Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

  • Thread starter Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
  • Start date



On Mar 4, 1:04 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:28 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > <snip>

>
> >>But I drive a mixed agenda.  I drive 138 miles each way most weekends
> >>during the summer in my 16 mpg Dodge half ton, V-8, 4WD pickup truck
> >>mostly on I-90, I-195 and Rt 146 (RI/MA).  These are all divided
> >>highways.  I try to save a little gas, which I can do at under 65 mph,
> >>but I also want to get to where I'm going or home again.  Sometimes I
> >>might drive close to 75mph and just accept the 15mpg penalty.

>
> > 15MPG penalty for a 10-15MPH speed differential?  No way.  Perhaps
> > what you mean is you get 15MPG @ 75MPH, and are able to squeeze
> > 18-20MPG if you drive 60ish.  That's a 3-5MPG penalty, not a 15MPG
> > penalty.  Again, your knowledge is showing.

>
> I meant 15mpg at 75 and 16 at 60.  Actually a range of about a 2 mpg
> penalty.
>
> I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!
>
> SMH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Drive 45 with your tailgate down.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Ed Pirrero wrote:

> In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
> higher speed limits, fatalities went down.
>
> How incredibly strange.
>
> "Speed kills" is a lie.


Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars. We
know this because the accident rates have NOT gone down. They
went up after 1992 when the 55 mph national speed limit was totally
abandoned (1987 was limited release from the 55 speed law) and
continue to rise.

So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).

See
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nht...iles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/TSF/TSF2006FE.pdf
Figure 1.

So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.

Speed merely increases the likelihood of an accident while the
safety features of your car keep you out of the fatality column.

Given the correlation between accident rates and severity of
accidents with speed, we would expect even lower fatalities if
speeds were reduced to some point that isn't too much lower than
the mean speed of what people will actually drive, since we know
accident rates will climb again at too low a speed limit.


SMH
 
M

Matthew T. Russotto

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 11:48 am, [email protected] (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Wrong again. More than half were drivers in single vehicle crashes.

>>
>> Hey - Frank never lets *facts* get in the way of a good rant. Unless
>> he can use them to try and obfuscate the issue.

>
>Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
>(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)
>
>According to NHTSA 2006 statistics
>(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nht...icfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/PDF/810837.pdf
>page 32; updated Jan 2008) about 57% of accidents are single car accidents.
>
>However, just because a crash is single vehicle doesn't mean only the
>driver goes to motorist heaven (we'll presume he's already living
>in driver Hell dealing with scofflaw bicyclists and drivers who don't
>respect flashing headlights astern).
>
>There's a concept called "the passenger".


In 2006, there were 38,588 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United
States, killing a total of 42,642 people. Of those, 22,627 were
drivers in single-vehicle collisions.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:34 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I'm not asking the person to do 50! I'm only asking for the
>>period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
>>back off on his desired speed.

>
> But you shouldn't have to change yours. What makes you special, that
> the world should bow to YOUR desires, and noboy elses' desires are
> important?
>
> Explain the contradiction, if you will. I'd love to hear your
> rationale.


I guess I'd have to flip your question around and say if you
expect no one to hinder your speed plans at all, you must never
cause anyone to slow or speed from their travel speed intentions
or you would be a hypocrite yourself, no?

So you never end up with a person behind you wanting to go
faster as you're passing someone? You are so skilled a driver
that the predicament never arises?

Then I don't believe you are of this driving world. You drive
idealic roadways with nice open spaces between cars and open
left lanes where everyone has dutifully swung right again after
the pass in perfect time for the car behind to pass without even
a feather touch of force lessened on the accelerator.

This sounds more like a military formation than a typical
heavily used public highway.

How about on the on-ramp with someone wanting to go faster?
Do you accelerate so as not to cause him any inconvenience
being stuck behind you until in lane on the highway? How
about the off ramps? Accelerate into it because someone behind
you might have to slow and that might be inconvenient?

On and off ramps are part of highway driving realities as much
as passing. Does your "thou shalt not hinder" driving paradigm
apply to those sections or is it only for passing situations?


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Ed Pirrero wrote:

> "Speed kills" is a lie.


BTW, my previous post concerning this was directed only at
explanations of the NHTSA *national* average over the years
recorded.

I've presented plenty of state and international studies that
show actual fatality rates decreased or increased in response
to changes in speed limit. That stuff wasn't MADD propaganda.

The speed kills relationship is just somewhat masked by longer
term data due to changes in car safety features and possibly
other factors. These effects wouldn't be significant in the
shorter term surveys and case studies I listed.

"Speed kills" is still a reality, just a bit more masked in the
longer term, national average, statistics.


SMH
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 11:59 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
> > higher speed limits, fatalities went down.

>
> > How incredibly strange.

>
> > "Speed kills" is a lie.

>
> Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars.


And better medical care.

> So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
> the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
> keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).
>
> So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.


In reality, it's "collisions kill". And when you mine the data, what
happens is that impaired driving is the biggest single factor.
Whether through alcohol or sleepiness or some other impairment, the
stats look a LOT different when you view them through that lens.

> Speed merely increases the likelihood of an accident while the
> safety features of your car keep you out of the fatality column.


No. Speed, in and of itself, has NO EFFECT on collision likelihood.

Velocity only has an effect on the amount of energy that needs to be
dissipated after a collision occurs.

The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.

> Given the correlation between accident rates and severity of
> accidents with speed, we would expect even lower fatalities if
> speeds were reduced to some point that isn't too much lower than
> the mean speed of what people will actually drive, since we know
> accident rates will climb again at too low a speed limit.


That is exactly correct, as predicted by numerous traffic studies.

Speed, in and of itself, never has been the traffic problem.
Impairment is the big killer.

E.P.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 12:17 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:34 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>I'm not asking the person to do 50!  I'm only asking for the
> >>period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
> >>back off on his desired speed.

>
> > But you shouldn't have to change yours.  What makes you special, that
> > the world should bow to YOUR desires, and noboy elses' desires are
> > important?

>
> > Explain the contradiction, if you will.  I'd love to hear your
> > rationale.

>
> I guess I'd have to flip your question around and say if you
> expect no one to hinder your speed plans at all, you must never
> cause anyone to slow or speed from their travel speed intentions
> or you would be a hypocrite yourself, no?


This is a fantastic straw man construction that is also a fine red
herring.

But I'll answer this part, above...

I do my best not to have conflicts with other motorists. For those
going slower than my desired speed, I pass. For those going faster
than my desired speed, I let them pass.

If I am passing, I do my best to be done with it ASAP, and attempt to
do it in a manner that affects the fewest other drivers possible.

having done this in Seattle, Portland and San Diego for quite a few
years, let's just say I have avoided merely hanging out in auto-
utopia.

I am sure that I have inconvenienced some drivers somewhere. And I
know for a fact plenty of oblivious or malicious drivers have
inconvenienced me. But I do not affect other drivers on purpose, nor
do have an expectation that they should make way for me, no matter
what the situation. I do expect some courtesy, but I am routinely
disappointed in that regard.

> So you never end up with a person behind you wanting to go
> faster as you're passing someone?  You are so skilled a driver
> that the predicament never arises?


I can't remember the last time that happened. I do remember a time
when I was in the carpool lane, going just as fast as the person in
front of me (x inifinity to the horizon), and much faster than the
traffic to my right. A person came up behind and wanted me to go
faster or pull over. I had nowhere to go without actually stopping in
the lane or running into the car ahead. Was I an asshole or hypocrite
in that situation? Maybe.

Still, when I am passing, I do it in a way that makes sure that nobody
from behind has to slow down. It's called "paying attention."

[straw man snipped]


> How about on the on-ramp with someone wanting to go faster?


LOL. I have never had that happen. I ccan see how it would happen to
some folks - they don't know it's to there to accelerate to freeway
speeds...

Never had a single problem at on-ramps or off-ramps. Crowded,
uncrowded, nothing.

>  Does your "thou shalt not hinder" driving paradigm
> apply to those sections or is it only for passing situations?


It applies to ALL driving. If you are unwilling to have the courtesy
to stay out of the way of other drivers, then please don't drive. I
have NEVER ONCE had this problem of a left-laner "suddenly appearing",
then tailgating and flashing brights, nor have I ever done such a
thing. And driving in Seattle, particularly, would have given ample
opportunity for such things to happen.

E.P.
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote, in
part:
\
>
>Nice post, Ed! Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
>of "straw man" (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
>real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
>the data presented in a citation.

\
Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
"profssl". He's getting as boring that other nym-shifter who's always
whining "read the whole thread again".
--
zk
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 4:02 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote, in
> part:
> \
>
> >Nice post, Ed!  Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> >of "straw man"  (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
> >real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
> >the data presented in a citation.

>
> \
> Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
> 2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
> "profssl".


Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.

I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
participated in threads in which this other character posted. The
headers are not anywhere near the same.

Stop engaging in logical fallacy, and I'll stop pointing it out. It's
just that simple.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

E.P.
 
On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:27 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > On Mar 4, 9:01 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > > > > > Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
> > > > > > (Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)

>
> > > > > That's right, I don't. For a very good reason - the data don't
> > > > > support it.

>
> > > > > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> > > > > lower. Hmmm.

>
> > > > Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> > > > German driving and American driving? IOW, that American driving skill
> > > > equals that of Germans? If so, your thinking is extremely
> > > > simplistic. Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> > > > very strongly.

>
> > > Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.

>
> False straw man? OK, Frank - here's the false assigned position:
> That I "pretend[] there is no other difference between German driving
> and American driving."


If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.

It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
_astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
you believe it's the _only_ factor. Since you didn't mention any
other factors - and based on your previous attempts at "logic" - I'm
not sure what you may believe.


>
> > > > > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
> > > > > yet fatality statistics are trending down

>
> > > > I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
> > > > assertion.

>
> > > Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. If speed kills,
> > > where's the carnage?

>
> Well, Frank? Speaking of unattended points...


As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
some fairly simple science. In this case, you seem unable to
understand that there are many variables at work. That is, it's not
just speed vs. fatalities. Other items obviously involved are medical
advances to save crash victims, air bags, stability control,
improvements in highway design, stricter drunken-driving controls, to
name a few.

Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
difference.


>
> > > > Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> > > > differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> > > > past three decades? If nothing had changed at all but the invention
> > > > of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
> > > > still be trending down.

>
> > > Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. The old saw of "speed kils" is
> > > just not true.

>
> > > > > "Speed kills" is a lie.

>
> > > > And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?

>
> > > Nice straw man.

>
> And again, here's the false position assigned: that I don't believe
> in "kinetic energy."


Once again, Ed - who knows? Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
energy. Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Perhaps you don't
understand its effects. I can't tell. All I can say for sure is, you
are making no sense whatsoever.

>
> It is obviously clear ONE of us doesn't understand what "straw man"
> means.
>
> > > Logic, much?

>
> > > E.P.

>
> > Nice post, Ed! Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> > of "straw man" (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
> > real response to any of the points I made...

>
> Your post calls for no real addressing. The data, almost ALL of it,
> shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.


False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.

> If you wish to
> pretend medical science is responsible for that,...


Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
although it is certainly one factor.

> you may go ahead and
> prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.


I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east. That is,
it's something nobody will have bothered to research, since it's just
too obvious.

I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
has made no difference in crash fatality rates.

> Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
> dodge...


... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
crashing at 20 mph?

Nice hearing from you, Ed. I like seeing total irrationality in my
debate opponents. It makes things much easier.

- Frank Krygowski
 
N

Nate Nagel

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 4, 11:27 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>On Mar 4, 9:01 am, [email protected] wrote:

>>
>>>>>On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
>>>>>>>(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)

>>
>>>>>>That's right, I don't. For a very good reason - the data don't
>>>>>>support it.

>>
>>>>>>Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
>>>>>>lower. Hmmm.

>>
>>>>>Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
>>>>>German driving and American driving? IOW, that American driving skill
>>>>>equals that of Germans? If so, your thinking is extremely
>>>>>simplistic. Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
>>>>>very strongly.

>>
>>>>Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.

>>
>>False straw man? OK, Frank - here's the false assigned position:
>>That I "pretend[] there is no other difference between German driving
>>and American driving."

>
>
> If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
> straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.
>
> It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
> _astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
> a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
> you believe it's the _only_ factor. Since you didn't mention any
> other factors - and based on your previous attempts at "logic" - I'm
> not sure what you may believe.
>
>
>
>>>>>>Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
>>>>>>yet fatality statistics are trending down

>>
>>>>>I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
>>>>>assertion.

>>
>>>>Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. If speed kills,
>>>>where's the carnage?

>>
>>Well, Frank? Speaking of unattended points...

>
>
> As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> some fairly simple science. In this case, you seem unable to
> understand that there are many variables at work. That is, it's not
> just speed vs. fatalities. Other items obviously involved are medical
> advances to save crash victims, air bags, stability control,
> improvements in highway design, stricter drunken-driving controls, to
> name a few.
>
> Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
> those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
> difference.


It's not that "only" speed makes a difference, it's that a) you can't
control it and b) it doesn't seem to make a difference anyway.

>>>>> Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
>>>>>differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
>>>>>past three decades? If nothing had changed at all but the invention
>>>>>of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
>>>>>still be trending down.

>>
>>>>Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. The old saw of "speed kils" is
>>>>just not true.

>>
>>>>>>"Speed kills" is a lie.

>>
>>>>>And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?

>>
>>>>Nice straw man.

>>
>>And again, here's the false position assigned: that I don't believe
>>in "kinetic energy."

>
>
> Once again, Ed - who knows? Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
> energy. Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Perhaps you don't
> understand its effects. I can't tell. All I can say for sure is, you
> are making no sense whatsoever.
>
>
>>It is obviously clear ONE of us doesn't understand what "straw man"
>>means.
>>
>>
>>>>Logic, much?

>>
>>>>E.P.

>>
>>>Nice post, Ed! Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
>>>of "straw man" (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
>>>real response to any of the points I made...

>>
>>Your post calls for no real addressing. The data, almost ALL of it,
>>shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.

>
>
> False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>


There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion. Look at
the statistics - they show NO change in the steady downward trend of
fatalities that has been occurring ever since the stats were first kept.
No anomalies or blips of any significance. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Additionally, there are no studies that indicate that changing a speed
limit below the 85th percentile speed has any significant real influence
on the speed of traffic (however you measure it; mean, median, 85th
%ile, 10MPH pace) - there is some change but about an order of magnitude
less than the change in the speed limit.

So basically, not only has it not been proven that slowing traffic down
makes it safer; you CAN'T prove it because it's near impossible to
actually slow traffic down in the absence of Draconian enforcement.

>
>>If you wish to
>>pretend medical science is responsible for that,...

>
>
> Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
> although it is certainly one factor.
>
>
>>you may go ahead and
>>prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.

>
>
> I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east. That is,
> it's something nobody will have bothered to research, since it's just
> too obvious.


More like you're trying to prove the sun rises in the west; your
assertions go against all serious study of the subject.

> I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
> has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
> has made no difference in crash fatality rates.


Probably has, but what of it?

>
>>Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
>>dodge...

>
>
> ... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
> crashing at 20 mph?
>


Not crashing at high speed kicks the ass out of crashing at low speed.

> Nice hearing from you, Ed. I like seeing total irrationality in my
> debate opponents. It makes things much easier.


It would improve my faith in the human race if you were able to do the
research necessary to evaluate your assertions and then come back and
admit you were wrong, but I know better - you won't.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 4:41 pm, Nate Nagel <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>On Mar 4, 11:27 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> >>>On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>On Mar 4, 9:01 am, [email protected] wrote:

>
> >>>>>On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
> >>>>>>>(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)

>
> >>>>>>That's right, I don't.  For a very good reason - the data don't
> >>>>>>support it.

>
> >>>>>>Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> >>>>>>lower.  Hmmm.

>
> >>>>>Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> >>>>>German driving and American driving?  IOW, that American driving skill
> >>>>>equals that of Germans?  If so, your thinking is extremely
> >>>>>simplistic.  Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> >>>>>very strongly.

>
> >>>>Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.

>
> >>False straw man?  OK, Frank - here's the false assigned position:
> >>That I "pretend[] there is no other difference between German driving
> >>and American driving."

>
> > If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
> > straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.

>
> > It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
> > _astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
> > a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
> > you believe it's the _only_ factor.  Since you didn't mention any
> > other factors - and based on your previous attempts at "logic" - I'm
> > not sure what you may believe.

>
> >>>>>>Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
> >>>>>>yet fatality statistics are trending down

>
> >>>>>I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
> >>>>>assertion.

>
> >>>>Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up.  If speed kills,
> >>>>where's the carnage?

>
> >>Well, Frank?  Speaking of unattended points...

>
> > As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> > some fairly simple science.  In this case, you seem unable to
> > understand that there are many variables at work.  That is, it's not
> > just speed vs. fatalities.  Other items obviously involved are medical
> > advances to save crash victims, air bags, stability control,
> > improvements in highway design, stricter drunken-driving controls, to
> > name a few.

>
> > Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
> > those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
> > difference.

>
> It's not that "only" speed makes a difference, it's that a) you can't
> control it and b) it doesn't seem to make a difference anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> >>>>>differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> >>>>>past three decades?  If nothing had changed at all but the invention
> >>>>>of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
> >>>>>still be trending down.

>
> >>>>Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank.  The old saw of "speed kils" is
> >>>>just not true.

>
> >>>>>>"Speed kills" is a lie.

>
> >>>>>And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?

>
> >>>>Nice straw man.

>
> >>And again, here's the false position assigned:  that I don't believe
> >>in "kinetic energy."

>
> > Once again, Ed - who knows?  Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
> > energy.  Perhaps you don't understand what it is.  Perhaps you don't
> > understand its effects.  I can't tell.  All I can say for sure is, you
> > are making no sense whatsoever.

>
> >>It is obviously clear ONE of us doesn't understand what "straw man"
> >>means.

>
> >>>>Logic, much?

>
> >>>>E.P.

>
> >>>Nice post, Ed!  Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> >>>of "straw man"  (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
> >>>real response to any of the points I made...

>
> >>Your post calls for no real addressing.  The data, almost ALL of it,
> >>shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.

>
> > False.  Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.

>
> There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion.  Look at
> the statistics - they show NO change in the steady downward trend of
> fatalities that has been occurring ever since the stats were first kept.
>   No anomalies or blips of any significance.  Don't believe me?  Look it up.
>
> Additionally, there are no studies that indicate that changing a speed
> limit below the 85th percentile speed has any significant real influence
> on the speed of traffic (however you measure it; mean, median, 85th
> %ile, 10MPH pace) - there is some change but about an order of magnitude
> less than the change in the speed limit.
>
> So basically, not only has it not been proven that slowing traffic down
> makes it safer; you CAN'T prove it because it's near impossible to
> actually slow traffic down in the absence of Draconian enforcement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>If you wish to
> >>pretend medical science is responsible for that,...

>
> > Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
> > although it is certainly one factor.

>
> >>you may go ahead and
> >>prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.

>
> > I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east.  That is,
> > it's something nobody will have bothered to research, since it's just
> > too obvious.

>
> More like you're trying to prove the sun rises in the west; your
> assertions go against all serious study of the subject.
>
> > I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
> > has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
> > has made no difference in crash fatality rates.

>
> Probably has, but what of it?
>
>
>
> >>Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
> >>dodge...

>
> > ... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
> > crashing at 20 mph?

>
> Not crashing at high speed kicks the ass out of crashing at low speed.
>
> > Nice hearing from you, Ed.  I like seeing total irrationality in my
> > debate opponents.  It makes things much easier.

>
> It would improve my faith in the human race if you were able to do the
> research necessary to evaluate your assertions and then come back and
> admit you were wrong, but I know better - you won't.
>
> nate


I've experienced Frank's form of "debate" before. His use of
tangential commentary, logical fallacy, and outright falsehood all
blend together to make him a loathsome figure in usenet. Sort of like
GPSturd.

I like turning him around and aiming him a different direction -
screwing with him, instead of falling for his stupid tactics.

Mostly, he's a bored retired guy with nothing better to do than jack
off on the internet.

E.P.
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 4, 4:02 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote, in
>> part:
>> \
>>
>> >Nice post, Ed!  Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
>> >of "straw man"  (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
>> >real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
>> >the data presented in a citation.

>>
>> \
>> Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
>> 2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
>> "profssl".

>
>Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.
>
>I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
>participated in threads in which this other character posted. The
>headers are not anywhere near the same.
>

Eddie, that still leaves over fifty.

Your routine is boring.
--
zk
 
Z

Zoot Katz

Guest
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:51:47 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 3, 7:19 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:18:36 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>
>> Many drivers wish to project their self-worth through the car they
>> drive. I've no problem with that. It helps me regard them as
>> something less than human.  They're just plain "squishy turds in a
>> can" when considering them collectively and caged.

>
>Which, of course, you never say aloud in public.
>
>It's easy to be a usenet hero. It's harder IRL.
>


The sticker clearly visible on my rear fender sums it up:
CARS SUCK

Another bike says: ANY IDIOT CAN DRIVE

I've another that says: FUKENKARZ.

I'm no Usenet hero so have probably disappointed at least seven
posters and probably a few lurkers in <r.b.m> I've had the pleasure
to meet, IRL.*

When I simply looked at a driver like an overflowing toilet and they
give me the finger I know they got the message. My initial response
was to grab my crotch. Fool pulls over, gets out and runs into the
street. When he punched me in the back after I'd avoided hitting him,
I had a feeling he might like to talk. After turning around and
slowly coasting back along the sidewalk I started reciting his plate
number aloud when within earshot. At twenty feet he bolted, got back
into his coffin and fuktoff.

I couldn't prove assault without a witless but later got satisfaction
when I heard the plates on the MB SUV he was driving were the plates
off his beater. Towed, impounded and fined looked good on the coward.

A lot of drivers can read my lips even when they don't speak English.
Well timed and deniability aimed expectorations will get me a meter
clearance or punctuate the look the driver already got.

Another fool thought I was trying to spit on his van after I'd just
cleared an intersection that prohibits through traffic, except
bicycles. Logically, I couldn't expect another vehicle to be behind
me. This squishy turd just wanted to shout though.

*IRL, lots of people know me as Zoot Katz but mostly call me the
same name as my mother did. Don't start your credibility of anonymous
posters routine. "profssl" was deliberately misspelled and you
corrected it. Headers don't prove anything. I got my Usenet chops in
a baptism of fire on the warez groups. I was posting mp3 within weeks
of the first groups' creation. I've posted to Usenet through
mix-master mail servers, PGP, the whole shtick. Faking headers was
never easier than it is now.
--
zk
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:04 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!
>>

>
> Drive 45 with your tailgate down.


Hey what's the r.a.d. position on tailgates down?

Don't do it! It doesn't help and may hurt mpg.

Putting a tonneau cover is about the best you can
do or leave it stock and hope the air bubble in
the bed helps keep air flow laminar as much as some
automotive engineers claim.


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>>>>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
>>>>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.

>>
>>>>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
>>>>technique.

>>
>>>On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
>>>feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.

>>
>>Of course you do.
>>
>>I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
>>won't get out of your way fast enough.
>>
>>SMH

>
>
> Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
> do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
> a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
> thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
> that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
> passing lane.
>
> If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
> mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
> Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
> the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
> home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
> within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
> reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
> across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
> effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
> willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
> instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
> are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
> cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
> should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
> is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.


I pretty much agree with your characterization of driving
out that way. In the CT River valley where I live, it's a
bit more civil but I've watched general driving consideration
for others (as well as traffic volume) degrade significantly
over the past 20 years.

I ride my bike 11 miles to/from work each way for my commute so
I don't have traffic hassles. Overall, despite the high
18-25 year old driver demographic around here (lots of colleges),
bikes and cars generally get along quite well.


SMH
 
S

Stephen Harding

Guest
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:59 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>>>In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
>>>higher speed limits, fatalities went down.

>>
>>>How incredibly strange.

>>
>>>"Speed kills" is a lie.

>>
>>Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars.

>
>
> And better medical care.
>
>
>>So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
>>the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
>>keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).
>>
>>So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.

>
>
> In reality, it's "collisions kill". And when you mine the data, what
> happens is that impaired driving is the biggest single factor.
> Whether through alcohol or sleepiness or some other impairment, the
> stats look a LOT different when you view them through that lens.


Well sure. The mechanism of the fatality is the collision.

The alcohol issue is the prime example of merged effects.
Alcohol or "judgment impairment" can manifest itself as
excessive speed for conditions.

Many of the studies I've looked over mention the difficulty
of categorizing crash responsibilities which can indeed
sometime blur responsibility scopes. I think alcohol related
crashes (or fatalities, I forget) are considered to be in the
40% range. A similar value was reported for a UK summary.


> The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
> in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
> approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.


I think there are plenty of studies that show a very definite
correlation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

I think long term data doesn't show the relationship as well
as shorter term ones simply because "other factors" come into
the equation.

I've seen the 'U' curve that shows accident rates increase at
both ends of the speed range ("too slow" AND "too fast").


SMH
 
On Mar 5, 6:43 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>[email protected] wrote:

>
> >>>On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >>>>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
> >>>>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.

>
> >>>>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
> >>>>technique.

>
> >>>On this we agree. Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
> >>>feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.

>
> >>Of course you do.

>
> >>I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
> >>won't get out of your way fast enough.

>
> >>SMH

>
> > Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
> > do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
> > a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
> > thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
> > that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
> > passing lane.

>
> > If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
> > mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
> > Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
> > the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
> > home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
> > within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
> > reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
> > across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
> > effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
> > willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
> > instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
> > are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
> > cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
> > should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
> > is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.

>
> I pretty much agree with your characterization of driving
> out that way. In the CT River valley where I live, it's a
> bit more civil but I've watched general driving consideration
> for others (as well as traffic volume) degrade significantly
> over the past 20 years.


I don't spend a lot of time out that way. Glad to hear things are a
little better over there though.


> I ride my bike 11 miles to/from work each way for my commute so
> I don't have traffic hassles.


I envy you, and miss when I had the same luxury. Then again, that was
back when I lived at home, and I don't miss that. I also miss when I
could ride a mile or so and take the train the rest, which was the
case with my 2 previous residences. Where I live now I could ride 3-4
miles and take a bus the rest. However, the commute takes 2 hours
instead of 40 minutes and costs more than the gas, maintenance and
wear on my vehicle combined.


> Overall, despite the high
> 18-25 year old driver demographic around here (lots of colleges),
> bikes and cars generally get along quite well.


I find that cars and bikes almost always coexist better in college
neighborhoods than in the suburbs. I figure the college kids all are
used to bikes, and have friends that ride if they don't themselves.
In the suburbs you get the yuppies who consider you a lower life form
and yell things like "Get off the road! Get a car loser!" Never mind
that I have a truck and a motorcycle...
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 4, 6:12 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Mar 4, 4:02 pm, Zoot Katz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote, in
> >> part:
> >> \

>
> >> >Nice post, Ed!  Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> >> >of "straw man"  (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
> >> >real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
> >> >the data presented in a citation.

>
> >> \
> >> Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
> >> 2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
> >> "profssl".

>
> >Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.

>
> >I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
> >participated in threads in which this other character posted.  The
> >headers are not anywhere near the same.

>
> Eddie, that still leaves over fifty.
>
> Your routine is boring.


So, that's a half-assed admission that I'm right. Nice of you to
admit it. Sort of.

And you completely trimmed the other part - the part where I spoil
your argument fun by actually holding you to a standard of *gulp*
reason.

If you find me boring, you can certainly pick up your ball and go play
in some other sandbox. Nobody is forcing you to be an idiot here,
after all.

E.P.
 
E

Ed Pirrero

Guest
On Mar 5, 3:51 am, Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:


> > The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
> > in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
> > approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.

>
> I think there are plenty of studies that show a very definite
> correlation, so we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.


Uh, that's the graph we're both looking at. We don't disagree at all.

> I think long term data doesn't show the relationship as well
> as shorter term ones simply because "other factors" come into
> the equation.


All data points to the simple fact that if you reduce collisions, you
reduce fatalities. Velocity, while a contributing factor in the
fatality rate, is not in itself, a correlating factor.

> I've seen the 'U' curve that shows accident rates increase at
> both ends of the speed range ("too slow" AND "too fast").


That's exactly the one I mean. Speed, in and of itself, is not the
problem. Reduce the collisions, and your reduce the carnage. That's
number one. Keep the drunks off the road, and the carnage goes down a
lot.

Which means, if you can get folks to all travel at about the 85th
percentile velocity, and keep drunk people out of cars, and you'll
have some success in reducing roadway carnage.

E.P.