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:57:21 -0800, John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
>
> > > Amazingly, all those above average drivers are responsible for 40,000 deaths in the USA every
> > > year. Apparently more people have been killed by motor vehicles since the invention of the
> > > infernal combustion engine than in all the wars in the same period.
>
> Let's get some perspective here. Until the day comes when cars are entirely run by computers,
> there's always going to be an inherent danger in driving. And until public transportation becomes
> more viable than private transportation, there will always be cars. Yes, 200+ years from now
> people will be looking back at us and be shocked at how barbaric and chaotic our methods of
> transportation are, but technology takes time to evolve.

Yeap, they'll probably associate it with the "law of the jungle." And they'll probably also wonder
why we never used something called "traffic laws"...

That's
> life. You have to be willing to accept the risks, or don't get behind the wheel. And compared to
> the millions of drivers who DON'T kill anybody, 40000 people is relatively very little - it's
> surprising there aren't a lot more deaths.

It could be like they looked each other in the eye and crash.

>
> As for your comment about the invention of the oh-so evil "infernal" combustion engine, are you
> perhaps implying we should go back to riding horses? Back in the early 1900s, city streets were
> full of horseshit which attracted flies and spread disease (not to mention, it smelled BAD). The
> pollution caused by horses back before they were rendered obsolete by the gas engine was actually
> WORSE than pollution caused by automobiles today. Imagine what it would be like with today's
> population level.
>

Fast efficient bullet trains and bicycles can take a big chunk out of congestion. The rest you can
use the horse...

 

[Don Quijote]

Bownse <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> How they've mitigated it is by taxing fuel so much that it's many times higher than in the US.
> Additionally, their tax structures for ALL things are higher so that all vehicle-related costs are
> substantively higher. The end result is that the cost of driving is outside the reach of many
> people (at least the quantity of driving as within the US). So yes, if you mean to mitgate
> mobility by punishing the masses with onerous taxation in order to control their movements, then
> there is a way to impact total miles driven per year in the US.
>
> Most people outside the Geennicks and socialists see such actions as unacceptable.

The dinosaurs saw any effort on the part of the little animals to provide OPTIONS to all as
"undemocratic." Immediately the "law of the jungle" was re-established, where all animals were once
again free to walk around and step upon everybody else...

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:01:26 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So you're saying that, at your claimed 40k-a-year rate, it would take MORE than 500 years because
>>there are more wars than just WW2? Seems to punctured your own argument.
>
>
> I thought the idea that other countries than America have an use cars might be a bit much for you
> to take in. Clearly I was right.
>
> Guy

You are truly as dense as you look. Read the entire post and come back when you've understood my
statement in context.

It's elementary school math.

You claimed 40,000 deaths a year > deaths by wars The other havlf of your vague claim (deaths by
wars) was elaborated BUT ONLY PARTIALLY by providing the number for just WW2 alone.

That equation was solved with the result being 500 years.

Your 40,000 a year didn't specify simply the USA so it implied a world-wide claimed scope.

The WW2 numbers != ALL wars as your original post said, but just one.

Expanding the total deaths for "wars" (plural, implying ALL) is an exercise left to the reader with
some simply math and logic skills. That other cars than "America" (which includes Canada, Mexico,
and South America in its example of your continued vagueries) didn't go unnoticed by anyone but you.

BTW: We're still waiting for the cites of the definitive studies you keep claiming support your
fanaticism.