• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

The Other "Why I'm better than everyone else" thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction.

They even made a movie by the same name--the basic plot is she gets convicted for murdering her husband, goes to jail, does her time, then finds out he is still alive. Now she can murder him for real, and not get charged a second time. -Double Jeopardy.

You are correct. The phrase I used was incorrect. The situation is one of contradictory laws and cases concerning it are adjudicated based on specificity. The law saying what the speed limit is -- the posted limit -- is more specific than the general, "too slow" or "too fast" unless there are conditions included in the laws governing speed which never increase the speed limit, but do, in essence, lower it. Thus, under no circumstances can you be legally ticketed for not doing more than the speed limit, but you can for traveling under the speed limit. I apologize for the miss use of the term.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
Thus, under no circumstances can you be legally ticketed for not doing more than the speed limit, but you can for traveling under the speed limit.
That's simply not true. because the ticket wouldn't be for driving under the speed limit it would be for impeding the orderly flow of traffic. It would be independent of speed. "too slow" or "too fast" would not enter into it
 
Last edited:

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Still, the differences in speed do impact accident rates and I do believe statistics will show that drivign 90 vs 60 adds a lot more danger to the trip both for the ones doing 90 AND the ones doing 60
Agreement on the speed is the basis for safe driving and EVERYBODY who starts with enough time getting to where they are going on time.
Then please explain why there aren't a lot more accidents on the autobahn?
As to your second point, the US Department of Transportation data disagrees. For every 5mph over the speed limit you increase the likely hood of an accident by 12%. It may seem to you that it is just as safe, but the best MEASURES say it is not as safe as doing the speed limit.
I find their data incomplete. I'm willing to bet that many if not most accidents are a combination of factors and since speed is the easiest to measure(and ticket) it is the one they focus on.
When 100s of cars are in a line in the left lane doing 90mph with a solid 4 second gap between each there is virtually no increased risk.
Things like not signalling, changing lanes when it isn't safe to do so, following too close, distracted driving etc are likely factors that are more difficult to measure.
The 10%-15% over remark just points to the excuse, "I can get away with it"
No. I feel comfortable speeding at 10-15% over the limit because speed limits are set lower than necessary. Also, I have a new vehicle with new season-appropriate tires, new breaks, and am a seasoned driver who is not distracted, never weaves through traffic, nor follows too close, all while assuming every other driver is a moron and about to do something stupid.
If I'm driving early in the morning and I'm the only one on a highway for miles, is speeding still increasing my risk of an accident by 12% per 5mph over the limit? Maybe, but 112% of 0 is still 0.
Now matter how you cut is speed is not the problem, the difference is speed is. So your decision to go 10%-15% over the posted speed is much more at fault than my decision to obey the traffic laws.
This is another reason why my speeding isn't any less safe than doing the speed limit. Pretty much everyone does 10-15% over. When I am speeding, I'm never "catching up" to the guy in front, nor am I leaving the guy behind in my dust.
Like you said, we need an agreement on the speed we should be going to reduce risk, and there is an unspoken one that we are all going to go a little faster than the very conservative signs tell us to. (traffic permitting)
 
Last edited:

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
You're really good at ignoring when you get called out for making ludicrous claims like the whole "double jeopardy" fallacy.

The law says keep right except to pass. It is not your business to tell other people how fast they should drive.

The claim that I am ignoring the "double jeopardy" issue and the missuse of the term, has been answered and was answered as soon as I was made aware of it. I would suggest that a single day or less to respond is hardly "ignoring" such a mistake. wouldn't you agree?

More to the point, perhaps, is that you might not be arguing that I'm ignoring the misuse of the term but that the whole argument is fallacious. You might think so, but the appellate courts don't agree with you. When it comes to what is legal and what is not, I think I'll side with them on the matter. I really doubt their opinions are ludicrous.

Thank you for your response. Please try not to be too frustrated with my mistakes, I do correct them as soon as they are pointed out to me because that is, I think, how you maintain a civil discussion. Honest mistakes are made, and should, honestly admitted.

AJ
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
The claim that I am ignoring the "double jeopardy" issue and the missuse of the term, has been answered and was answered as soon as I was made aware of it. I would suggest that a single day or less to respond is hardly "ignoring" such a mistake. wouldn't you agree?
Actually, the forums specifically ask that we complete reading a thread before replying to any parts of it. It helps to avoid confusion and posts that seem not to connect smoothly with the rest of the conversation, and is why multi-quote is enabled. This why I can't agree.
 

mucksterme

Oh Wise One
Holy crap I love walls of text.

AJ


It just seems to me that a thread with the subject, "What bothers me," is not really supposed to create so much debate.

This has become;

Things that bother me
Grandfellow 42: The bunnies in my yard
Noiseyguy 93: You can't be bothered by bunnies
G: But they eat my flowers
N: The Department of Agriculture says that is good for the ecology
G: But I like my pretty flowers

etc etc etc
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
This paragraph proves that you are talking through an orifice not generally known for intelligent discourse.

"Proof" is one of two kinds. Psychological or mathematical. To which are you referring? If mathematical, do give me the proper calculations. If psychological, well, there are still people who think they can prove the earth is flat so your psychological proof is hardly infallible. If you disagree with me regarding something do try to tell me why I'm wrong. What evidence or reasoning mistakes have I made? If you can't perhaps you should just refrain from the heckling and listen to the debate and learn from it. Just a suggestion.

AJ
Then please explain why there aren't a lot more accidents on the autobahn?

I find their data incomplete. I'm willing to bet that many if not most accidents are a combination of factors and since speed is the easiest to measure(and ticket) it is the one they focus on.
When 100s of cars are in a line in the left lane doing 90mph with a solid 4 second gap between each there is virtually no increased risk.
Things like not signalling, changing lanes when it isn't safe to do so, following too close, distracted driving etc are likely factors that are more difficult to measure.

No. I feel comfortable speeding at 10-15% over the limit because speed limits are set lower than necessary. Also, I have a new vehicle with new season-appropriate tires, new breaks, and am a seasoned driver who is not distracted, never weaves through traffic, nor follows too close, all while assuming every other driver is a moron and about to do something stupid.
If I'm driving early in the morning and I'm the only one on a highway for miles, is speeding still increasing my risk of an accident by 12% per 5mph over the limit? Maybe, but 112% of 0 is still 0.

This is another reason why my speeding isn't any less safe than doing the speed limit. Pretty much everyone does 10-15% over. When I am speeding, I'm never "catching up" to the guy in front, nor am I leaving the guy behind in my dust.
Like you said, we need an agreement on the speed we should be going to reduce risk, and there is an unspoken one that we are all going to go a little faster than the very conservative signs tell us to. (traffic permitting)

Sorry to be a pest, but you are mistaken on several counts.

First, 112% of 0 is mistaken. You are NEVER at 0% no matter how good you are at driving, how good your car is, or anything else. 0% is mathematically impossible because even the best cars break down, the best drivers make mistakes, and roads get in less than perfect conditions. Situations where that 5mph may be just enough for them to fly off the road. It's not about how comfortable you feel, which is part of the problem, but what the numbers predict.

I've already covered the % of people who do not driver as you do. It varies greatly but not EVERYBODY does as you do. Thus, the difference in speed is that you want everybody to increase their speed to your comfort level and I suggest everybody who is speeding lower theirs to the posted speed limit. I have engineering, statistics, the courts and the US Dept of Transportation on my side, agree with me AND, in addition 20 to 90 percent of drivers, while you have your feelings and the feelings of 10 to 80 percent of drivers. Which do you think should win the debate? Feelings or facts? Your comfort zone or the safety and convenience of ALL the drivers based upon rational safe driving as defined by engineers, statistics, the courts and the US Dept of Transportation?

You can have 1000 cars 4 inches from each other doing 1000mph and it's all perfectly safe -- until something changes. All cars going the same direction at the same speed is 100% accident free. But what happens when the sun blinds the first guy in line? What happens when the fourth guy is momentarily changing his radio station, the 28th person in line fixing her makeup, the 100th talking into a cell phone, the 230th just spilled coffee in her lap? What happens when you aren't under ideal conditions? What then? It's same speed same direction are the problem it's differences in speed and direction -- caused by a whole slate of changes in and out of the vehicles, which cause the vehicles to change speed and direction.

You are correct though, I think, that speed by itself isn't the problem...it's all the things which cause somebody to change speed and direction. I wouldn't care if the speed limit was 100mph if everybody did 100mph and didn't feel it necessary to go around me because I was doing 100mph and they FELT comfortable with 130mph and thought I was the problem that they couldn't drive in their emotional comfort zone. What I'm arguing for, I think, is the idea that we drive rationally, not emotionally. Most of us drive in our comfort zone without regard to the numbers. That, like so many other things, is mistake because when emotions rule they seldom rule well.

The US Dept of Transportations data may not be complete. But since nobody has better data the rational thing to do is to base our judgments upon the best data available. If you have other numbers from credible sources which would impact the conclusions I've drawn from the US Dept of Trans. I would love to hear them. But at least one state (Wisconsin) says pretty much the same thing in their data.

AJ
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Actually, the forums specifically ask that we complete reading a thread before replying to any parts of it. It helps to avoid confusion and posts that seem not to connect smoothly with the rest of the conversation, and is why multi-quote is enabled. This why I can't agree.

You are right again. I tend to go to the end of the thread and just start responding. But sometimes there are sooo many responses that I get carried away. A bad move on my part in any case and I'll try not to do it again. Thanks for the correction. I did, btw, read the entire thread before I responded to this observation. LOL

AJ
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
It just seems to me that a thread with the subject, "What bothers me," is not really supposed to create so much debate.

This has become;

Things that bother me
Grandfellow 42: The bunnies in my yard
Noiseyguy 93: You can't be bothered by bunnies
G: But they eat my flowers
N: The Department of Agriculture says that is good for the ecology
G: But I like my pretty flowers

etc etc etc

LOL. I do try to reduce the walls to something manageable but have never been known for being brief. As for the response, well, instead of just saying it bothers me that people think the "fast lane" means the "a lane in which you are required to break the law" I choose to say that AND to say WHY it bothers me. If it were on the level of chocolate or vanilla ice cream I might not like it but I wouldn't be bothered by it. Unfortunatly though, people die because of the differences in speed and direction and THAT should bother all of us.

AJ
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
There are a lot of assumptions in any analysis of driving safety. Lots of us learned to drive when the speed limit was 65 or 70 on the highways, and for some of us it still is (most divided highways in my region). Many of us have also seen that the changes in speed limit did not actually reduce accidents, and did not actually appreciably affect fuel consumption, despite claims that they would do so. CBS News concluded that the difference in fuel consumption between 55mph and 65 mph is generally less than 25¢/gallon (read carefully, it is pretty much non-existent until you hit 60, then 24¢/gallon per 5mph over 60). That extra gas consumption is assuming that the drives do everything else the same. A driver who accelerates slowly and smoothly to 65 will actually use less fule than one who accelerates quickly and/or changes their speed more often. Meanwhile, a 15% reduction in time behind the wheel has several benefits, not least of which is 15% less time exposure to chances to have an accident, and 15% less tiredness from time behind the wheel accompanied by reductions in stress.

It's true that an accident at 55mph is less likely to kill someone than an accident at 65mph, but you are no more likely to be in an accident at 65 than at 55.

We are old dogs learning a new trick for false reasons, and that rarely goes well.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
From the wikipedia on the Autobahn.

"In 2014, autobahns carried 31% of motorized road traffic while accounting for 11% of Germany's traffic deaths. The autobahn fatality rate of 1.6 deaths per billion-travel-kilometers compared favorably with the 4.6 rate on urban streets and 6.5 rate on rural roads."

From the Business Insider website where they lay out some of the reasons the autobahn might be safer including better training of drivers:

"To get a license in Germany, you are required to take tons of driving lessons, including several where you're taken on the actual Autobahn and put into real, high-speed traffic. Drivers must receive basic first-aid training, and on top of that, you still have an incredibly difficult multiple choice exam and the road test.


All of this can take up to six months to finish up, if it's all done successfully, and it could cost over $2000.

If you want to drive in Germany you need to be dedicated, which makes for better drivers. And better drivers means fewer accidents, fewer accidents means fewer deaths: Germany has far fewer motor vehicle-related fatalities (per 100,000 people) than the US."


Since one third of traffic fatalities in the US are caused by drivers with less than 4 years driving experience it's likely some of the difference is the amount of training.

Second, while the rural portions of the Autobahn are sometimes without limits, the urban sections are always limited in their speeds. Why? Because they found out that when you don't have a speed limit and you do have more cars you get more differences in speed and direction and THAT produces more accidents. Their experience with actually having no speed limit showed that you get more accidents when you allow people to drive like they wish to drive rather than having to obey a set speed limit.

From the same site:

To accommodate higher speed traffic, Autobahn road surfaces are constructed with multiple layers of concrete. Autobahn roads are also inspected regularly for irregularities in the road surface or any damage. If anything is found during these inspections, the whole area of road around the damaged section is replaced.

Road conditions are better and thus fewer accidents. Have you seen some parts of the American freeways system?

And again:

There aren't too many police on German roads, yes, but if caught tailgating you're in for a hefty fine. Worst case scenario: you could be stuck with a $450 ticket. In America, you'd be lucky if a state trooper even bat an eye.


Though it's difficult to connect tailgating directly to the cause of rear-end collisions, when you tailgate, you have less time to react to abrupt situations that could happen in front of you. In 2015, the National Transportation Safety Board reported that rear-end collisions kill about 1,700 people every year and leave around 500,000 people injured. Props to Germany for actually enforcing an important law!



And finally, here's the kicker.

On the Autobahn, like most roads in America, the left lane is strictly the passing lane; for everything else you must keep right. If you're not passing anyone and you're just traveling, you have to move your car over to the right.


The main difference between the two countries is that in Germany, motorists actually respect this rule. In America, it rarely happens. Because Germans pay such close attention to this rule, traffic is able to flow much more freely on their highways."


Notice a few thing.

First, people aren't always allowed drive however they feel. Second, they obey the laws and the laws are strictly enforced. Third, they build a better system to begin with; fourth, they train their people better.

Now you understand the differences you understand why almost all the differences boil down to getting people to obey the laws on the books, including the posted speed limit.

Hopefully you can see the Autobahn isn't an argument against what I'm saying, but actually closer to proof that what I am saying is right.

AJ
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
It's not, but some people can't seem to leave well enough alone.

Wondering where you got the idea that stating something that bothers you shouldn't bring about debate? I don't see it in the rules or guidelines. If you think it's just "common sense" remember that "common sense" is not always common and sometimes makes no sense too.

As for "leaving well enough alone" one does wonder when 30,000 people die in the US, a good deal of them as a result of excess speed if it should be "left well enough lone" when it could be changed. The attitude displayed by my interlocutors displays a wanton disregard for rational behavior in favor of an emotional desire to do what they want regardless of how it endangers themselves or those around them. I'm arguing for rational behavior based upon the best numbers available against an inherent belief that we can do whatever we want so long as we are comfortable with doing it and can get away with it.

My apologies to those with whom I'm debating but so far the arguments put forth against my position boil down to "I don't feel like it because I feel I'm safe when I drive that way" and "I can get away with it" not, "here are some credible sources for scientific measurement of the problem and it's causes that show my point to be true" Evidence is verifiable and I've given you the source of mine. Give me verifiable numbers and sound reasoning from the evidence that your positions are better for all of us and I will concur. Short of that I will continue responding as I have in the past, with facts, reasoning and proper argument.

AJ
 

shimmerfly

Well-Known Member
Things??
When things get blown out of proportion and off subject:
People who talk too much.
( I must be in the wrong place but I get lost easily)~~ :)~~.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
There are a lot of assumptions in any analysis of driving safety. Lots of us learned to drive when the speed limit was 65 or 70 on the highways, and for some of us it still is (most divided highways in my region). Many of us have also seen that the changes in speed limit did not actually reduce accidents, and did not actually appreciably affect fuel consumption, despite claims that they would do so. CBS News concluded that the difference in fuel consumption between 55mph and 65 mph is generally less than 25¢/gallon (read carefully, it is pretty much non-existent until you hit 60, then 24¢/gallon per 5mph over 60). That extra gas consumption is assuming that the drives do everything else the same. A driver who accelerates slowly and smoothly to 65 will actually use less fule than one who accelerates quickly and/or changes their speed more often. Meanwhile, a 15% reduction in time behind the wheel has several benefits, not least of which is 15% less time exposure to chances to have an accident, and 15% less tiredness from time behind the wheel accompanied by reductions in stress.

It's true that an accident at 55mph is less likely to kill someone than an accident at 65mph, but you are no more likely to be in an accident at 65 than at 55.

We are old dogs learning a new trick for false reasons, and that rarely goes well.

I agree with you that the increased mpg was insignificant. However:

"Effective December 1987 and January 1988, the maximum speed limit on rural limited access highways in Michigan was raised from 55 mph to 65 mph. This study examined the effects of the raised limit on injury morbidity and mortality. A multiple time-series design was used, comparing roads where the speed limit was raised with roads where the limit remained unchanged. Data were collected on numbers and rates of automobile crashes, injuries, and deaths from January 1978 through December 1988. Time-series intervention analyses were conducted to estimate effects associated with the speed limit change while controlling for long-term trends, seasonal cycles, and other patterns. Statistical controls were also included for major factors known to influence crash and injury rates. Results revealed significant increases in casualties on roads where the speed limit was raised, including a 19.2% increase in fatalities, a 39.8% increase in serious injuries, and a 25.4% increase in moderate injuries. Fatalities also increased on 55 mph limited access freeways, suggesting that the 65 mph limit may have spillover effects on segments of freeways where the limit was not changed. No significant changes in fatalities or injuries were found on other types of roads. The increased convenience of reduced travel time with the higher speed limit is obtained at a significant cost in terms of injury morbidity and mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2275740

And this type of study has been done over and over every time speed limits change. It all points in the same direction. More speed does increase accident rates, BUT not because of the speed so much as because the reaction times of humans don't increase equally. And people need time to react to changes in road conditions.

AJ
 

DeletedUser

Guest
People who think that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby created Norse Mythology.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
I agree with you that the increased mpg was insignificant. However:

"Effective December 1987 and January 1988, the maximum speed limit on rural limited access highways in Michigan was raised from 55 mph to 65 mph. This study examined the effects of the raised limit on injury morbidity and mortality. A multiple time-series design was used, comparing roads where the speed limit was raised with roads where the limit remained unchanged. Data were collected on numbers and rates of automobile crashes, injuries, and deaths from January 1978 through December 1988. Time-series intervention analyses were conducted to estimate effects associated with the speed limit change while controlling for long-term trends, seasonal cycles, and other patterns. Statistical controls were also included for major factors known to influence crash and injury rates. Results revealed significant increases in casualties on roads where the speed limit was raised, including a 19.2% increase in fatalities, a 39.8% increase in serious injuries, and a 25.4% increase in moderate injuries. Fatalities also increased on 55 mph limited access freeways, suggesting that the 65 mph limit may have spillover effects on segments of freeways where the limit was not changed. No significant changes in fatalities or injuries were found on other types of roads. The increased convenience of reduced travel time with the higher speed limit is obtained at a significant cost in terms of injury morbidity and mortality.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2275740

And this type of study has been done over and over every time speed limits change. It all points in the same direction. More speed does increase accident rates, BUT not because of the speed so much as because the reaction times of humans don't increase equally. And people need time to react to changes in road conditions.

AJ
You understand that:
1) nothing in there indicates an increase in accident rates, only an increase in severity of injuries, which I already specified as a known result of speed?
2) "Fatalities also increased on 55 mph limited access freeways....may have spillover" means there might (or might not) have been another confounding factor, but rather than say "something else might have been responsible for the increase on both roads", they chose to use wording that allows them to get the conclusion they aimed for. Wasn't someone just talking about hard science and facts? "May have" represents a conclusion that is only one possible option from the given data.
3) It was published 27 years ago and does not address significant improvements in vehicle and tire manageability and safety since 1990

I Italicized a line in your post:
And this type of study has been done over and over every time speed limits change. It all points in the same direction. More speed does increase accident rates.
Because I am not aware of any data anywhere that strongly supports the notion that more speed increases accident rates. Only that speed increases severity of injuries.

As for "leaving well enough alone" one does wonder when 30,000 people die in the US, a good deal of them as a result of excess speed if it should be "left well enough lone" when it could be changed. The attitude displayed by my interlocutors displays a wanton disregard for rational behavior in favor of an emotional desire to do what they want regardless of how it endangers themselves or those around them. I'm arguing for rational behavior based upon the best numbers available against an inherent belief that we can do whatever we want so long as we are comfortable with doing it and can get away with it.
Do you also argue for gun control at every opportunity? Because there are more than 30,000 deaths in the U.S. every year as a result of gunshots. Targeting the 90 million Americans who own guns seems like an easier bet than targeting the 100 million Americans who drive faster than the posted limits. Especially since they are responsible for 100% of the people who die from gunshots vs "a good deal of" the 30 million traffic related deaths, some of which involve high speed but are actually caused by alcohol.

Furthermore, despite having a population almost 50% higher than the first years after speed limits were reduced, the death rate as a result of all vehicle accidents is over 20% lower, yet thare are not fewer people speeding. A casual researcher could say that may mean speeding reduces accidents, rather than vehicles are 30% safer than they were.

side-notes, 1) we are not your interlocutors. All of us, including you, are interlocutors of this discussion, which, if it belongs to anyone, belongs to Eideann, for complaining about people going too slow in the fast lane. 2) we (the interlocutors minus yourself) have different attitudes, so we do not display one
attitude, and there is nothing "wanton" about any of those attitudes. Some of them display a disregard for certain behaviors which you hold to be important, but there is nothing wanton about that. "Wanton" is an emotional attack on the people with whom you are in disagreement and is not based on logic.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top