🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:

>Dennis.Jensen@dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>Okay Earl, I have downloaded it, and I definitely do not have to eat crow,
>
>You apparently missed page 7.  Keep reading.
>
>But as I pointed out in the email copy you also sent (a nasty habit,
>how about toggling that feature off) if in your mind the report
>provides no fodder for the speed kills crowd it simultaneously
>deflates the raising-speed-limits-reduces-fatalities crowd's argument.

The actual number of fatalities is irrelevant.  What is relevant is
the fatality *rate*.  With an increase in fatalities of 9% on
interstates, if the VMT went up by more than 9% then it's a safety
improvement.  We won't know for sure until the info is made available
to us.

>Early data is in for 1997 and it shows an increase in fatalities on
>the interstate system where, not so coincidentally, speed limits have
>also increased.   Just more stuff for some to try and explain away as
>nonsense while their own date (from the same sources no less) supports
>their views.  No wonder the speed crowd has no audience in the
>legislator.  As heavy footed as many legislators are, they still know
>a phoney when they hear it.

Why do you think the NMSL is dead?

>The URL for that last document is:
>
>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/prelim.pdf
>
>if you're interested.  It's only 4 pages.
>
All estimates.  There is no point in discussing it or using it as
"proof" of anything until hard numbers are available.  They estimated
a 2% increase in VMT, based on that estimate, since the actual number
of death increased by less than 1% it was a safety increase.  Or is
that too difficult for you to follow?
-- 
Brandon

"Spooooooooooonnnnn!"