A New Category of Sloth

gpsman wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> >
> > > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> > > country.
> >
> > I have a speed survey conducted by the WVDOT on I-64/I-77 through
> > Charleston WV in late 1997. It states that 0% are going below 50 mph,
> > 23% are going below 55 mph, 73 percent are going below 60 and 85 percent
> > are going below 62 mph.
> >
> > The posted limit at the time was 50 mph.
> -----
>
> And your point is... that you are well versed in the art of
> misinterpreting statistics?
>
> 0% does not imply the number zero, it's proportional.

One would ASSume that 0% does imply zero, or at least a small enough
percentage that it's within the margin of error of the statistics
gathered - i.e. small enough to be of no consequence, and effectively
zero from the perspective of the average motorist.

nate

N8N wrote:
> gpsman wrote:
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > > gpsman wrote:
> > >
> > > > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> > > > country.
> > >
> > > I have a speed survey conducted by the WVDOT on I-64/I-77 through
> > > Charleston WV in late 1997. It states that 0% are going below 50 mph,
> > > 23% are going below 55 mph, 73 percent are going below 60 and 85 percent
> > > are going below 62 mph.
> > >
> > > The posted limit at the time was 50 mph.
> > -----
> >
> > And your point is... that you are well versed in the art of
> > misinterpreting statistics?
> >
> > 0% does not imply the number zero, it's proportional.
>
> One would ASSume that 0% does imply zero, or at least a small enough
> percentage that it's within the margin of error of the statistics
> gathered - i.e. small enough to be of no consequence, and effectively
> zero from the perspective of the average motorist.
> -----
One assuming such would be wrong.

Absolute zero is the argument, not zero percent. 0% = irrelevancy.
-----

- gpsman

gpsman wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > gpsman wrote:
> > > Arif Khokar wrote:
> > > > gpsman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > No, everyone is NOT speeding, at *anytime* of day, *anywhere* in the
> > > > > country.
> > > >
> > > > I have a speed survey conducted by the WVDOT on I-64/I-77 through
> > > > Charleston WV in late 1997. It states that 0% are going below 50 mph,
> > > > 23% are going below 55 mph, 73 percent are going below 60 and 85 percent
> > > > are going below 62 mph.
> > > >
> > > > The posted limit at the time was 50 mph.
> > > -----
> > >
> > > And your point is... that you are well versed in the art of
> > > misinterpreting statistics?
> > >
> > > 0% does not imply the number zero, it's proportional.
> >
> > One would ASSume that 0% does imply zero, or at least a small enough
> > percentage that it's within the margin of error of the statistics
> > gathered - i.e. small enough to be of no consequence, and effectively
> > zero from the perspective of the average motorist.
> > -----
> One assuming such would be wrong.

Why?

>
> Absolute zero is the argument, not zero percent. 0% = irrelevancy.

0% of anything = 0.

nate

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.

It's PROPORTIONAL. Look it up. Or enroll in a 6th grade math class.
Jesus...!
-----

- gpsman

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.
>
> It's PROPORTIONAL. Look it up. Or enroll in a 6th grade math class.
> Jesus...!
> -----
>
> - gpsman

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.

nate

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.
-----

- gpsman

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:10:33 GMT, DYM > wrote:

>I see more **** purportrated by four wheelers in a day they you will see
>CDL drivers pull in a month.

Wow. Another idiot who can't divide.

There are about 300,000,000 people in this country. About 200 million
of them are old enough to drive, and probably do. On the other hand,
we have what, a million truck drivers? So gee, I wonder if it is
reasonable that truckers are ****tard drivers, yet you see more car
drivers driving badly.

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:09:39 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>So do I. but it doesn't change that there are a lot of assholish,
>selfish, etc CDL drivers out there. Especially selfish are the ones who
>can't read the signs that say TRUCKS RIGHT TWO LANES.

Truckers can't read.

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

>>I already told you, the aggressive arseholes backdown. They are like
>>school yard bullies, if you stand up to them they back away.

> It is just dumb luck if you keep doing it and _don't_ run across the eventual
> psychotic which will _not_ back down.

Who says I don't have a limit?

> I've done these highway duels myself. Its not something I recommend, and was
> in a suicidal mood the last time I did it anyway, but then again, it was
> satisfying. And no, I would _not_ have backed down, and was fully prepared and
> expecting a horrible "accident" that would likely have gotten me and the "prick
> of the moment" both killed. But _he_ backed down, that was about 10 year ago,
> and I've never done anything like that since. But, on that day, in that
> situation, that particular prick would have had to die for his trouble if he
> wanted to **** with me any further.

Obviously he had a limit.

> I only did something like that once before that, when some assholes thought
> they were going to 'scare' me by coming left of center and threatening a
> head-on collision.

While bicycle riding I've had arseholes who thought that was a funny
thing to do.

> I was so incensed that I _sped up_ and scared _them_, and
> again, was completely commited and expecting a horrible crash that would likely
> have gotten me and them all dead. But... again... I'll only put up with so
> much. If they hadn't gotten back into their lane, we'd all have died that day,
> because I wasn't going to give in no matter what. That was about 35 years ago.

I held my ground and got myself ready to dive to the right at the last
moment. They returned to their side of the road.

> But do realize that people that won't back down are _out there_ and each time
> you engage in a highway duel, you may be taking more risk than you realize.

I am not about to back down to everyone who shows a little aggression. I
would be dead if I did. I learned from bicycling the more you give, the
more they try to take. And when they tried to take more than there is to
give I got hurt. Now I don't give anything and haven't gotten hurt.

Arif Khokar > wrote in news:mc2of.1343$EE4.333
@news02.roc.ny:

> DYM wrote:
>
>> Arif Khokar > wrote in
>> :
>
>>>Do you happen to have stats (or know of a place that details them)
>>>that detail the actual crash stats per 100 million miles (rather than
>>>passenger deaths) for school buses and commercial vehicles?
>
>> I was pulling from the FARS database. I'll see if I can pull it out.
>
> Thanks. I wasn't aware that FARS interface could separate out school
> bus crashes. I'm not sure if you'll be able to get the VMT figure for
> school buses though (which is necessary for the calculation).
>

I'm seeing that now, that I'm looking at the VM-1.

I know that my district logs over 1.2 million passenger miles per year. I
know that these stats are reported, somewhere.

Doug