A New Category of Sloth

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
> > I've probably taken more math classes than most of the readers of this
> > newsgroup. Not bragging, just a fact. I will admit that I started
> > getting a little lost somewhere around 3D calculus and differential
> > equations, however.
> >
> > In any case, it's all irrelevant... 1 out of a trillion is not exactly
> > 0%, but 1x10^-12 or 1x10^-10%. Of course that would probably be
> > *reported* as 0%, but it's not 0%. And really, if one person out of a
> > trillion is obeying the speed limit, will anyone *notice?* well, the
> > people in the immediate vicinity of that driver will notice, but
> > overall, the statement "nobody obeys the speed limit" would still be a
> > reasonably accurate approximation of actual field conditions.
> > -----
> Who didn't start to get lost somewhere *before* differential
> equations...? Well, my ex son-in-law the ****in' doctor, for one.
> And, of course your math is correct (I assume) and I know mine is wrong
> (obviously).
>
> But in this instance were speaking of the physically indivisable and
> with the total number of vehicles (and the distance of data collection)
> omitted from Arif's stats we're shooting in the dark. Plus, like most
> government statistics they're deliberately designed to confuse rather
> than enlighten. [That's why for example, if I'm drunk and passed out
> prone in my yard and a stone-sober you runs over me it's counted as an
> "alcohol related" incident!]
>
> Additionally, his stats state: "0% are going - > below < - (the limit
> of) 50 mph". To assume none were traveling *at* the limit would be an
> error IMO and hence he has not shown that 100% of vehicles were
> traveling *above* the limit. I would concede that anything at or above
> 0.5% would equal 1%... but notice how the stats aren't even divided
> into tenths? I would project that in a study such as this that speeds
> of 45.5 mph could have been rounded to 50 mph. We'll never know.
>
> Of course my initial statement that "everyone is NOT speeding, at
> *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the country" could also be proved false
> by one vehicle speeding down a short residential street. I hate it
> when I speak in absolutes.

I guess the basic point was that I would assume (there I go again) that
the stats were collected from a decent number of vehicles - enough that
there ought to be enough precision that one person following the speed
limit in a hundred, say, would have shown up as 1% not 0%. Even one in
a hundred is rare enough that were that the case you could still say
that effectively nobody follows the speed limit.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> The NHTSA is an organization with little to no credibility, only
> slightly better than the IIHS.
>

>
> nate
>
>
I've heard you say this before. How are their numbers faulty? Can you point
to an alternative information gathering organization for stats on traffic
safety?

Doug

DYM wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
> >
> > The NHTSA is an organization with little to no credibility, only
> > slightly better than the IIHS.
> >
>
> >
> > nate
> >
> >
> I've heard you say this before. How are their numbers faulty? Can you point
> to an alternative information gathering organization for stats on traffic
> safety?
>
> Doug

In a nutshell, the way they determine whether or not an incident was
"speed related" or not is faulty. It's a systemic problem that is not
easy to solve; but it's common for the NHTSA to suppress studies/data
that don't support the Claybrookian "speed kills" agenda. Basically
what happens is in any wreck if one or more of the parties was involved
was exceeding the speed limit, the incident is classified as "speed
related" even if the root cause of the incident was something
completely unrelated such as running a red light, changing lanes into
another vehicle, not watching the road while trying to pick up a
dropped cigarette, etc. etc. etc. This is not solely the fault of
NHTSA; it goes down to the level of the individual police officer
writing up the report. However, there doesn't seem to be a significant
amount of concern given to discriminating between incidents where
excessive speed was a contributing factor and where one or more drivers
were simply exceeding the number posted on a sign (and indeed may have
only been traveling at or below the average speed of traffic.) Most of
their official press releases downplay other factors in favor of the
"slow = safe" theory, and also attempt to use increasing number of
fatalities as a scare tactic even when fatalities per VMT are
continuing their steady downward trend.

I don't know off the top of my head of any better source of
data/statistics, and unfortunately I don't get paid to sit here and
search for them, but maybe if I have some free time this weekend I'll
have a poke around the web. However, if you would accept data from a
foreign source, I have a lot of respect for the way Germans handle
automotive matters, and German statistics might present a more unbiased
picture of the issues that actually contribute to highway crashes.
(however, it's entirely possible that the data might not 100% reflect
American driving conditions, as German drivers are reputedly much more
skilled and better behaved than American ones.)

The NMA (National Motorists Association) is a good source of
information from "the other side" however while their data and
viewpoints are considerably more rational and reasonable than NHTSA's
it is difficult to consider them an unbiased source as well. Sort of
like flipping back and forth between Fox News and NPR - the same
information can be reported in a way that draws the reader towards two
entirely different conclusions. I imagine the real truth lies
somewhere in between, although to be honest, I'm likely to give the NMA
more weight as they don't have to worry about political pressure from
the big-money insurance industry lobbyists.

nate

N8N wrote:
> DYM wrote:
> > I've heard you say this before. How are their numbers faulty? Can you point
> > to an alternative information gathering organization for stats on traffic
> > safety?
>
> In a nutshell, the way they determine whether or not an incident was
> "speed related" or not is faulty. It's a systemic problem that is not
> easy to solve; but it's common for the NHTSA to suppress studies/data
> that don't support the Claybrookian "speed kills" agenda. Basically
> what happens is in any wreck if one or more of the parties was involved
> was exceeding the speed limit, the incident is classified as "speed
> related" even if the root cause of the incident was something
> completely unrelated such as running a red light, changing lanes into
> another vehicle, not watching the road while trying to pick up a
> dropped cigarette, etc. etc. etc.

Duh. All crashes are "speed related" as no vehicle with a speed of
zero collides with anything. You meant "speed-ing" related, but you're
equally as wrong in that instance as well.

Any driver who was speeding at any time during their travel has no
right to occupy the particular space they happen to be in afterward,
because they do so illegally. Had they observed the legal limit they
wouldn't be "there", on that position on the planet when a crash with
them might occur.

Consequently and most logically, many crashes have speeding as a
"cause".

This is often the argument in a sober driver's "at fault" collision
with a drunk driver. The drunk has no right to be in control of any
vehicle so should not occupy any space on any road. If the sober
driver crosses the centerline and collides with the drunk, they are
faultless.
-----

- gpsman

In article .com>,
gpsman > wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>> gpsman wrote:
>> > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>> >
>
>> Well... since speed limits are supposedly enacted for the safety of and
>> with the consent of the general public, if EVERYONE is speeding, the
>> problem isn't with everyone, it's with the speed limit.
>
>Agreed... since in reality *everyone* ISN'T speeding, there must be no
>problem with the speed limit.

Does not follow. The vast majority of drivers speed the majority of
the time. The ones stuck behind you notwithstanding.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
DYM > wrote:

>And when the other driver doesn't back down. You get that race to the
>tollbooth picture that was posted not long ago.
>
>Is it really worth risking a crash to prove you're the Alpha Male?

It's worth risking a crash to stand up for yourself. Always taking
the least-risk path just leads to getting pushed around.

>> I could make a nearly endless list of the moves I've seen by truckers
>> throwing the weight of their vehicle around as a tool of intimidation
>> or just plain MFFY behaviors.
>
>I'm on the road 8-9 hours per day. The VAST majority of bonehead moves
>are executed by four-wheelers.
Sure; the vast majority of vehicles are four wheelers.

>When I encounter a big truck, 9 times out
>of ten I can predict exactly what he is going to do.
So can I. But that includes times when I know he's going to act like
an asshole. (and that applies to car drivers too)

>Are there bad truck drivers out there, yeah

And the problem is that every bad move made by a trucker is magnified
by the size and weight of his vehicle. If a car moves from the middle
to the right lane just as I'm merging into the same spot from an
acceleration lane, he's fairly easy to avoid. If a truck does it, I'm
likely to have to bail to the shoulder or the ditch.

>Go look at the crash stats and tell me what class of driver is the best
>and which are the worst. It comes out that school bus drivers are the
>safest drivers around, it's not even close. Then come the other CDL
>holders. For 2004, school buses had 0.01 passenger deaths per 100,000,000
>miles, passenger cars 0.94. In that year over 37,000 fatalities to
>occupants of motor vehicles as a whole. Of those, 5 where on school
>buses.

This just tells you who wins in a collision, not how good the driver
is. It's no mystery that if a bus runs a red light and gets T-boned by
a sports car, the sports car driver is more likely to die than the
bus occupants.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> gpsman > wrote:
> >Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> >> gpsman wrote:
> >> > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
> >> >
> >
> >> Well... since speed limits are supposedly enacted for the safety of and
> >> with the consent of the general public, if EVERYONE is speeding, the
> >> problem isn't with everyone, it's with the speed limit.
> >
> >Agreed... since in reality *everyone* ISN'T speeding, there must be no
> >problem with the speed limit.
>
> Does not follow. The vast majority of drivers speed the majority of
> the time. The ones stuck behind you notwithstanding.
> --
Where have you been, genius? A GED reading comprehension course, I
hope.

The argument is 100% - or - 0%... not a ****ing "vast majority". Not
"some". It's either *ALL* or *NONE*. The definition of *EVERYONE* in
this instance means "ALL".
-----

- gpsman

In article >,
DYM > wrote:
(Brent P) wrote in
>>
>> Where has 'just let them do it' gotten us? A road system where anything
>> goes and rude selfish drivers have a huge sense of entitlement. I won't
>> honor that sense of entitlement and I simply refused to be pushed around.
>>
>I still don't see how you can win a fight like that with out a collision.

Because if you stand your ground the other driver will usually back
off. Most of the time when he realizes he can't just get away with it
unopposed, he'll back off. Even if he doesn't, and you have to back
off at the last minute, he's likely to find it a less than pleasant
experience, which is as it should be.

Of course, there is some degree of picking your battles. Don't try to
hold your ground against a badly dented more-primer-than-paint car
which weighs twice as much as yours.

>gesture, he makes a threatening gesture. Where does it end? Two idiots
>trying to figure out how they can explain the damage to their insurance
>company.

That's where being in the right helps a bit. Though I've never been
in a collision as the result of holding my ground.

>I will do everything in my power to get back to the yard with no one
>injured and no dents on my vehicle. If that means letting some asshole make
>a right turn in front of me when I've got the green left arrow, so be it.
>Let him think he put one over one me. If that fantacy makes his day, what
>has it cost me? A second?

You let the first guy do it, and the guy behind him pulls the same
thing. Then you miss the arrow cycle, and have to wait 1-4 minutes for
the next one. Repeat at the next light and the next and the next...
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article om>,
gpsman > wrote:
>N8N wrote: <brevity snip>
>>
>> 0% of anything = 0.
>> -----
>Duh. 1 of 1 trillion = 0%.
>
>The distance from here to the sun equals 0% of the distance to the
>furthest known galaxy.

The furthest known galaxy is about 2.46 * 10^9 parsecs from here. The
sun is about 4.85 * 10-6 parsecs from here. Which means the distance
from here to the sun equals 1.97 * 10^-13 percent of the distance from
here to the furthest known galaxy. It's small, but it ain't zero.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article .com>,
gpsman > wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> gpsman > wrote:
>> >Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>> >> gpsman wrote:
>> >> > Nate Nagel wrote: <brevity snip>
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> Well... since speed limits are supposedly enacted for the safety of and
>> >> with the consent of the general public, if EVERYONE is speeding, the
>> >> problem isn't with everyone, it's with the speed limit.
>> >
>> >Agreed... since in reality *everyone* ISN'T speeding, there must be no
>> >problem with the speed limit.
>>
>> Does not follow. The vast majority of drivers speed the majority of
>> the time. The ones stuck behind you notwithstanding.
>> --
>Where have you been, genius? A GED reading comprehension course, I
>hope.

Actually, I've been busy correcting your math.

>The argument is 100% - or - 0%... not a ****ing "vast majority". Not
>"some". It's either *ALL* or *NONE*. The definition of *EVERYONE* in
>this instance means "ALL".

Look up "fallacy of the excluded middle". Your argument is wrong even
given (for the sake of argument) that "everyone" means "all".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.