🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:
> 
> jclemens@big.aa.net (Jonathan Clemens) wrote:
> 
> >* The document makes no reference to numbers of miles travelled in
> >each year.
> 
> That was the first thing I noticed too, probably because it was right
> there at the beginning of the body on page 4.  This allows speculation
> as to how much impact other factors may have had on the numbers.
> 
> >Any analysis cannot assume that that remains constant,
> >yet this report you cite does virutally that--it acknowledges the
> >data as unavailable, but then assumes it remains constant.
> 
> A trend is not a constant.  I think that's pointed out in the same
> paragraph.
> 
> >I'd certainly laugh at any attempt to foist this document off as proof
> >positive that speed kills.
> 
> Who is?  The document suggests the historical trends in higher speed
> limits and traffic deaths continues... nothing I read offers proof.
> On the contrary, what this document does is destroy the argument used
> by some that higher speed limits alone reduce fatalities.
> 

It does no such thing, Earl.  Why can you not understand that this
document is nothing but a waste of tax dollars, if its results are not
corrected against vehicle-miles travelled in the specific areas that
seem to "prove" your conjecture?  That document, as written, can't be
used to prove ANYTHING.

Sure, the number of fatalities went up x% in some parts of the country. 
But if overall traffic mileage in the affected areas increased by x+1%,
that means the roads are SAFER than they were before.  The odds of
accident involvement for any given motorist travelling any given
distance on an affected roadway will have DECREASED, in such a
hypothetical case.  

Now that doesn't mean that such a highway didn't experience its share of
gory crashes, with the consequences of said crashes exacerbated by
higher traffic speeds in accordance with the laws of physics.  It
doesn't mean that you can't scare your kids at bedtime with gruesome
"Faces of Death"-style anecdotes recounting the consequences of the
high-speed car crashes that occur on that road.  In other words, it
doesn't mean that your job security as an accident investigator is
threatened in the slightest.  All it would mean is that, for whatever
reason, Joe Driver is safer on that road than he was the last time a
similar study was conducted.

The trouble is, this particular study lacks the information needed to
draw either conclusion.

Can you understand that?  Or did they teach you in grade school to
compare fractions by the magnitude of their numerators?

> How about an individual who has investigated thousands of crashes and
> has direct access to data on thousands more crashes?  If that
> individual believes excessive speed is a factor would that opinion not
> carry some weight?

If by "excessive speed," you mean "driving in a manner inappropriate for
the conditions," sure.  Agreed 100%, no argument here.

But if by "excessive speed," you mean "driving in excess of posted
limits," then no, your anecdotal arguments don't carry any weight at
all.  

Think about it, Earl.  If X% of drivers in a given area are found to be
exceeding the posted limit at any given time, while Y% of drivers
involved in traffic accidents in the same area were found to be
exceeding the limit at the time of their crashes, your proposition is in
BIG trouble if Y is found to be less than X in enough cases.  Care to
trot out some numbers on that one?

-- jm

------------------------------------------------------
Note: My E-mail address has been altered to avoid spam
------------------------------------------------------