If everyone would drive GEO metros

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> 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?

He didn't need to. Once again, the 40k was the number YOU provided without any constraints or
clarifications. Being broad of reason and intellect, he used your number to reasonably concluded
"global deaths by 'infernal cumbustion' vehicles" as was implied in your original post. That you
are now trying to crawfish is a perfect example of why everyone is having such great sport at
your expense.

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

Once again, you fail to provide supporting cites. Everyone here considers all such numbers and
claims from you have (and will continue to be) pulled out of your ass to shore up your fanatical
proclamations until substantive cites are included with each claim.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> 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.

Specious and irrelevent reference. The "costs of depreciation, finance, servicing and such" are a
given in all types of economies and are imutable for consumable products (wear and tear). Taxation
is a vehicle of government and not, by definition, an integral part of the nature of trade. (ie. not
ALL products are taxed and products do not include a tax as part of their intrinsic nature.)

Your assumption that taxation is more than it is clearly reveals your mindset wrt the roll of
government. It no surprise though, since socialists tend to be that way.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:09:03 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
> Nope. I was just challenging the known false idea that increasing speed increases safety.

I've now been reading this thread for a while and, at no time since I started reading it, have I
seen someone make such a claim (other than you when trying to shore up your unsupported stance).

>I don't have any great love of people who unilaterally decide to change the rules in other
>countries

Hence your continued diatribes about what goes on within US borders (when they violate your personal
sensabilities) in spite continued failures on your part to provide any substantive cites supporting
your claims.

>>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.

> Thanks for calling me kid - having just been assured by a number of people that they assumed
> tomorrow was my fiftieth birthday not my fortieth, as it is, I was thinking that maybe I might be
> looking a bit old these days.

Kid was a reference to your understanding of the world outside of academia.

> And thanks for the acknowledgement that you've lost. An ad-hominem attack is still the Usenet
> convention for having run out of ideas, after all.

No admission on my part. Just continued attempts to request substantive cites supporting your
proclamations. How else do you deal with petulent children (age wise or other wise) than to
hussle them off when they start to become tiresome with their repetative claims that blue is red
or night is day?

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:12:13 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> I did so right near the top of the thread.
>
> I can also scan my university degree certificate and put it on my website if you are really that
> concerned. B.Eng (hons).

If you did, then that one attempt at a cite has already fled my server. Generally. specific
claims are accompanied with cites that point to the supporting (explicit) area within a general
(broader) "study".

Your degree carries little weight, in and of itself. Your competence in the field being referenced,
your currency in the field, and your penchant for personal bias all have bearing on its validity as
applied to any given subject.

Each time you grab another number or absolute, it can only be percieved as coming from out of thin
air without cites accompanying it. Also the cite itself (who funded the research, etc.) has bearing
on such claims.

Clearly your objectivity is in question when "speed" is your primary focus in spite of all the
discussion that has taken place so far. Not once have you even appeared to grasp the issues being
presented; preferring to warp them back around to fit your preconceptions regardless of how poorly
the end result fits.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:13:29 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>>Typical academic utopianism. Under no "real world" situtions will you ever get "everyone" to go at
>>the same speed.
>
>
> You really are missing the point entirely. But I have a limited tolerance for wasting my time
> explaining things to people whose ideology prevents them from listening, so I will let you have
> the last word.
>
> Just before I go, I would remind you that my sole point right form the beginning is that arguing
> for general increases in limits to increase safety is foolish, since statistical evidence suggests
> that the opposite will happen. And the best response to people speeding may well therefor not be
> to increase the limit, especially since research here indicates that the ones speeding are already
> the ones most likely to crash. Raising limits is not the only option, enforcement has been tried
> in other jurisdictions, and in the case of France in particular the result has been a substantial
> improvement in safety. Quite why this should be seen as some sort of challenge to the God-given
> right to drive is beyond me. I am a driver as well as a cyclist, and I find it far from onerous
> obeying traffic laws.
>
> Guy

And my sole point all this time is that I have yet to see anyone make such a claim. You grasped on
to that to shore up your "spees kills" agenda when everyone around you was talking about how
"conditions" [1] have more impact on safety that speed.

[1] For the broader definition of "conditions". [2]
[2] More than just weather.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:15:24 GMT, Bownse <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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
>
>
> Taylor,M.,Lynam,D.,and Baruya,A.2000.The Effects of Drivers ’ Speed on the Frequency of Road
> Accidents TRL Report 421.
>
>
>>>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
>
>
> H. C. Joksch, "Velocity Change and Fatality Risk in a Crash-A Rule of Thumb," Accident Analysis
> and Prevention, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1993.

IOW it's not speed that's dangerous. It's speed *differentials" that are. Typically, before
governmental attempts at "sociatial engineering" that brought us the 55 mph speed limits,
interstates speeds were set at that rate in which 85% of the traffic flowed over a given section of
roadway. This 85% rule was re-established when (federal money penalties for stated not establishing)
the 55pmh speed limit was removed. Greenicks and others hated it when they lost to the facts of
science. These folks took advantage of the wording of recently-passed EPA regulations (that were not
fully understood by the public until it was too late) to again pressure states to artificially lower
the speed limits again (in spite of the 85% rule).

Once again, as had been said many times before, CONDITIONS have more of an impact on safety than
"speed". Running 85 mph along an interstate in SD (on a clear day, with equipment reasonable
condition, and a driver of adequate skill) is a lot safer than running along at 40 mph through a
busy school zone in the rain.

Your previous claim: "all crashes have worse outcomes the higher the speed of the crash"

is not valid in the NW outback of the USA where there are no trees, no gard rails, and nothing
but open desert (often without even a ditch along the side of the road) in the event the cars
goes off the road.

 

[Bownse]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 20:25:35 GMT, Demetrius XXIV and the Gladiatores <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>>Try planet.
>
>
> It did occur to me that the lack of a law of conservation of momentum in your area indicated that
> you were on a different planet, but I didn't like to say so.
>
>
>>> What I am suggesting is that raising speed limits on safety grounds fails to take account of the
>>> body of research which indicates that it will have precisely the opposite effect.
>
>
>>I just suggested lowering them. To 5mph. At that speed all fatalities should be eliminated. Are
>>you with me Napoleon?
>
>
> That is not a rational point. What I am saying is: raising limits to increase safety is unwise,
> based on various statistical evidence - not least the fact that on US roads Joksch found that
> probability of fatality increases with the fourth power of speed. To suggest that this is
> necessarily a call for the reintroduction of the Red *** Act is an odd assertion. I am not
> porposing that limits be lowered, merely that raising them to increase safety may well backfire.

And what everyone else has been saying is that the places where it's suggested that speed limits be
raised (in the US) are locations where the currently-posted limits are "not ... rational point(s)".
Many places have limits established that have little to do with the "85% rule" and everything to do
with political correctness. The majority of drivers through these areas understand this and maintain
their safe pace at the previously-posted levels. The VARIANCE in speed when those people encounter
the clueless tourist (or the traffic law nazi) is where the danger arises as their impediment to
traffic leads to road rage and other dangerous interactions which also contribute to increases in
wrecks (along with the variances in speed, more of a contributing factor to the severity of wrecks
and simple speed).

 

[Bownse]

> 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...

And who am I do deny natural selection?

 

[Don Quijote]

Bownse <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > 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...
>
> And who am I do deny natural selection?

And you don't think the ants and other little animals would have the right to use any weapon at
their disposal to fight back the dinosaurs under the law of the jungle?

 

[Sb_]

"Bownse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: 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.

The Hurt report seemed to focus on motorcycles. But anyway, from the Hurt report:

"2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving
the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment. ...
4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating
factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to
overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering. ...
5. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents. "

http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html

Speed is a big factor in accidents whereas conditions are less so.

This one caught my eye even though it is niether here nor there:

"24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-
taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident
involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents."

 

[Margaret M.]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> cites
>
> Taylor,M.,Lynam,D.,and Baruya,A.2000.The Effects of Drivers ' Speed on the Frequency of Road
> Accidents TRL Report 421.
>
> H. C. Joksch, "Velocity Change and Fatality Risk in a Crash-A Rule of Thumb," Accident Analysis
> and Prevention, Vol. 25, No. 1, 1993.

Where the hell is Adny when we need him? ;-) Mag

 

[Bownse]

sb_ wrote:

> "Bownse" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> :
> : 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.
>
> The Hurt report seemed to focus on motorcycles. But anyway, from the Hurt report:
>
> "2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving
> the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment. ...
> 4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating
> factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due
> to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering. ...
> 11. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents. "
>
> http://www.clarity.net/~adam/hurt-report.html
>
> Speed is a big factor in accidents whereas conditions are less so.
>
> This one caught my eye even though it is niether here nor there:
>
> "24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-
> taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident
> involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents."

Yep. Which is why training has become such a big issue since the HR was released. Also it's another
reason why excessive speed for conditions (which includes skill and level of training and experience
of the operator) plays a bigger roll than just "simple speed".

 

[dfwx]

Personally, I see SUV drivers as low IQ and very gullible people - essentially losers.
The auto industry talks people into paying $20K+ for pickup trucks at radical profit mark-ups as though they are luxury cars and spending thousands of dollars on fuel - rather than on enjoying life.
Full sized Cadillacs and Mercedes are safe if size is the measure, SUVs are roll-over specials and incapable of avoiding numerous accident situations. They can not turn sharp, can not stop fast, and can not accelerate quickly.
The reason SUV drivers tend to be such bad drivers is simply because they have very low IQs and generally are detached from reality as a result. They stumble through life and such is how they drive.
They are sold SUVs on the PT Barnum principle and when someone walks on the lot to look at an SUV, the sales team thinks "great, another stupid chump."
I do not get much into the SUV argument because SUV folks are ignorant and foolish, and there is no point in arguing with an ignornant, gullible fool. I figure when someone buys an SUV, they create their own punishment for their stupidity - in the size of their monthly payments and the fines they pay everything at the gas pump.
An SUV is a big cheap pick up truck with half a ton of plastic, mush suspension, and a roll over factor worse than a 1947 sedan.
There is one certainly of this world - there will always be ignorant people easily conned out of their money.

Originally posted by Don Quijote
I found this opinion quite interesting. Firstly, I drive a Geo Metro... Secondly, should everyone
drive a GEO Metro or should everyone drive an SUV?

 

[Lee]

"dfwx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Personally, I see SUV drivers as low IQ and very gullible people - essentially losers. The auto
> industry talks people into paying $20K+ for pickup trucks at radical profit mark-ups as though
> they are luxury cars and spending thousands of dollars on fuel - rather than on enjoying life.
> Full sized Cadillacs and Mercedes are safe if size is the measure, SUVs are roll-over specials and
> incapable of avoiding numerous accident situations. They can not turn sharp, can not stop fast,
> and can not accelerate quickly. The reason SUV drivers tend to be such bad drivers is simply
> because they have very low IQs and generally are detached from reality as a result. They stumble
> through life and such is how they drive. They are sold SUVs on the PT Barnum principle and when
> someone walks on the lot to look at an SUV, the sales team thinks "great, another stupid chump." I
> do not get much into the SUV argument because SUV folks are ignorant and foolish, and there is no
> point in arguing with an ignornant, gullible fool. I figure when someone buys an SUV, they create
> their own punishment for their stupidity - in the size of their monthly payments and the fines
> they pay everything at the gas pump. An SUV is a big cheap pick up truck with half a ton of
> plastic, mush suspension, and a roll over factor worse than a 1947 sedan. There is one certainly
> of this world - there will always be ignorant people easily conned out of their money.
>
>
> Originally posted by Don Quijote I found this opinion quite interesting. Firstly, I drive a Geo
> Metro... Secondly, should everyone drive a GEO Metro or should everyone drive an SUV?

Good post! But I have a question: Can one get a mountain bike into the back of a GEO without having
to take the front wheel off? I like the idea of a Geo but I would find it inconvenient removing the
wheel. Had a 1984 toyota celica which I had to lower the backseats and remove the front wheel in
order to fit the bike in, a real pain. I also had a bike adapter that I attached to the outside of
the car but I never liked it. The Geo definitely has good mileage.

 

[Brian Huntley]

"Lee" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> Good post! But I have a question: Can one get a mountain bike into the back of a GEO without
> having to take the front wheel off? I like the idea of a Geo but I would find it inconvenient
> removing the wheel. Had a 1984 toyota celica which I had to lower the backseats and remove the
> front wheel in order to fit the bike in, a real pain. I also had a bike adapter that I attached to
> the outside of the car but I never liked it. The Geo definitely has good mileage.

I could in a 1987 Chevy Sprint, sort of a Geo Mk 0.

 

[storm]

can't believe i've waded through about five pages and haven't seen this yet:
"i don't care what ya'll drive, as long as you stay the **** off the phone!"
i'm tired of nearly being creamed by someone who's attention is anywhere but the road...

 

[hophead]

[I found this opinion quite interesting. Firstly, I drive a Geo posted by Don Quijote [/i]Metro... Secondly, should everyoneQUOTE]Originally

drive a GEO Metro or should everyone drive an SUV?

"If everyone would drive GEO metros, we would be safe. It these people who drive the SUVs that scare
the hell out of me. Although they may be safe when they smash into my little saturn, i am gonna be
dead meat. It is all about the physics. People want a safe car, but if everyone keeps getting
heavier (thus safer) cars, the little cars are going to be deathtraps." -Brontes

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=245429

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote [/QUOTE]

I own several 4wd vehicles. Call them SUV's of you like. I call them Jeeps. My Wrangler is lighter than many sedans and is therfore going to do less damage on impact than a sedan traveling at the same speed. It's also a four cylinder with a top speed going down hill with a strong tail wind of about 75mph.
I also own a Liberty. It's heavier (over 2 tons) but has ABS and rack & pinion steering and handles very well for an "SUV".

My point is that I am less likely to be involved in an accident in any of my vehicles than someone in a less well equipped or maintained compact. It's not just size that makes a vehicle safe or threatning. There are many other factors to consider.

Yes, I agree that if a Hummer and a Metro collide, the Metro will lose. But your bike will lose against either.

 

[John David Galt]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> 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.

a) A trivial number. Live with it. And
b) A lot of those deaths are the result of stupid laws, like the EPA mileage regs that force many
drivers into small, uncrashworthy cars where they die. (20K/year according to USA Today.)

 

[Chris Neary]

>> Amazingly, all those above average drivers are responsible for 40,000 deaths in the USA
>> every year.
>
>a) A trivial number. Live with it. And
>b) A lot of those deaths are the result of stupid laws, like the EPA mileage regs that force many
> drivers into small, uncrashworthy cars where they die. (20K/year according to USA Today.)

$5 to the first person who explains why these two reasons contradict one another.

Chris Neary [email protected]

"Prize the doubt, low kinds exist without"
- Inscription at Ramsmeyer Hall, Ohio State University

 

[Stephen!]

Chris Neary <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>>a) A trivial number. Live with it. And
>>b) A lot of those deaths are the result of stupid laws, like the EPA mileage regs that force many
>> drivers into small, uncrashworthy cars where they die. (20K/year according to USA Today.)
>
> $5 to the first person who explains why these two reasons contradict one another.

$6 to the first person who let's this thread die in non-applicable news groups...

--
IBA# 11465 http://imagesdesavions.com