Safespeed spoilsports

[Paul Smith]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:21:01 -0000, "Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> Personally I find it enlightening. I honestly believe that we could reduce speed limits
>>>> endlessly, enforce them perfectly and save no lives.

>>> That is a patently incorrect belief. If you had not used the word 'endlessly' and perhaps used
>>> 'to much lower levels then they now are' it would at least have had a logical consistency but as
>>> it stands it is laughably incorrect.

>> OK. I shouldn't have used the word endlessly. Big deal.

>You sound like a kid in playground who's been proved to be stupid by the others.

>It is a big deal. Using the word 'endlessly' creates an entirely different impression. It makes you
>sound even more stupid than you obviously are.

You're just being pedantic. This is newsgroup chatter, not a scientific thesis.

Anyway, can't you find a more substantial argument?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> You're just being pedantic. This is newsgroup chatter, not a scientific thesis.

You are presenting your information both here and on your website as somehow scientific, your
language should at least support that.
>
> Anyway, can't you find a more substantial argument?

You've ignored those.

You've applied a formula at speeds at which it is, by the admission of the author, not tested.

You've derived a truism and then used it to draw conclusions which cannot be drawn.

You've suggested using the formula by including cases, ie near misses, for which the formula is
inapplicable. How much more do you want.

Colin

 

[Michael Macclan]

Paul Smith wrote:
>
> It's not intended to be a trick statement. As Colin pointed out it really shouldn't use the word
> "endlessly".

Another trick statement. It should read, "I really shouldn't use the word 'endlessly'".
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Michael Macclan]

Paul Smith wrote:
> You're just being pedantic. This is newsgroup chatter, not a scientific thesis.
>
> Anyway, can't you find a more substantial argument?

You're the one misrepresenting information in a 'scientific' fashion. There are loads of substantial
arguments - just have a look at google groups. You really are pathetic.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Paul Smith]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:09:50 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>> Ah, I get it. You're worried because the delta V is zero.
>
>You just don't get it, do you?
>
>> What if it's .01? 0.1? 1.0? 10?
>
>I doubt the bottom end would occur but yes these are all *collisions* You are suggesting including
>non-collisions in a formula that relates *collisions* to *fatalities*.
>
>You really don't get it, do you?
>
>> Actually a delta V of zero is perfectly logical and OK. It's a true and useful description of a
>> non-collision incident.
>
>It's a true description of *every* single driving occurrence where there isn't a collision. Not
>just near misses but just ordinary incident-free drives. Why not include those, they have a delta V
>of zero too. I don't know how many car journeys are made every year but you could probably use that
>number to show that we could have the same death toll with speed limits of less than 1 mph. That
>page has already been shown to be ridiculous enough why not give everyone a real laugh.

There's a true useful and valid suggestion lurking in your meaningless bile. See this page:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/ten.html
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> Ah, I get it. You're worried because the delta V is zero.

You just don't get it, do you?

> What if it's .01? 0.1? 1.0? 10?

I doubt the bottom end would occur but yes these are all *collisions* You are suggesting including
non-collisions in a formula that relates *collisions* to *fatalities*.

You really don't get it, do you?

> Actually a delta V of zero is perfectly logical and OK. It's a true and useful description of a
> non-collision incident.

It's a true description of *every* single driving occurrence where there isn't a collision. Not just
near misses but just ordinary incident-free drives. Why not include those, they have a delta V of
zero too. I don't know how many car journeys are made every year but you could probably use that
number to show that we could have the same death toll with speed limits of less than 1 mph. That
page has already been shown to be ridiculous enough why not give everyone a real laugh.

Colin

 

[John B]

Michael MacClancy wrote:

> Paul Smith wrote:
> >
> > It's not intended to be a trick statement. As Colin pointed out it really shouldn't use the word
> > "endlessly".
>
> Another trick statement. It should read, "I really shouldn't use the word 'endlessly'".

You didn't really expect him to admit his stupidity did you? Keep up the good work.

John B

 

[Michael Macclan]

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> Ah, I get it. You're worried because the delta V is zero.
>
> You just don't get it, do you?
>
>> What if it's .01? 0.1? 1.0? 10?
>
> I doubt the bottom end would occur but yes these are all *collisions* You are suggesting including
> non-collisions in a formula that relates *collisions* to *fatalities*.
>
> You really don't get it, do you?
>
>> Actually a delta V of zero is perfectly logical and OK. It's a true and useful description of a
>> non-collision incident.
>
> It's a true description of *every* single driving occurrence where there isn't a collision. Not
> just near misses but just ordinary incident-free drives. Why not include those, they have a delta
> V of zero too. I don't know how many car journeys are made every year but you could probably use
> that number to show that we could have the same death toll with speed limits of less than 1 mph.
> That page has already been shown to be ridiculous enough why not give everyone a real laugh.
>
> Colin

Why not have negative delta V's too? I mean, there's an infinity of them out there, isn't there?
These would be near misses or non-collisions because the two articles in the collision were moving
in opposite directions.
--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Colin Blackburn]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> There's a true useful and valid suggestion lurking in your meaningless bile.

<fx: shakes head at Smith's staggeringly arrogant inability to tell his **** from his elbow>

<http://www.assotron.com/****-or-elbow/>

Colin

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 02:05:39 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>But the effect is so huge, that errors of that nature will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the
>conclusion.

Actually the uncertainties in the data underlying Joksch's equations are such that it is effectively
zero at 12mph. Thus the inherited uncertainty in your computation is effectively +unknown/-100% -
i.e. the only sensible course is to chuck it out altogether.

I do like the fact, though, that you have at least linked to a page which shows that reducing speeds
saves lives, and that speeds in excess of 5mph above the speed limit are associated with increased
risk of crashes. Even if you have chosen to re-present its data with the opposite conclusion.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:06:10 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Not many people are killed in traffic jams. Claiming that we could kill just as many people at 12
>>m.p.h. as, say, 60 m.p.h., _may_ be technically correct, but it is very misleading.

>Personally I find it enlightening.

In what way is it enlightening? It is a ridiculous exercise in self-delusion. We *could* kill people
at 10mph if we chose to drive on the pavement and never touch the brakes, but that tells us
precisely nothing about anything at all. Could we kill as many at 12mph? 5 percent of pedestrians
die when hit at 20mph; 45 at 30 mph and 85 percent at 40 mph. So maybe we could kill as many
drivers, provided we can persuade them to abandon all their learned responses to danger and never go
for the brakes, but we would kill fewer pedestrians.

>I honestly believe that we could reduce speed limits endlessly, enforce them perfectly and save
>no lives.

And you are wrong. Consider how many poeple would die if they re-introduced the red flag act.

>In fact too much enforcement is implicated in a rise in the underlying fatality rate.

Not *in fact* - you (and nobody else I know of) *assert* that it is implicated, and you have
repeatedly admitted that you cannot prove it. Perhaps this misunderstanding of the meaning of the
word "fact" explains the whole 12mph page.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:52:07 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>But there's more...

If the house is built on matchsticks stuck into shifting mud, it really doesn't matter what colour
the window frames are painted.

However much you extrapolate from your invalid interpretation of inapplicable data, any conclusions
you draw remain worthless.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 11:39:17 +0000, Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>It certainly isn't meant to be "cunning".

That's lucky, since it doesn't quite achieve brainless.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:23:07 -0000, Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:

><http://www.assotron.com/****-or-elbow/>

ROFL! Who knows, perhaps Smithy might learn something from this thread after all :-D

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Paul Smith]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:34:02 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>But there's more...

>If the house is built on matchsticks stuck into shifting mud, it really doesn't matter what colour
>the window frames are painted.

>However much you extrapolate from your invalid interpretation of inapplicable data, any conclusions
>you draw remain worthless.

Your characterisation is entirely false. Whatever way you try and dress it up, prove it, present it
or whatever, it remains remarkable that the ratio of accidents to fatals (affecting car drivers) is
of the order of 1300:1.

Where did the crash energy go in 1299 cases, when we can assume that in something in the order of
70% of them, the vehicle was exceeding the speed limit when the incident started?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Paul Smith]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:23:23 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>But the effect is so huge, that errors of that nature will make NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the
>>conclusion.

>Actually the uncertainties in the data underlying Joksch's equations are such that it is
>effectively zero at 12mph. Thus the inherited uncertainty in your computation is effectively
>+unknown/-100% - i.e. the only sensible course is to chuck it out altogether.

We'll see.

>I do like the fact, though, that you have at least linked to a page which shows that reducing
>speeds saves lives, and that speeds in excess of 5mph above the speed limit are associated with
>increased risk of crashes. Even if you have chosen to re-present its data with the opposite
>conclusion.

The Australian research is as worthless as TRL421 and TRL511.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Paul Smith]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:33:25 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>Not many people are killed in traffic jams. Claiming that we could kill just as many people at 12
>>>m.p.h. as, say, 60 m.p.h., _may_ be technically correct, but it is very misleading.

>>Personally I find it enlightening.

>In what way is it enlightening?

Because in almost all cases most of the previous kinetic energy isn't released in the crash.

>>I honestly believe that we could reduce speed limits endlessly, enforce them perfectly and save
>>no lives.

>And you are wrong. Consider how many poeple would die if they re-introduced the red flag act.

True. Strike "endlessly" and insert "unreasonably".

>>In fact too much enforcement is implicated in a rise in the underlying fatality rate.

>Not *in fact* - you (and nobody else I know of) *assert* that it is implicated, and you have
>repeatedly admitted that you cannot prove it. Perhaps this misunderstanding of the meaning of the
>word "fact" explains the whole 12mph page.

It's implicated on the Safe Speed web site. That is a fact. The case may not be proven, but if you
want to "try and be clever" you'll have to try harder.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Michael Macclan]

Paul Smith wrote:
>
>>> Personally I find it enlightening.
>
>> In what way is it enlightening?
>
> Because in almost all cases most of the previous kinetic energy isn't released in the crash.

Assuming the vehicle finally stops all the kinetic energy has to be released. The question is,
"where does it go?"

--
Michael MacClancy

 

[Paul Smith]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:01:01 +0000, Simon Proven <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Your characterisation is entirely false. Whatever way you try and dress it up, prove it, present
>> it or whatever, it remains remarkable that the ratio of accidents to fatals (affecting car
>> drivers) is of the order of 1300:1.

>This is a cycling newsgroup. Think about it. A road "safety" campaign focusing on only the risk to
>drivers isn't going to be very well received.

I don't believe any realistic campaign could focus on the effect on drivers. Where there are
accidents people get hurt, and not just drivers. Any strategy which can reduce accidents is very
likely to benefit all road users.

But sample data for drivers is available and suitable for the discussion.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives

 

[Simon Proven]

Paul Smith wrote:

> Your characterisation is entirely false. Whatever way you try and dress it up, prove it, present
> it or whatever, it remains remarkable that the ratio of accidents to fatals (affecting car
> drivers) is of the order of 1300:1.

This is a cycling newsgroup. Think about it. A road "safety" campaign focusing on only the risk to
drivers isn't going to be very well received.