🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:

>grimrod@mindless.moc (Brandon Sommerville) wrote:
>
>>When have I ever claimed that fatalities stood on their own?
>
>Knock knock.  Anyone home?

Not at your place, apparently.  The raw number of fatalities is
meaningless for determining safety.  If road A has 10 people die a
year, is it more dangerous than road B if only 5 people die a year?
Looking at it like this, the answer is a glaring yes.  But what if
road A supports 10 times the traffic flow of B?  Suddenly B is 5 times
as dangerous...

>>I never said it supported my views.  I said it proves nothing.
>
>It destroys your views.

A report which warns you at the beginning that it is inconclusive is
incapable of destroying anything.

>>As such it doesn't support your position that lower speed limits save
>>lives.  It doesn't destroy your position, I just find it remarkably
>>humourous that you are using a report that warns you it is
>>inconclusive to prove that speed kills.
>
>Tch tch.  Brandon didn't read very far.  

Brandon read the report.  His favourite part was the warnings about
how the data really meant nothing without the VMT information, which
could change everything.

>>Speaking of shooting oneself in the foot, who is the one touting a
>>report that warns you it proves nothing as proof that higher speed
>>limits are dangerous?
>
>Hey pal.  I support my case in front of the courts on a routine basis.
>How about you?  

And this has what to do with the price of rice in China?  Dr. Martinez
regularly defends his views to congress, as did Joan Claybrook.  That
doesn't make them right, nor does it make you right.  Do you analyze
traffic flow or just accidents?

>>>Now read a little further... try page 7.
>
>>Actually, the page you want is 8 (pretty sad when I have to hold up
>>your side too, Earl).
>
>Hey moron.  I wrote 7 and I meant 7.

My, my, I am truly offended by the rapier wit.  Looking at page 7, we
find this quote:
"Contrasting the changes in the distribution of fatalities, injuries,
and fatal and injury crashes on Interstate and non-Interstate roadways
shows a different picture, and may point to the possible impact of
increased speed limits on the nation�s highways."

Very dramatic, but if you'll not the use of "*may* point to the
*possible* impact".  It might point to something that might be true.
By using such vague language, it allows them to make claims that are
completely unsupported, but apparently are strong enough for you.  Try
using that language in court and see how strong your case is.

>Here's another reference.  Don't let it overwhelm you.
>
>http://www.hwysafety.org/qanda/qasl.htm#anchor844870

Ahh, yes, the Insurance Institute for Higher Surcharges.  They have no
possible motive for keeping speed limits low, do they?
-- 
Brandon

"Spooooooooooonnnnn!"