Saw an intelligent bicyclist today

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.

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.