🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:36:25 GMT, ricktbbn@earthlink.net (JoJo Jo)
wrote (and I don't know why...):

I'm sorry but I just have to comment.

If you look at page 46 and page 93 of the study you will see that the
tests have a statistical modeling algorithm that clearly justifies the
correlation between speed and accidents causing deaths. The graphs
have been verified by independent agencies including the automotive
companies and semiconductor companies.

I know that each of you will stop writing replies with various
opinions after you read pages 46 and 93.

Thank You.

Signed,

Drive Safe (and slow if you want to live longer...perhaps, unless fate
gets you first)



On Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:36:52 -0500, John Miles
<jmiles@pop.removethistomailme.net> wrote:

>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
>------------------------------------------------------


Signed,
Erica Phillips
ricktbbn@earthlink.net
(23,F,S)