🚀 go-pugleaf

eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson) wrote:

>>The ratio of the actual recorded rate (as in a test)

>The rate of what?  

Never mind.  It's obviously beyond you.

>No, but you're dealing with someone with a solid grounding in basic (and even
>some quantum) physics, and I recognize that this is something you're missing.
>Pretty odd considering your claim to "expertise" in this area.

In 1992 I wrote a computer program for accident investigators and the
last update was last year.  Seems odd I could write something like
that and have it reviewed in a national police magazine if I didn't
have at least some understanding of the subject.  Perhaps I should
have consulted you first?  We could have marketed it as a game. :=]

>I've visited their excellent site.  I'd vastly prefer to be driving with the
>clientele of their site than the clientele of yours. 

Naturally.

> From what I've seen their
>data is from external sources and any interpretations are no more biased than
>those on your site.

Naturally.

>You'll not find me arguing that seatbelts are a bad thing or that it doesn't
>make sense that death rates would go down from wearing them.  But they'll have
>no impact whatsoever on accident rates,

Naturally.  I don't recall anyone saying they did.  All they do is
improve the odds of survival in a crash.

>and I think that's what we need to
>focus on in the speed debate.  Nobody here is arguing that going faster will
>not result in more damage in the event of an accident, or that seatbelts will
>not prevent some injuries.  We're arguing whether or not speed in and of itself
>is primarily *responsible* for a significant number of accidents (as opposed to
>fatalities).

Speeding does cause crashes.  That the speeding crowd doesn't
acknowledge that is not surprising however thankfully the courts of
this land aren't blinded by that kind of bias and routinely render
fair verdicts in these cases.

>>>No, I want to drive at a fast, safe, and reasonable speed (which is entirely
>>>possible) without being unreasonably penalized for doing so.

>>Same thing.

>Not at all.

Sure it is.  Maybe you soothed your conscience with the semantics but
it is still very much the same thing. 

Someone says hi:

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/victim.jpg