Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), wrote, in
part:
\
>
>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.
\
Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
"profssl". He's getting as boring that other nym-shifter who's always
whining "read the whole thread again".
--
zk

On Mar 4, 4:02*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), wrote, in
> part:
> \
>
> >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.
>
> \
> Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
> 2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
> "profssl".

Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.

I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
participated in threads in which this other character posted. The
headers are not anywhere near the same.

Stop engaging in logical fallacy, and I'll stop pointing it out. It's
just that simple.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

E.P.

On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> 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."

If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.

It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
_astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
you believe it's the _only_ factor. Since you didn't mention any
other factors - and based on your previous attempts at "logic" - I'm
not sure what you may believe.


>
> > > > > 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...

As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
some fairly simple science. In this case, you seem unable to
understand that there are many variables at work. That is, it's not
just speed vs. fatalities. Other items obviously involved are medical
advances to save crash victims, air bags, stability control,
improvements in highway design, stricter drunken-driving controls, to
name a few.

Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
difference.


>
> > > > 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."

Once again, Ed - who knows? Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
energy. Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Perhaps you don't
understand its effects. I can't tell. All I can say for sure is, you
are making no sense whatsoever.

>
> 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.

False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.

> If you wish to
> pretend medical science is responsible for that,...

Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
although it is certainly one factor.

> you may go ahead and
> prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.

I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east. That is,
it's something nobody will have bothered to research, since it's just
too obvious.

I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
has made no difference in crash fatality rates.

> Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
> dodge...

... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
crashing at 20 mph?

Nice hearing from you, Ed. I like seeing total irrationality in my
debate opponents. It makes things much easier.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mar 4, 4:17*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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."
>
> If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
> straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.

Ahh, so now you insinuate that I'm a liar. Not good enough to just
admit you are wrong...

> It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
> _astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
> a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
> you believe it's the _only_ factor. *

Take one straw man and replace it with two more. Classic, Frank.

> > > > > > 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...
>
> As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> some fairly simple science.

I haven't seen any presented, except what was filtered through you.
You'll just have to accept that ANYTHING I see from you is suspect to
begin with.

> Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
> those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
> difference.

I guess that's as close as we'll get to a repudiation of the
simplistic old saw that "speed kills".

> > > > > > "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."
>
> Once again, Ed - who knows?

Ah, again with the insinuation of lying. It's too bad that you are
such a disagreeable fellow, Frank.

> > If you wish to
> > pretend medical science is responsible for that,...
>
> Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
> although it is certainly one factor.

Who said you claimed it was the only factor?

> > you may go ahead and
> > prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.
>
> I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east.

So, you make an assertion, and that's as good as proven? Sorry, Frank
- you'll have to do better. You just claiming something doesn't make
it so, and making an analogy to some "water is wet" proof also doesn't
prove anything.

> I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
> has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
> has made no difference in crash fatality rates.

Yet another straw man. Who is saying it makes no difference?

> > Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
> > dodge...
>
> ... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
> crashing at 20 mph?

Straw man.

>*I like seeing total irrationality in my
> debate opponents. *

It might help if you stop looking in a mirror, and concentrating on
avoiding logical fallacy.

E.P.

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>>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."
>
>
> If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
> straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.
>
> It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
> _astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
> a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
> you believe it's the _only_ factor. Since you didn't mention any
> other factors - and based on your previous attempts at "logic" - I'm
> not sure what you may believe.
>
>
>
>>>>>>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...
>
>
> As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> some fairly simple science. In this case, you seem unable to
> understand that there are many variables at work. That is, it's not
> just speed vs. fatalities. Other items obviously involved are medical
> advances to save crash victims, air bags, stability control,
> improvements in highway design, stricter drunken-driving controls, to
> name a few.
>
> Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
> those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
> difference.

It's not that "only" speed makes a difference, it's that a) you can't
control it and b) it doesn't seem to make a difference anyway.

>>>>> 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."
>
>
> Once again, Ed - who knows? Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
> energy. Perhaps you don't understand what it is. Perhaps you don't
> understand its effects. I can't tell. All I can say for sure is, you
> are making no sense whatsoever.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>

There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion. Look at
the statistics - they show NO change in the steady downward trend of
fatalities that has been occurring ever since the stats were first kept.
No anomalies or blips of any significance. Don't believe me? Look it up.

Additionally, there are no studies that indicate that changing a speed
limit below the 85th percentile speed has any significant real influence
on the speed of traffic (however you measure it; mean, median, 85th
%ile, 10MPH pace) - there is some change but about an order of magnitude
less than the change in the speed limit.

So basically, not only has it not been proven that slowing traffic down
makes it safer; you CAN'T prove it because it's near impossible to
actually slow traffic down in the absence of Draconian enforcement.

>
>>If you wish to
>>pretend medical science is responsible for that,...
>
>
> Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
> although it is certainly one factor.
>
>
>>you may go ahead and
>>prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.
>
>
> I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east. That is,
> it's something nobody will have bothered to research, since it's just
> too obvious.

More like you're trying to prove the sun rises in the west; your
assertions go against all serious study of the subject.

> I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
> has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
> has made no difference in crash fatality rates.

Probably has, but what of it?

>
>>Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
>>dodge...
>
>
> ... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
> crashing at 20 mph?
>

Not crashing at high speed kicks the ass out of crashing at low speed.

> Nice hearing from you, Ed. I like seeing total irrationality in my
> debate opponents. It makes things much easier.

It would improve my faith in the human race if you were able to do the
research necessary to evaluate your assertions and then come back and
admit you were wrong, but I know better - you won't.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 4, 4:41*pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 3:19 pm, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> >>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."
>
> > If you're being honest, then I'll take back what I said about your
> > straw man claim being false - at least in your own mind.
>
> > It gets replace, though, by the realization that your thinking is
> > _astoundingly_ simplistic if you think the higher speed in Germany is
> > a factor that causes fewer fatalities per mile - and even more so if
> > you believe it's the _only_ factor. *Since you didn't mention any
> > other factors - and based on your previous attempts at "logic" - I'm
> > not sure what you may believe.
>
> >>>>>>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...
>
> > As in another thread, you're demonstrating an incapacity to understand
> > some fairly simple science. *In this case, you seem unable to
> > understand that there are many variables at work. *That is, it's not
> > just speed vs. fatalities. *Other items obviously involved are medical
> > advances to save crash victims, air bags, stability control,
> > improvements in highway design, stricter drunken-driving controls, to
> > name a few.
>
> > Again, it takes extreme naïveté or serious dishonesty to ignore all
> > those, and imagine, or pretend, that only speed makes the
> > difference.
>
> It's not that "only" speed makes a difference, it's that a) you can't
> control it and b) it doesn't seem to make a difference anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> 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."
>
> > Once again, Ed - who knows? *Perhaps you don't believe in kinetic
> > energy. *Perhaps you don't understand what it is. *Perhaps you don't
> > understand its effects. *I can't tell. *All I can say for sure is, you
> > are making no sense whatsoever.
>
> >>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.
>
> > False. *Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>
> There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion. *Look at
> the statistics - they show NO change in the steady downward trend of
> fatalities that has been occurring ever since the stats were first kept.
> * No anomalies or blips of any significance. *Don't believe me? *Look it up.
>
> Additionally, there are no studies that indicate that changing a speed
> limit below the 85th percentile speed has any significant real influence
> on the speed of traffic (however you measure it; mean, median, 85th
> %ile, 10MPH pace) - there is some change but about an order of magnitude
> less than the change in the speed limit.
>
> So basically, not only has it not been proven that slowing traffic down
> makes it safer; you CAN'T prove it because it's near impossible to
> actually slow traffic down in the absence of Draconian enforcement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>If you wish to
> >>pretend medical science is responsible for that,...
>
> > Note that I have not claimed medical science is the _only_ factor,
> > although it is certainly one factor.
>
> >>you may go ahead and
> >>prove it, speaking of ironic unsupported assertions.
>
> > I may as well try to prove that the sun rises in the east. *That is,
> > it's something nobody will have bothered to research, since it's just
> > too obvious.
>
> More like you're trying to prove the sun rises in the west; your
> assertions go against all serious study of the subject.
>
> > I'll leave it to other readers to decide whether a) medical science
> > has made a difference in crash fatality rates, or b) medical science
> > has made no difference in crash fatality rates.
>
> Probably has, but what of it?
>
>
>
> >>Dragging in "crash severity is greater at higher speeds" is a great
> >>dodge...
>
> > ... Because everyone knows that crashing at 90 mph is no worse than
> > crashing at 20 mph?
>
> Not crashing at high speed kicks the ass out of crashing at low speed.
>
> > Nice hearing from you, Ed. *I like seeing total irrationality in my
> > debate opponents. *It makes things much easier.
>
> It would improve my faith in the human race if you were able to do the
> research necessary to evaluate your assertions and then come back and
> admit you were wrong, but I know better - you won't.
>
> nate

I've experienced Frank's form of "debate" before. His use of
tangential commentary, logical fallacy, and outright falsehood all
blend together to make him a loathsome figure in usenet. Sort of like
GPSturd.

I like turning him around and aiming him a different direction -
screwing with him, instead of falling for his stupid tactics.

Mostly, he's a bored retired guy with nothing better to do than jack
off on the internet.

E.P.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 16:14:26 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> wrote:

>On Mar 4, 4:02*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 11:27:30 -0800 (PST), wrote, in
>> part:
>> \
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> \
>> Eddie has regurgitated "straw man" at least 50 times since January
>> 2006 and around 25 times previous to that under his pseudonym
>> "profssl".
>
>Ooops, looks like someone doesn't know how to use the intert00bs.
>
>I have NEVER gone by the nym "proffsl", and in fact, I have
>participated in threads in which this other character posted. The
>headers are not anywhere near the same.
>
Eddie, that still leaves over fifty.

Your routine is boring.
--
zk

On Mar 4, 7:41 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> wrote:
> >
>
> >>Your post calls for no real addressing. The data, almost ALL of it,
> >>shows speeds going up, and fatalities going down.
>
> > False. Stephen has posted over a dozen counterexamples.
>
> There *are* no reliable sources that support your assertion.

For counterexamples to disprove your "no reliable sources," here's
what Stephen Harding found and posted. I quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surely you won't dispute the relation of high speed with more fatal
accidents when accidents occur? Physics alone should be persuasive
enough on that count.

I've gone through a bunch of web sites for studies of the effects of
speed limits on crashes (fatal or non-fatal) and I believe the results
vindicate my position.

However, it has been an education for me as well, as I have learned
that there certainly are cases that raising or lowering have effects
completely the opposite, or no effect, on crash rates. That I found
surprising.

Nonetheless, only a dumb as dirt ideologue would argue the evidence
for increased speed effecting accident rates was "BS" or without any
evidence, or mere propaganda output from MADD.

http://car-accidents-attorneys.blogs...-accident-fata...
<quote>
Speed is another factor when dealing with crash fatalities. More
than
half of all fatal crashes occurred on roads with posted speed
limits
of over 55 mph. While only 20 percent of crashes that occurred on
these roads were "property-damage-only" crashes.
</quote>

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr254.pdf

A large report by the Transportation Research Board:

<quote>
In 1987 Congress allowed states to raise
speed limits from 55 to 65 mph (89 to 105 km/h) on qualifying
sections of rural Interstate highways. In the immediately
following
years, most states that raised limits observed increases on the
order of 4 mph (6 km/h) in average speeds and 85th percentile
speeds, and increases in speed dispersion of about 1 mph (2 km/
h).
These speed changes were generally associated with statistically
significant increases in fatalities and fatal crashes on the
affected highways--a plausible finding because of the strong link
between even modest increases in speed at higher speeds and
increased crash severity.
</quote>

They do go on to say there have been mixed results in some studies
of speed relationships to fatalities, due to overlooking of other
"system wide effects". Nonetheless, they claim a strong link between
speed and crash severity.

One such contrary result was in CA where 65mph speed limit was
credited for luring motorists to the faster, safer highways due to
increased speed limit rather than more dangerous side roads
(http://www.uctc.net/papers/069.pdf).

An interesting result, but the tide seems to support the "speed
kills" argument in what I've been reading.

<quote>
Studies have been conducted following repeal of federal maximum
speed limits in 1995; many of them focused on Interstate
highways.
Most found results similar to the speed limit changes in 1987:
modest increases in average speeds and 85th percentile speeds
and,
in some cases, speed dispersion on highways on which speed limits
were raised. Although not consistent across all states, most
studies
indicated an increase in fatalities on highways on which speed
limits were raised. Most studies did not explore any possible
system
effects, and the results should be considered preliminary because
they are generally based on 1 year of data or less.
</quote>

Basic Newtonian physics alone should make it rather obvious that
increased speeds are going to increase the likelihood of serious
injury if a crash occurs.

Mentioned in this report are many other studies such as Treat, et al,
1977:

<quote>
The role of speeding as a crash cause was probably first analyzed
in
a detailed and comprehensive manner in Indiana University's Tri-
Level Study (Treat et al. 1977). Speed was defined as causal if
it
met two conditions: (a) it deviated from the "normal" or
"expected"
speed of the average driver for the site conditions, and (b) it
"caused" the crash, that is, the crash would not have occurred
had
the speed been as expected. On the basis of this definition, the
study estimated "excessive speed" to be a definite cause in 7 to
8
percent of the crashes and a probable cause in an additional 13
to
16 percent of the crashes.37 Speed was identified as the second
most
common factor contributing to crash occurrence, second only to
"improper lookout" (i.e., inattention) (Treat et al. 1977 in
Bowie
and Walz 1994, 32).
</quote>

<quote>
The clinical studies are unanimous in their finding that
"excessive
speed," that is, driving too fast for conditions, contributes to
a
significant share of all crashes and a higher share of severe
crashes. As the following section shows, the evidence for the
effect
of speed on crash severity is far more conclusive.
</quote>

This report is quite comprehensive and does seem to present a balanced
picture of the relationship of speed and crash effects. It's hardly
something put out by MADD propagandists!

<quote>
Despite different data files, different definitions of speeding
and
excessive speed, and different and often subjective techniques
for
making judgments about crash causation, the studies consistently
found that speeding or excessive speed contributes to a
relatively
small but significant percentage of all crashes and a higher
percentage of more severe crashes.
</quote>

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm

<quote>
Table 3. Summary of the effects of raising or lowering speed
limits.

Reference Country Change Results

Speed Limit DECREASES

Nilsson (1990) Sweden 68 mi/h to 56 mi/h
Speeds declined by 14 km/h Fatal crashes declined by 21%

Engel (1990) Denmark 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
Fatal crashes declined by 24%. Injury crashes declined by 9%

Peltola (1991) UK 62 mi/h to 50 mi/h
Speeds declined by 4 km/h. Crashes declined by 14%

Sliogeris (1992) Australia 68 mi/h to 62 mi/h
Injury crashes declined by 19%

Finch et al. (1994) Switzerland 81 mi/h to 75 mi/h
Speeds declined by 5 km/h. Fatal crashes declined by 12%.

Scharping (1994) Germany 37 mi/h to 31 mi/h
Crashes declined by 20%

Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia 3-12 mi/h decreases
No significant change (4% increase relative to sites not
changed)

Parker (1997) USA 22 states 5-20 mi/h decreases
No significant changes

Speed Limit INCREASES

NHTSA (1989) USA 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 21%

McKnight, Kleinand Tippetts (1990), US 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 22%; Speeding increased by 48%

Garber and Graham (1990) USA (40 States) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatalities increased by 15%; Decrease or no effect in 12 States

Streff and Schultz (1991) USA (Michigan) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal and injury crashes increased significantly on rural
freeways

Pant, Adhami and Niehaus (1992) USA (Ohio) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Injury and property damage crashes increased but not fatal
crashes

Sliogeris (1992) Australia 62 mi/h to 68 mi/h
Injury crashes increased by 25%

Lave and Elias (1994) USA (40 states) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Statewide fatality rates decreased 3-5%; (Significant in 14 of
40 States)

Iowa Safety Task Force (1996) USA (Iowa) 55 mi/h to 65 mi/h
Fatal crashes increased by 36%

Parker (1992) USA(Michigan) Various
No significant changes

Newstead and Mullan (1996) Australia(Victoria) 3-12 mi/h
increases)
Crashes increased overall by 8%; 35% decline in zones raised
from
60-80

Parker (1997) USA22 states 5-15 mi/h
No significant changes

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'll note that he was honest enough to say that some studies
indicated otherwise, but that the bulk of studies show positive
correlation between speed and fatality rates.

That's quite a bit different from your claim that there are "no
reliable studies." Is it possible that a study's reliability depends
on whether you like its outcome?

I'll note that the general run of argument from the driving fans has
been: Speed has no bearing on safety - because we want to drive
faster. Speed limits are set too low - because we want to drive
faster. There are too many stop signs - because we want to drive
faster. Speed humps should not be used in residential neighborhoods -
because we want to drive faster. We'll refuse to shop in your area -
because we want to drive faster.

If, at any time, one of you were to say "Well, here's an instance
where drivers should be made to drive slower," it would indicate a
_little_ less bias. But in the several years we've had these repeated
discussions, that's never happened.

Slow down, boys. You're just making yourself agitated by always
trying to go faster, and you're not accomplishing anything productive
with the time you save, if any.

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 08:51:47 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
> wrote:

>On Mar 3, 7:19*pm, Zoot Katz > wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:18:36 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>
>> Many drivers wish to project their self-worth through the car they
>> drive. I've no problem with that. It helps me regard them as
>> something less than human. *They're just plain "squishy turds in a
>> can" when considering them collectively and caged.
>
>Which, of course, you never say aloud in public.
>
>It's easy to be a usenet hero. It's harder IRL.
>

The sticker clearly visible on my rear fender sums it up:
CARS SUCK

Another bike says: ANY IDIOT CAN DRIVE

I've another that says: FUKENKARZ.

I'm no Usenet hero so have probably disappointed at least seven
posters and probably a few lurkers in <r.b.m> I've had the pleasure
to meet, IRL.*

When I simply looked at a driver like an overflowing toilet and they
give me the finger I know they got the message. My initial response
was to grab my crotch. Fool pulls over, gets out and runs into the
street. When he punched me in the back after I'd avoided hitting him,
I had a feeling he might like to talk. After turning around and
slowly coasting back along the sidewalk I started reciting his plate
number aloud when within earshot. At twenty feet he bolted, got back
into his coffin and fuktoff.

I couldn't prove assault without a witless but later got satisfaction
when I heard the plates on the MB SUV he was driving were the plates
off his beater. Towed, impounded and fined looked good on the coward.

A lot of drivers can read my lips even when they don't speak English.
Well timed and deniability aimed expectorations will get me a meter
clearance or punctuate the look the driver already got.

Another fool thought I was trying to spit on his van after I'd just
cleared an intersection that prohibits through traffic, except
bicycles. Logically, I couldn't expect another vehicle to be behind
me. This squishy turd just wanted to shout though.

*IRL, lots of people know me as Zoot Katz but mostly call me the
same name as my mother did. Don't start your credibility of anonymous
posters routine. "profssl" was deliberately misspelled and you
corrected it. Headers don't prove anything. I got my Usenet chops in
a baptism of fire on the warez groups. I was posting mp3 within weeks
of the first groups' creation. I've posted to Usenet through
mix-master mail servers, PGP, the whole shtick. Faking headers was
never easier than it is now.
--
zk

wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:04 pm, Stephen Harding > wrote:
>>
>>I can only dream of a 5 mpg advantage!
>>
>
> Drive 45 with your tailgate down.

Hey what's the r.a.d. position on tailgates down?

Don't do it! It doesn't help and may hurt mpg.

Putting a tonneau cover is about the best you can
do or leave it stock and hope the air bubble in
the bed helps keep air flow laminar as much as some
automotive engineers claim.


SMH