🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BODARKY.92Jul16104423@twiz.cme.nist.gov>, bodarky@cme.nist.gov (Scott Bodarky) writes:
|> karl@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl A. Anderson) writes:
|> > The last time this issue came up in this group, I asked the  
|> > proponents of higher speed limits for references to support  
|> > their claims that, for example, cars are more fuel efficient  
|> > at 65 mph than at 55 mph, or that highway accident rates are 
|> > not a function of speed.  By references, I mean results of 
|> > well-designed, controlled studies reported in reputable
|> > publications (I'd even accept _Time_ magazine).
|> 
|> Correct me if I am mistaken, but you are the guy who applauded speed
|> limits while admitting that you had received speeding tickets for
|> exceeding it yourself, yes?  Why should anyone be obligated to respond
|> to you?  Because you have issued a decree that only certain evidence
|> is admissible?  I haven't seen any hard facts from your side of the
|> debate either (although which side you're on isn't clear, as you seem
|> to be burning your candle from both ends).
|> 

You're not mistaken.  The arguments in favor of the current speed limit
make intuitive sense to me, even if I'm occasionally guilty of
speeding. For example, accident rates should increase with speed,
because as speed increases a car's stopping distance increases while
the driver's reaction time does not; and, the sum of friction forces on
the car increase with speed, so more gas should have to be burned to
move the same distance at higher speeds.  In scientific parlance, the
null hypothesis (the one we accept unless it is shown otherwise) favors
lower speed limits.  Accordingly, I paid my one ticket without
complaint, and I'll continue to oppose higher speed limits.

No one's obligated to respond to my request for evidence.  Why should I
accept your arguments that speed limits should be raised?  If you want me
to lobby my state legislator, vote or otherwise support getting the law
changed, you'll need to convince me.  If you can show me that the
arguments in favor of raising speed limits have met reasonably rigorous
tests, I'm willing to be convinced.

|> I keep a log; every time I get gas I record my car's mileage, the
|> amount of gas, where I got it, octane, and other data.  My logs record
|> every smidgeon of a gallon of gas I've ever put in my car.  Based on
|> the routes I travel, I can determine what speeds favor better gas
|> mileage for my car.  I suspect that many of the folks claiming that
|> their cars get better gas mileage at 65 say so because they pay
|> attention.  Each car is different, of course, and speeds of maximal
|> gas efficiency are more a result of design than happenstance.
|> 
|> ...[stuff deleted]...
|>
|> -Scott (bodarky@cme.nist.gov)

I'm afraid your own logs won't do it, Scott.  There are too many
possible sources of error.  You say people claiming their cars get
better gas mileage at 65 say so because they pay attention.  I suspect
at least some of them are thinking wishfully, because they like getting
where they're going sooner, and want to do it legally.  Science is the
only way to control for this and other kinds of error.

-- 
Karl A. Anderson		| Internet: karl@thuja.gsfc.nasa.gov
NASA/GSFC code 920.2 (HSTX)	| voice: (301) 286-3815
Greenbelt, MD 20771		| #include "std_disclaimer"