|
General » rec.autos.driving » Saw an intelligent bicyclist today
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797024 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 17:56 |
|
On Mar 4, 11:40 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:02 am, "DanK... [at] gmail.com" <DanK... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In traffic it is impossible to leave enough distance for a drum-brake
> > pickup to stop in the same distance as a high-performance sports car.
> > If that large of a gap is left, it will be filled.
>
> It's not impossible, Nate.
Frank, pay attention. You quoted me and responded to me, this has
nothing to do with Nate. You are correct it is not impossible, but it
is impractical. I'm not going to spend an extra 30 minutes per day
making sure I'm the slowest vehicle on the road.
> You just slow down. The high-performance
> sports car will vanish into the distance. If another car passes and
> fills the gap that is left, he too will vanish into the distance. All
> you have to do is continue going less than the prevailing speed of
> traffic.
And there is no need for that. Simply maintain a safe following
distance. Like I said, the open and generous shoulder is one of the
factors to take into consideration when deciding what a safe following
distance is. The fact that I STILL did not rear-end this fool, even
with them trying to make me, is really all that needs to be said about
my following distance. If it had not been sufficient I'd have crashed
into the fool.
> And if you're driving a vehicle that you know you can't stop very
> well, that's what you should be doing.
My vehicle stops about average for all the vehicles on the road. I've
never rear-ended someone, even when they try to make me. That's
because I DO maintain a proper following distance. However, when
someone on the highway mashes the brake pedal to the floor at highway
speeds in their high-performance vehicle, it's going to muff things
up. That was the point of the post.
> Hit someone behind, and the
> legal system will gladly explain that to you in detail.
I'm aware of the rules. I've been rear-ended. More than once. Since
I am very observant when driving, and always maintain a safe following
distance, I don't anticipate ever being on the other end of the
collision, however.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797025 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 17:56 |
|
On Mar 4, 8:54=A0am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 8:42 am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I get a definite vibe from the cycling group that their shit don't
> > stink - oooh, cagers break the law all the time but most cyclists are
> > responsible alert riders. =A0BS! =A0The average cyclist doesn't have a
> > clue, much like the average driver.
>
> Your "definite vibe" is born in your own imagination. =A0It's easy to
> find cyclists complaining about other law-flouting cyclists. =A0I'll do
> it now, if you like, by agreeing with your final sentence. =A0The
> average road user does a lot of truly stupid stuff.
>
> The difference, which seems to confuse the r.a.d. boys, is that
> cyclist stupidity only rarely damages anyone else's person or
> vehicle. =A0Motorist stupidity kills over 100 people per day in the US,
> and keeps over 200,000 auto body repairmen employed full-time, fixing
> the cars that aren't totaled.
>
> Don't pretend the consequences are equal.
And don't fall for your logical fallacy of the two wrongs.
Wrong is wrong, no matter what the vehicle.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797026 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:00 |
|
On Mar 3, 6:51=A0pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0... [at] REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Brent P? wrote:
> > In article <8d1ff144-be8d-409e-b119-6e99257d4... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroup=
s.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 11:12 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> wrote:
> >>> In article <7265865b-1c02-4f9b-9efd-9ae702b0c... [at] i7g2000prf.googlegrou=
ps.com>, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 1, 9:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote=
:
> >>>>> In article <fqd056$rs... [at] registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman wro=
te:
>
> >>>>> I don't know where trucks actually go 55mph...
> >>>> Up hills.
> >>>> (Sheesh.)
> >>> Not any of the hills around here.
> >> :-) =A0Well THAT clears things up! =A0The hills in Chicago don't slow
> >> trucks, therefore there are no hills anywhere that slow trucks!
>
> > Holy jump battman. I never said any such thing, but you know that.
>
> >> I don't know why the highway departments around here wasted all the
> >> money on those "7% grade" signs! =A0They should have checked with racer=
-
> >> boy!
>
> > I dunno. The times I've driven through the hills and mountains on the wa=
y
> > to and from NC and WV I don't recall the trucks dropping to 55mph...
> > maybe my memory is off, that could be, but I think they kept it above
> > 55mph for the most part. They certainly do through the hills of WI. Now
> > they do slow, but 55mph seems to be a floor speed. I suppose there are
> > some mountain roads out there where they slow to 45mph or something but
> > that is still the limit of their vehicles, I have rarely seen truckers
> > restrict themselves to 55mph.
>
> In Colorado on I-70, I have passed trucks that were doing 15-20 mph
> uphill. (I was doing about 40-45 mph, full throttle in 3rd gear, in a
> Rabbit (Golf I).
Brent lives in the flatlands and has no idea what mountains are like.
Out here in the west, 18-wheelers often climb mt. passes at half the
SL or less. Mostly, they are nice about restricting themselves to the
right lane only.
Sometimes, they are jerks and micropass at 25 mph in the right lane,
and 27 mph in the left lane.
I'm sure one of those jerks used to be GPSturd.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797027 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:01 |
|
On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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.
> 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. 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.
> "Speed kills" is a lie.
And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?
http://sggoodri.home.mindspring.com/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797028 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:11 |
|
On Mar 3, 6:34=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 12:53 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> > First you say this...
>
> >> Just don't expect me to accelerate up
> >>to 90 so you won't have to back off on the throttle.
>
> > ...then you say this.
>
> >>But I'm not going to change my driving speed, while adequately passing
> >>someone, because somebody feels a public road is his private runway.
>
> > You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
> > exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>
> > The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
> > explode.
>
> > LOL. =A0You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
>
> *I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*
Your speed and it's relation to whatever the legal limit is not at
issue. It's the attitude of "I don't need to change my behavior for
anyone" contrasted to "why doesn't that other fuck slow the hell
down?" (As in "why doesn't the OTHER PERSON change their behavior for
me?")
You're being a hypocrite.
> I'm not asking the person to do 50! =A0I'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.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797029 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:12 |
|
On Mar 3, 6:39=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
> > Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
> >> exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>
> >> The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
> >> explode.
>
> >> LOL. =A0You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
>
> > *I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*
>
> Sorry. =A0All you characters are beginning to merge into one
> driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
> thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
> or traffic stops.
Straw man.
Your position is weak when you need to engage in logical fallacy.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797030 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:19 |
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> Well the problem is we're actually not all on the same page,
>> although your call for basic conversation and interchange of
>> thoughts is really what NGs are all about.
>>
>> Many decry cross-posted threads when those groups have
>> inherent antagonisms towards one another; both regard the
>> other as a form of mindless road danger.
>>
> Cross-posting makes for better flame wars. ;)
I was thinking of that when I made the post but left it out.
Soooo true though.
>> But I have also had confirmed my beliefs that many basically
>> good people do indeed become jerks once behind the wheel of
>> their motor vehicle. The old saying about the "nut behind
>> the wheel" seems confirmed.
>>
> I do not believe it is the motor vehicle per say, but the isolation the
> steel and glass cage provides.
My belief exactly.
Somewhat similar to exchanges on the internet as well, where
someone practically out of the blue says "You know you're a
real dickhead!" Huh???
Protected by networks of wires carrying bits around makes the
whimpiest of nerds a veritable Ahhnold ["I be baaack"]!
>> Nothing to get too bent out of shape over. Hey, it's only
>> a NG (or two).
>>
> Hey, you are not supposed to mention 'bents on RBM! ;)
The bent up 'bent seemed relevant for this thread!
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797032 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:32 |
|
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
>> Stephen Harding wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>>
>>>> You expect everyone else to change *their* speed for you, but find it
>>>> exceedingly rude for them to want you to change your speed for them.
>>>>
>>>> The inherent contradiction in your position *should* make your head
>>>> explode.
>>>>
>>>> LOL. You MFFYs are the dumbest folks on the planet.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *I'M DOING THE DAMN SPEED LIMIT OR ABOVE BRENT!!*
>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry. All you characters are beginning to merge into one
>> driver madly flashing their headlights, doing 90 mph and
>> thinking they don't really need to abide by speed limits
>> or traffic stops.
>>
>> I guess it's an instance of "Ed" rather than "Brent".
>
>
> Not at all. We're just sick of being stuck in the passing lane behind
> some old guy in a Buick doing 64 "passing" some other old guy in a Buick
> doing 63.9999998.
>
> The VAST majority of LLBs aren't even passing anyone, they're either
> just camping out in the left lane for no apparent reason, or even worse,
> pacing the car next to them not either in front of or far enough behind
> to slip through without some really squidly driving.
>
> That said, I can understand your frustration, but put yourself in the
> seat of the guy behind you. He's *expecting* you to do actively hold
> him up, because you're driving slow (relatively) in the passing lane and
> that's the behavior he's come to expect from other motorists. If you
> pass promtply and move over quickly, he'll be pleasantly surprised and
> might even acknowledge your courtesy with a wave as he passes. If you
> actively block him, you're just another of the rude and/or clueless
> masses that make everyday driving unpleasant.
The problem on the Mass Pike, which I drive most often, is that people
are indeed parked in the left lane. They *generally* are passing
vehicles in the middle lane with a variable speed differential. As
someone else noted, sometimes they are actually going slower than middle
or right lanes, but I find that only for short periods of time.
And sometimes, you simply can't get back into the middle lane. It's too
crowded and you'd be cutting someone off or outright committing suicide
to do so.
I honestly believe it doesn't really bother most people in the left
[passing] lane to be honest. They are resigned to being stuck behind a
line of cars ahead of them that aren't going to pull over and it's
generally the best lane to be in speed-wise from what is available.
Not a great way to run a highway, but that's reality on the Pike and
probably anywhere else in the US with a congested highway.
Heck even the Germans are increasingly driving that way when the
autobahn passes by larger cities. If it happens to the Germans, there's
no hope for the rest of us!!!
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797035 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:35 |
|
In article <D8qdnYl09de_p1HanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article
> <droleary.usenet-3F2F1F.11362903032008 [at] sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, Doc
> O'Leary wrote:
> > In article <7dGdnWyEU5NW6FbanZ2dnUVZ_rSrnZ2d [at] comcast.com>,
> > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, you're being a usenet assclown... I wasn't bitching about seeing
> >> properly lit bicyclists or peds of any kind.
>
> > Then please restate your argument, because you seem to have changed it
> > from "unlighted wrong ways" to "everyday physics" to who knows what. If
> > you just hate other people, simply say so. Classic road rage like that
> > is nothing new, although you seem to be going to elaborate lengths to
> > justify it. Again, and concisely, what's your issue?
>
> Geebus... you really like to mix stuff up don't you. You people are sick.
> You go around doing things in traffic and on usenet to intentionally piss
> people off then you scream 'road rager! road rager!' when someone gets
> pissed off. Grow up.
It is you who is acting immature. *I* am not the cyclist that somehow
pissed you off in traffic. I'm just a guy on Usenet spending too much
time trying to figure out what your particular, individual problem is.
You are the one who keeps getting mixed up on what point it is you're
trying to make, devolving into personal insults, and now you've gotten
lost into generalizing a population. Your posts drip with prejudice and
bigotry. I'm done with you.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797039 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 18:44 |
|
On Mar 4, 9:01=A0am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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. =A0For a very good reason - the data don't
> > support it.
>
> > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> > lower. =A0Hmmm.
>
> Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> German driving and American driving? =A0IOW, that American driving skill
> equals that of Germans? =A0If so, your thinking is extremely
> simplistic. =A0Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> very strongly.
Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.
> > 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?
> =A0Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> past three decades? =A0If 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.
Logic, much?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797040 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 19:00 |
|
Brent P wrote:
> That said, there's nothing new in this thread for me and I'm done.
Nothing new indeed!
Someone who can discount a list of studies in Australia, UK,
Sweden, Denmark, Germany and something like 40 US states as
"MADD propaganda" because they disagree with his speed is
irrelevant to accident rates dogma clearly isn't capable of
recognizing anything new.
Bye <flash><flash>.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797042 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 19:04 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:28 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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 [at] 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797044 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 19:07 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:48 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
>>DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Mar 3, 11:36 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Mar 2, 6:26 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>I feel more at risk of having my car dented by my local cyclists than I
>>>>>>>do by other motorists, and that's saying a lot because the drivers
>>>>>>>around here suck.
>>
>>>>>>That statement is proof of the extreme fantasies a motorhead will
>>>>>>indulge in! It's absolutely ludicrous!
>>
>>>>>>If you can prove me wrong, do it. Give me data about, say, the volume
>>>>>>of body shop work caused by bicyclists, versus caused by motorists.
>>
>>>>>>- Frank Krygowski
>>
>>>>>That wouldn't be a fair way of measuring. Much of the damage done to
>>>>>cars by bikes is of the hit & run variety. It could be they kicked
>>>>>the car and split, they just refused to exchange info, or a million
>>>>>other circumstances. When your car is damaged by another car there is
>>>>>usually insurance involved, accident reports filed, etc. If you hit
>>>>>my *truck* (just playing with you Frank) with your car and damage a
>>>>>panel, there's a fairly good chance I'll use some or all of the
>>>>>insurance money to repair the truck. If a bicycle hits my truck, the
>>>>>only way for it to be repaired on the offender's dime is if they stop
>>>>>and give me their info willingly, if they're so injured they need
>>>>>medical attention, or an officer happens to witness it and apprehend
>>>>>the cyclist. Two of those three circumstances seem quite unlikely.
>>>>>The exception, the cyclist being so injured they need medical
>>>>>attention, is likely to somehow cause me a bunch of headache even if
>>>>>they were at fault.
>>
>>>>So do you believe this situation is so pervasive, that bicycle
>>>>damage to cars actually does exceed that from other motor vehicles?
>>
>>>No, I believe the "data" frank requested to "prove" him wrong was
>>>blatantly biased, unfair, and not a quality example. I believe that's
>>>what I typed. Where did you see the suggestion that I believe
>>>bicycle to car damage exceeds car to car damage?
>>
>>The apparent implication that all the hit and run bicyclist damage
>>might be greater than damage to cars than by other cars.
>
>
> I never implied that bicycle-car damage is greater than car-car
> damage. I simply stated that franks example was biased.
>
>
>
>>The hit-and-run bicycle scenario seemed a stretch.
>
>
> Really? So in your experience if a bicycle hits your car and damages
> it you would assume they're going to willfully stop, provide you with
> their information and willingly pay for the damage to your vehicle?
> And you're in MA? Wow...
>
> I personally know many cyclists who will not hesitate to put an SPD
> (bike shoe clip device, metal) into a car that is crowding them off
> the road and endangering them. I know one of them *very* well. Ride
> regularly in MA and you will encounter that situation. I don't know a
> single one that will sit around and provide the damaged vehicle's
> owner with contact info.
I don't know. I glanced off the side view mirror of a pickup truck
and waited for the owner to ensure no damage (there wasn't any).
I'm not so naive to believe every bicyclist would do this but I don't
know what percentage would bolt.
I was merely saying the "stretch" was that hit-and-run bicyclists
would cause any significant damage to cars compared with other cars.
SMH
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797048 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 20:21 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797049 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 20:27 |
|
On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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.
>
> > > 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?
>
> > 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.
>
> 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, and trimming and ignoring
the data presented in a citation.
The final "logic much?" was unintended irony at its best!
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797050 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 20:33 |
|
On Mar 4, 2:21=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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. =A0Unfortunately, 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797051 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 20:34 |
|
On Mar 4, 1:04=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> DanK... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:28 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>But I drive a mixed agenda. =A0I 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). =A0These are all divided
> >>highways. =A0I 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. =A0Sometimes I
> >>might drive close to 75mph and just accept the 15mpg penalty.
>
> > 15MPG penalty for a 10-15MPH speed differential? =A0No way. =A0Perhaps
> > what you mean is you get 15MPG [at] 75MPH, and are able to squeeze
> > 18-20MPG if you drive 60ish. =A0That's a 3-5MPG penalty, not a 15MPG
> > penalty. =A0Again, your knowledge is showing.
>
> I meant 15mpg at 75 and 16 at 60. =A0Actually 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797055 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 20:59 |
|
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/nhtsa_static_file_downloader .jsp?file=/staticfiles/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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797057 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 20:59 |
|
In article <7s2zj.2416$VS2.1076 [at] trndny05>,
Stephen Harding <smharding16 [at] msn.com> wrote:
>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 11:48 am, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (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/nhtsa_static_file_downloader .jsp?file=/staticfiles/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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797059 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 21:17 |
|
Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:34 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797060 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 21:19 |
|
On Mar 4, 11:27=A0am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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. =A0For a very good reason - the data don't
> > > > support it.
>
> > > > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile ar=
e
> > > > lower. =A0Hmmm.
>
> > > Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> > > German driving and American driving? =A0IOW, that American driving ski=
ll
> > > equals that of Germans? =A0If so, your thinking is extremely
> > > simplistic. =A0Other 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."
> > > > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decade=
s,
> > > > 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. =A0If speed kills,
> > where's the carnage?
Well, Frank? Speaking of unattended points...
> > > =A0Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> > > differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> > > past three decades? =A0If 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. =A0The 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."
It is obviously clear ONE of us doesn't understand what "straw man"
means.
> > Logic, much?
>
> > E.P.
>
> Nice post, Ed! =A0Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> of "straw man" =A0(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. If you wish to
pretend medical science is responsible for that, you may go ahead and
prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.
Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
dodge, and in fact is a tried a true method of r.a.d. trolls - and
while that may be true, it still doesn't explain why when speeds and
VMT are increasing, fatalities decrease. Even from year to year, when
medical technology and automotive safety science change very little.
And even when a state has a 10 mph increase in interstate speed limit
from one year to the next.
"Speed Kills" is a lie. It has always been a lie. It's not supported
by data or logic.
Hey, when you're doing your data analysis, remember too that the roads
are also becoming more crowded, and thus the *opportunity* for
collision is increasing all at the same time fatalities are
decreasing.
How can that be, Frank?
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797061 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 21:25 |
|
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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797062 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 21:27 |
|
On Mar 4, 11:59=A0am, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797065 ] |
Tue, 04 March 2008 22:01 |
|
On Mar 4, 12:17=A0pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:34 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> >>I'm not asking the person to do 50! =A0I'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. =A0What makes you special, that
> > the world should bow to YOUR desires, and noboy elses' desires are
> > important?
>
> > Explain the contradiction, if you will. =A0I'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? =A0You 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.
> =A0Does 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797083 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 01:02 |
|
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), frkrygow [at] gmail.com 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797085 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 01:14 |
|
On Mar 4, 4:02=A0pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote, in
> part:
> \
>
> >Nice post, Ed! =A0Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> >of "straw man" =A0(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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797086 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 01:17 |
|
On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:27 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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 ski=
ll
> > > > 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 deca=
des,
> > > > > 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 na=EFvet=E9 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 woul=
d
> > > > 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...
=2E.. 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797088 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 01:38 |
|
On Mar 4, 4:17=A0pm, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 11:27 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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. =A0For a very good reason - the data don'=
t
> > > > > > support it.
>
> > > > > > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mil=
e are
> > > > > > lower. =A0Hmmm.
>
> > > > > Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between=
> > > > > German driving and American driving? =A0IOW, that American driving=
skill
> > > > > equals that of Germans? =A0If so, your thinking is extremely
> > > > > simplistic. =A0Other car fans have recently argued the opposite po=
int,
> > > > > very strongly.
>
> > > > Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.
>
> > False straw man? =A0OK, 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.
Ahh, so now you insinuate that I'm a liar. Not good enough to just
admit you are wrong...
> 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. =A0
Take one straw man and replace it with two more. Classic, Frank.
> > > > > > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three de=
cades,
> > > > > > 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. =A0If speed kill=
s,
> > > > where's the carnage?
>
> > Well, Frank? =A0Speaking of unattended points...
>
> As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> some fairly simple science.
I haven't seen any presented, except what was filtered through you.
You'll just have to accept that ANYTHING I see from you is suspect to
begin with.
> Again, it takes extreme na=EFvet=E9 or serious dishonesty to ignore all
> those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
> difference.
I guess that's as close as we'll get to a repudiation of the
simplistic old saw that "speed kills".
> > > > > > "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: =A0that I don't believe
> > in "kinetic energy."
>
> Once again, Ed - who knows?
Ah, again with the insinuation of lying. It's too bad that you are
such a disagreeable fellow, Frank.
> > 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.
Who said you claimed it was the only 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.
So, you make an assertion, and that's as good as proven? Sorry, Frank
- you'll have to do better. You just claiming something doesn't make
it so, and making an analogy to some "water is wet" proof also doesn't
prove anything.
> 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.
Yet another straw man. Who is saying it makes no difference?
> > 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?
Straw man.
>=A0I like seeing total irrationality in my
> debate opponents. =A0
It might help if you stop looking in a mirror, and concentrating on
avoiding logical fallacy.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797089 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 01:41 |
|
frkrygow [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mar 4, 11:27 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797090 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 01:47 |
|
On Mar 4, 4:41=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Mar 4, 11:27 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin... [at] msn.com> 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. =A0For a very good reason - the data don't
> >>>>>>support it.
>
> >>>>>>Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile ar=
e
> >>>>>>lower. =A0Hmmm.
>
> >>>>>Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> >>>>>German driving and American driving? =A0IOW, that American driving sk=
ill
> >>>>>equals that of Germans? =A0If so, your thinking is extremely
> >>>>>simplistic. =A0Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point=
,
> >>>>>very strongly.
>
> >>>>Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.
>
> >>False straw man? =A0OK, 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. =A0Since 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 decade=
s,
> >>>>>>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. =A0If speed kills,=
> >>>>where's the carnage?
>
> >>Well, Frank? =A0Speaking of unattended points...
>
> > As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> > some fairly simple science. =A0In this case, you seem unable to
> > understand that there are many variables at work. =A0That is, it's not
> > just speed vs. fatalities. =A0Other 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 na=EFvet=E9 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? =A0If nothing had changed at all but the inventio=
n
> >>>>>of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would=
> >>>>>still be trending down.
>
> >>>>Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. =A0The 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: =A0that I don't believe
> >>in "kinetic energy."
>
> > Once again, Ed - who knows? =A0Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
> > energy. =A0Perhaps you don't understand what it is. =A0Perhaps you don't=
> > understand its effects. =A0I can't tell. =A0All I can say for sure is, y=
ou
> > 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! =A0Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> >>>of "straw man" =A0(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. =A0The data, almost ALL of it,
> >>shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.
>
> > False. =A0Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>
> There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion. =A0Look 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.
> =A0 No anomalies or blips of any significance. =A0Don't believe me? =A0Loo=
k 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. =A0That 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. =A0I like seeing total irrationality in my
> > debate opponents. =A0It 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797094 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 03:12 |
|
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 4:02 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), frkry... [at] gmail.com 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
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797117 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 06:33 |
|
On Mar 4, 7:41 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry... [at] gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> >>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.
For counterexamples to disprove your "no reliable sources," here's
what Stephen Harding found and posted. I quote:
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
Surely you won't dispute the relation of high speed with more fatal
accidents when accidents occur? Physics alone should be persuasive
enough on that count.
I've gone through a bunch of web sites for studies of the effects of
speed limits on crashes (fatal or non-fatal) and I believe the results
vindicate my position.
However, it has been an education for me as well, as I have learned
that there certainly are cases that raising or lowering have effects
completely the opposite, or no effect, on crash rates. That I found
surprising.
Nonetheless, only a dumb as dirt ideologue would argue the evidence
for increased speed effecting accident rates was "BS" or without any
evidence, or mere propaganda output from MADD.
http://car-accidents-attorneys.blogspot.com/2008/02/car-acci dent-fata...
<quote>
Speed is another factor when dealing with crash fatalities. More
than
half of all fatal crashes occurred on roads with posted speed
limits
of over 55 mph. While only 20 percent of crashes that occurred on
these roads were "property-damage-only" crashes.
</quote>
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf
A large report by the Transportation Research Board:
<quote>
In 1987 Congress allowed states to raise
speed limits from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on qualifying
sections of rural Interstate highways. In the immediately
following
years, most states that raised limits observed increases on the
order of 4 mph (6 km/h) in average speeds and 85th percentile
speeds, and increases in speed dispersion of about 1 mph (2 km/
h).
These speed changes were generally associated with statistically
significant increases in fatalities and fatal crashes on the
affected highways--a plausible finding because of the strong link
between even modest increases in speed at higher speeds and
increased crash severity.
</quote>
They do go on to say there have been mixed results in some studies
of speed relationships to fatalities, due to overlooking of other
"system wide effects". Nonetheless, they claim a strong link between
speed and crash severity.
One such contrary result was in CA where 65mph speed limit was
credited for luring motorists to the faster, safer highways due to
increased speed limit rather than more dangerous side roads
(http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf).
An interesting result, but the tide seems to support the "speed
kills" argument in what I've been reading.
<quote>
Studies have been conducted following repeal of federal maximum
speed limits in 1995; many of them focused on Interstate
highways.
Most found results similar to the speed limit changes in 1987:
modest increases in average speeds and 85th percentile speeds
and,
in some cases, speed dispersion on highways on which speed limits
were raised. Although not consistent across all states, most
studies
indicated an increase in fatalities on highways on which speed
limits were raised. Most studies did not explore any possible
system
effects, and the results should be considered preliminary because
they are generally based on 1 year of data or less.
</quote>
Basic Newtonian physics alone should make it rather obvious that
increased speeds are going to increase the likelihood of serious
injury if a crash occurs.
Mentioned in this report are many other studies such as Treat, et al,
1977:
<quote>
The role of speeding as a crash cause was probably first analyzed
in
a detailed and comprehensive manner in Indiana University's Tri-
Level Study (Treat et al. 1977). Speed was defined as causal if
it
met two conditions: (a) it deviated from the "normal" or
"expected"
speed of the average driver for the site conditions, and (b) it
"caused" the crash, that is, the crash would not have occurred
had
the speed been as expected. On the basis of this definition, the
study estimated "excessive speed" to be a definite cause in 7 to
8
percent of the crashes and a probable cause in an additional 13
to
16 percent of the crashes.37 Speed was identified as the second
most
common factor contributing to crash occurrence, second only to
"improper lookout" (i.e., inattention) (Treat et al. 1977 in
Bowie
and Walz 1994, 32).
</quote>
<quote>
The clinical studies are unanimous in their finding that
"excessive
speed," that is, driving too fast for conditions, contributes to
a
significant share of all crashes and a higher share of severe
crashes. As the following section shows, the evidence for the
effect
of speed on crash severity is far more conclusive.
</quote>
This report is quite comprehensive and does seem to present a balanced
picture of the relationship of speed and crash effects. It's hardly
something put out by MADD propagandists!
<quote>
Despite different data files, different definitions of speeding
and
excessive speed, and different and often subjective techniques
for
making judgments about crash causation, the studies consistently
found that speeding or excessive speed contributes to a
relatively
small but significant percentage of all crashes and a higher
percentage of more severe crashes.
</quote>
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm
<quote>
Table 3. Summary of the effects of raising or lowering speed
limits.
Reference Country Change Results
Speed Limit DECREASES
Nilsson (1990) Sweden 68 mi/h to 56 mi/h
Speeds declined by 14 km/h Fatal crashes declined by 21%
Engel (1990) Denmark 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
Fatal crashes declined by 24%. Injury crashes declined by 9%
Peltola (1991) UK 62 mi/h to 50 mi/h
Speeds declined by 4 km/h. Crashes declined by 14%
Sliogeris (1992) Australia 68 mi/h to 62 mi/h
Injury crashes declined by 19%
Finch et al. (1994) Switzerland 81 mi/h to 75 mi/h
Speeds declined by 5 km/h. Fatal crashes declined by 12%.
Scharping (1994) Germany 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
Crashes declined by 20%
Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia 3-12 mi/h decreases
No significant change (4% increase relative to sites not
changed)
Parker (1997) USA 22 states 5-20 mi/h decreases
No significant changes
Speed Limit INCREASES
NHTSA (1989) USA 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 21%
McKnight, Kleinand Tippetts (1990), US 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 22%; Speeding increased by 48%
Garber and Graham (1990) USA (40 States) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatalities increased by 15%; Decrease or no effect in 12 States
Streff and Schultz (1991) USA (Michigan) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal and injury crashes increased significantly on rural
freeways
Pant, Adhami and Niehaus (1992) USA (Ohio) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Injury and property damage crashes increased but not fatal
crashes
Sliogeris (1992) Australia 62 mi/h to 68 mi/h
Injury crashes increased by 25%
Lave and Elias (1994) USA (40 states) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5%; (Significant in 14 of
40 States)
Iowa Safety Task Force (1996) USA (Iowa) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 36%
Parker (1992) USA(Michigan) Various
No significant changes
Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia(Victoria) 3-12 mi/h
increases)
Crashes increased overall by 8%; 35% decline in zones raised
from
60-80
Parker (1997) USA22 states 5-15 mi/h
No significant changes
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------
You'll note that he was honest enough to say that some studies
indicated otherwise, but that the bulk of studies show positive
correlation between speed and fatality rates.
That's quite a bit different from your claim that there are "no
reliable studies." Is it possible that a study's reliability depends
on whether you like its outcome?
I'll note that the general run of argument from the driving fans has
been: Speed has no bearing on safety - because we want to drive
faster. Speed limits are set too low - because we want to drive
faster. There are too many stop signs - because we want to drive
faster. Speed humps should not be used in residential neighborhoods -
because we want to drive faster. We'll refuse to shop in your area -
because we want to drive faster.
If, at any time, one of you were to say "Well, here's an instance
where drivers should be made to drive slower," it would indicate a
_little_ less bias. But in the several years we've had these repeated
discussions, that's never happened.
Slow down, boys. You're just making yourself agitated by always
trying to go faster, and you're not accomplishing anything productive
with the time you save, if any.
- Frank Krygowski
|
|
|
| Re: Saw an intelligent bicyclist today [message #797121 ] |
Wed, 05 March 2008 07:02 |
|
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:51:47 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
<gcmschemist [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 7:19 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk... [at] operamail.com> 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
|
|
|
|
