Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:01 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > > > Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
> > > > (Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)
>
> > > That's right, I don't. For a very good reason - the data don't
> > > support it.
>
> > > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> > > lower. Hmmm.
>
> > Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> > German driving and American driving? IOW, that American driving skill
> > equals that of Germans? If so, your thinking is extremely
> > simplistic. Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> > very strongly.
>
> Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.
>
> > > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
> > > yet fatality statistics are trending down
>
> > I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
> > assertion.
>
> Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. If speed kills,
> where's the carnage?
>
> > Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> > differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> > past three decades? If nothing had changed at all but the invention
> > of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
> > still be trending down.
>
> Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. The old saw of "speed kils" is
> just not true.
>
> > > "Speed kills" is a lie.
>
> > And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?
>
> Nice straw man.
>
> Logic, much?
>
> E.P.

Nice post, Ed! Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
of "straw man" (you must not know the definition of that term!), no
real response to any of the points I made, and trimming and ignoring
the data presented in a citation.

The final "logic much?" was unintended irony at its best!

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 4, 2:21*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:45 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> >>On the Pike, they're parking themselves in the left lane and moving
> >>as fast as they can appears to be de rigeur.
>
> >>But then, MA drivers as a group are not exactly noted for good driving
> >>technique.
>
> > On this we agree. *Unfortunately, based on your posts here, I have a
> > feeling you're part of the group causing that stereotype.
>
> Of course you do.
>
> I'm keeping you from your desired speed because I
> won't get out of your way fast enough.
>
> SMH

Actually, you drive faster than I do on unobstructed MA highways. I
do, however, believe you're keeping others from their desired speed in
a MFFY fashion. We've both posted our highway travel speeds in this
thread, and yours are higher. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, mind you, and you certainly won't be held up by *me* in the
passing lane.

If you ever do manage to hold me up, it'll be if you're part of the
mass exodus to NH that happens every Friday, or the return mess on
Sundays. In that case I'll be expecting the highways to be full of
the inconsiderate types mentioned here, and I'll be taking back roads
home. I prefer not to sit stopped in traffic with my EZ Pass in hand,
within sight of 3 empty EZ pass lanes and unable to get to them. The
reason I can't get to them is because of all the idiots trying to cut
across multiple lanes of traffic to a faster (rarely is faster) line,
effectively blocking all the EZ pass lanes. The people who are
willing to block those lanes to try to cut into a different cash line
instead of staying in the lane they were in when the traffic stopped
are probably the same people who drove there in the left lane on
cruise control at whatever speed they felt was as fast as anyone
should be going. Heck, average speed during these weekend migrations
is usually well below the SL due to sheer volume alone anyway.

On Mar 4, 1:04*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 10:28 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >>But I drive a mixed agenda. *I drive 138 miles each way most weekends
> >>during the summer in my 16 mpg Dodge half ton, V-8, 4WD pickup truck
> >>mostly on I-90, I-195 and Rt 146 (RI/MA). *These are all divided
> >>highways. *I try to save a little gas, which I can do at under 65 mph,
> >>but I also want to get to where I'm going or home again. *Sometimes I
> >>might drive close to 75mph and just accept the 15mpg penalty.
>
> > 15MPG penalty for a 10-15MPH speed differential? *No way. *Perhaps
> > what you mean is you get 15MPG @ 75MPH, and are able to squeeze
> > 18-20MPG if you drive 60ish. *That's a 3-5MPG penalty, not a 15MPG
> > penalty. *Again, your knowledge is showing.
>
> I meant 15mpg at 75 and 16 at 60. *Actually a range of about a 2 mpg
> penalty.
>
> I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!
>
> SMH- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Drive 45 with your tailgate down.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
> higher speed limits, fatalities went down.
>
> How incredibly strange.
>
> "Speed kills" is a lie.

Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars. We
know this because the accident rates have NOT gone down. They
went up after 1992 when the 55 mph national speed limit was totally
abandoned (1987 was limited release from the 55 speed law) and
continue to rise.

So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).

See
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhts.../TSF2006FE.pdf
Figure 1.

So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.

Speed merely increases the likelihood of an accident while the
safety features of your car keep you out of the fatality column.

Given the correlation between accident rates and severity of
accidents with speed, we would expect even lower fatalities if
speeds were reduced to some point that isn't too much lower than
the mean speed of what people will actually drive, since we know
accident rates will climb again at too low a speed limit.


SMH

In article <7s2zj.2416$VS2.1076@trndny05>,
Stephen Harding > wrote:
>Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> On Mar 3, 11:48 am, (Matthew T. Russotto)
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Wrong again. More than half were drivers in single vehicle crashes.
>>
>> Hey - Frank never lets *facts* get in the way of a good rant. Unless
>> he can use them to try and obfuscate the issue.
>
>Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
>(Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)
>
>According to NHTSA 2006 statistics
>(http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhts...PDF/810837.pdf
>page 32; updated Jan 2008) about 57% of accidents are single car accidents.
>
>However, just because a crash is single vehicle doesn't mean only the
>driver goes to motorist heaven (we'll presume he's already living
>in driver Hell dealing with scofflaw bicyclists and drivers who don't
>respect flashing headlights astern).
>
>There's a concept called "the passenger".

In 2006, there were 38,588 fatal motor vehicle crashes in the United
States, killing a total of 42,642 people. Of those, 22,627 were
drivers in single-vehicle collisions.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:34 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>>I'm not asking the person to do 50! I'm only asking for the
>>period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
>>back off on his desired speed.
>
> But you shouldn't have to change yours. What makes you special, that
> the world should bow to YOUR desires, and noboy elses' desires are
> important?
>
> Explain the contradiction, if you will. I'd love to hear your
> rationale.

I guess I'd have to flip your question around and say if you
expect no one to hinder your speed plans at all, you must never
cause anyone to slow or speed from their travel speed intentions
or you would be a hypocrite yourself, no?

So you never end up with a person behind you wanting to go
faster as you're passing someone? You are so skilled a driver
that the predicament never arises?

Then I don't believe you are of this driving world. You drive
idealic roadways with nice open spaces between cars and open
left lanes where everyone has dutifully swung right again after
the pass in perfect time for the car behind to pass without even
a feather touch of force lessened on the accelerator.

This sounds more like a military formation than a typical
heavily used public highway.

How about on the on-ramp with someone wanting to go faster?
Do you accelerate so as not to cause him any inconvenience
being stuck behind you until in lane on the highway? How
about the off ramps? Accelerate into it because someone behind
you might have to slow and that might be inconvenient?

On and off ramps are part of highway driving realities as much
as passing. Does your "thou shalt not hinder" driving paradigm
apply to those sections or is it only for passing situations?


SMH

On Mar 4, 11:27*am, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 9:01 am, wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > > > > Says a person who doesn't believe in "speed kills" statistics?
> > > > > (Or am I confusing you with a myriad of others?)
>
> > > > That's right, I don't. *For a very good reason - the data don't
> > > > support it.
>
> > > > Speeds are higher on the German Autobahn, yet fatalities per mile are
> > > > lower. *Hmmm.
>
> > > Are you a person who pretends there is no other difference between
> > > German driving and American driving? *IOW, that American driving skill
> > > equals that of Germans? *If so, your thinking is extremely
> > > simplistic. *Other car fans have recently argued the opposite point,
> > > very strongly.
>
> > Your position is weak if it relies on a straw man.

False straw man? OK, Frank - here's the false assigned position:
That I "pretend[] there is no other difference between German driving
and American driving."

> > > > Speeds have been going up on U.S. highways for the past three decades,
> > > > yet fatality statistics are trending down
>
> > > I think Stephen's data was much more complete than your simple
> > > assertion.
>
> > Faltalities for VMT are down, even as speeds go up. *If speed kills,
> > where's the carnage?

Well, Frank? Speaking of unattended points...

> > > *Furthermore, have you accounted for the environmental
> > > differences caused by improved medical skills and techniques in the
> > > past three decades? *If nothing had changed at all but the invention
> > > of CAT scans - for just _one_ example - the fatality statistics would
> > > still be trending down.
>
> > Nothing happens in a vacuum, Frank. *The old saw of "speed kils" is
> > just not true.
>
> > > > "Speed kills" is a lie.
>
> > > And so is the concept of kinetic energy, I suppose?
>
> > Nice straw man.

And again, here's the false position assigned: that I don't believe
in "kinetic energy."

It is obviously clear ONE of us doesn't understand what "straw man"
means.

> > Logic, much?
>
> > E.P.
>
> Nice post, Ed! *Several unsupported assertions, a couple false calls
> of "straw man" *(you must not know the definition of that term!), no
> real response to any of the points I made...

Your post calls for no real addressing. The data, almost ALL of it,
shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down. If you wish to
pretend medical science is responsible for that, you may go ahead and
prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.

Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
dodge, and in fact is a tried a true method of r.a.d. trolls - and
while that may be true, it still doesn't explain why when speeds and
VMT are increasing, fatalities decrease. Even from year to year, when
medical technology and automotive safety science change very little.
And even when a state has a 10 mph increase in interstate speed limit
from one year to the next.

"Speed Kills" is a lie. It has always been a lie. It's not supported
by data or logic.

Hey, when you're doing your data analysis, remember too that the roads
are also becoming more crowded, and thus the *opportunity* for
collision is increasing all at the same time fatalities are
decreasing.

How can that be, Frank?

E.P.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> "Speed kills" is a lie.

BTW, my previous post concerning this was directed only at
explanations of the NHTSA *national* average over the years
recorded.

I've presented plenty of state and international studies that
show actual fatality rates decreased or increased in response
to changes in speed limit. That stuff wasn't MADD propaganda.

The speed kills relationship is just somewhat masked by longer
term data due to changes in car safety features and possibly
other factors. These effects wouldn't be significant in the
shorter term surveys and case studies I listed.

"Speed kills" is still a reality, just a bit more masked in the
longer term, national average, statistics.


SMH

On Mar 4, 11:59*am, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > In almost all cases, when the 55 NMSL was repealed and the states set
> > higher speed limits, fatalities went down.
>
> > How incredibly strange.
>
> > "Speed kills" is a lie.
>
> Fatality rates have indeed declined due to better cars.

And better medical care.

> So we have two processes working against one another: more cars on
> the road making for more possibility of accidents; and safer cars
> keeping fatalities down (and thus decreased fatality rates).
>
> So I guess "speed kills" is more an indirect relation.

In reality, it's "collisions kill". And when you mine the data, what
happens is that impaired driving is the biggest single factor.
Whether through alcohol or sleepiness or some other impairment, the
stats look a LOT different when you view them through that lens.

> Speed merely increases the likelihood of an accident while the
> safety features of your car keep you out of the fatality column.

No. Speed, in and of itself, has NO EFFECT on collision likelihood.

Velocity only has an effect on the amount of energy that needs to be
dissipated after a collision occurs.

The traffic data that has been presented an infinite number of times
in r.a.d. shows that collision likelihood is least when one travels at
approx. the 85th percentile of free-flowing traffic.

> Given the correlation between accident rates and severity of
> accidents with speed, we would expect even lower fatalities if
> speeds were reduced to some point that isn't too much lower than
> the mean speed of what people will actually drive, since we know
> accident rates will climb again at too low a speed limit.

That is exactly correct, as predicted by numerous traffic studies.

Speed, in and of itself, never has been the traffic problem.
Impairment is the big killer.

E.P.

On Mar 4, 12:17*pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
> Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:34 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> >>I'm not asking the person to do 50! *I'm only asking for the
> >>period of time it take me to complete my pass that the car
> >>back off on his desired speed.
>
> > But you shouldn't have to change yours. *What makes you special, that
> > the world should bow to YOUR desires, and noboy elses' desires are
> > important?
>
> > Explain the contradiction, if you will. *I'd love to hear your
> > rationale.
>
> I guess I'd have to flip your question around and say if you
> expect no one to hinder your speed plans at all, you must never
> cause anyone to slow or speed from their travel speed intentions
> or you would be a hypocrite yourself, no?

This is a fantastic straw man construction that is also a fine red
herring.

But I'll answer this part, above...

I do my best not to have conflicts with other motorists. For those
going slower than my desired speed, I pass. For those going faster
than my desired speed, I let them pass.

If I am passing, I do my best to be done with it ASAP, and attempt to
do it in a manner that affects the fewest other drivers possible.

having done this in Seattle, Portland and San Diego for quite a few
years, let's just say I have avoided merely hanging out in auto-
utopia.

I am sure that I have inconvenienced some drivers somewhere. And I
know for a fact plenty of oblivious or malicious drivers have
inconvenienced me. But I do not affect other drivers on purpose, nor
do have an expectation that they should make way for me, no matter
what the situation. I do expect some courtesy, but I am routinely
disappointed in that regard.

> So you never end up with a person behind you wanting to go
> faster as you're passing someone? *You are so skilled a driver
> that the predicament never arises?

I can't remember the last time that happened. I do remember a time
when I was in the carpool lane, going just as fast as the person in
front of me (x inifinity to the horizon), and much faster than the
traffic to my right. A person came up behind and wanted me to go
faster or pull over. I had nowhere to go without actually stopping in
the lane or running into the car ahead. Was I an asshole or hypocrite
in that situation? Maybe.

Still, when I am passing, I do it in a way that makes sure that nobody
from behind has to slow down. It's called "paying attention."

[straw man snipped]


> How about on the on-ramp with someone wanting to go faster?

LOL. I have never had that happen. I ccan see how it would happen to
some folks - they don't know it's to there to accelerate to freeway
speeds...

Never had a single problem at on-ramps or off-ramps. Crowded,
uncrowded, nothing.

> *Does your "thou shalt not hinder" driving paradigm
> apply to those sections or is it only for passing situations?

It applies to ALL driving. If you are unwilling to have the courtesy
to stay out of the way of other drivers, then please don't drive. I
have NEVER ONCE had this problem of a left-laner "suddenly appearing",
then tailgating and flashing brights, nor have I ever done such a
thing. And driving in Seattle, particularly, would have given ample
opportunity for such things to happen.

E.P.