🚀 go-pugleaf

Rahul Dhesi wrote:
> 
> But I provided you with a simple exepriment to verify that a higher rate
> of lane changes will result in more accidents.

Rahul, I have to admit that I didn't understand your thought
experiment.  When you said, "
Each month make lange changes at a faster rate then you did the previous
month," did you mean to change lanes more quickly, or to change lanes
more frequently?  In either case, your argument is not supportable, but
for different reasons.

I'll deal with "more frequently" first.  The problem with the assertion
that more frequent lane changes, during the experiment, will result in
more accidents is that it assumes a relationship between lane changes
and accidents--the very thing that the thought experiment is supposed to
"prove."  So the argument is circular.  One has to assume that there is
a relationship between lane changes and accidents in order to conclude,
from the thought experiement, that there is a relationship between lane
changes and accidents.  It's not a convincing argument for someone, like
me, who doesn't believe that there is such a relationship.

I don't think that you meant "change lanes more quicky.  But, in case
you did, I'll discuss that, too.  The problem with this, as a proof of a
causal relationship between lane changes and accidents, is that it
requires a change in the meaning of "lane change."  It's a semantic
problem.  Changing lanes quickly isn't the same thing as changing
lanes.  Presumably, at some point, a person is changing lanes so quickly
that it's not longer possible to ensure an adequate level of situational
awareness and vehicle control.  So the risk would go up.  But what's
really happened here is that we've changed the meaning of "lane
change."  So the experiment doesn't support the model, because "lane
change," as it was originally meant, has become "too fast a lane
change," which is a different thing.  We've added apples and oranges, so
to speak.

Tedd
Tedd