-
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
- Thread starter Ashrem
- Start date
- Status
Laochra
Well-Known Member
And don't forget when Soggy doesn't save you any cake.......
DeletedUser
Guest
Thank you!! Sticks in my craw, that.
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
having cake but it's not chocolate
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
Having cake but it's not chocolate
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
Posting the same thing twice because something weird happens
DeletedUser
Guest
Sending the right email to the wrong person 
shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
under cooked broccoli
mucksterme
Oh Wise One
But when I look it up in my phone it has my brother's name.
I don't know why you insist on answering it.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
It's mostly the language. And the pictures. I'm worried my wife will think it's my actual sister.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Actually it doesn't at all, sorry. As someone who had an Austrian license and drove in Germany many times, I will concede that American drivers are likely less educated, but not that speed is the issue.
There have been huge advancements in the last 30 years in driving technology including ABS, tires, traction control, lane departure warnings etc. and yet almost no increases in speed limits.
Your examples of 1,000mph tailgating being safe as long as nothing changes has a flip side: You won't rear end the person in front of you, even if they slam on the breaks if you are far enough back.
Ok, so please tell me what the chances of an accident are when
- I'm the only one on the road
- There are no curves or turns
- My vehicle is in perfect condition
- The road is in perfect condition
- I am in perfect condition
Obviously speeding can increase risk if done in congested traffic, if it means you are travelling at speeds that are very different than others, or if the speed is inappropriate due to road conditions. This is not what I do.
Maybe my math is off, but I don't think 2/4 is "almost all"
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
@Ashrem
When you claim that in the study quoted:
"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?"
and you are right. My mistake was in assuming that an increased moderate, serious, and fatal injuries would be the result of more accidents. In reality, the crash rate does increase 3-4% (depending on the study) when moving from 55 to 65 on the Interstates and significantly higher on non-interstates (state and county controlled access roads).
"The NCHRP study found that higher speed limits were associated with an increased likelihood of deaths and incapacitating injuries. It found that increasing a speed limit from 55 to 65 mph on an "average" section of high speed road resulted in about a 3% increase in the total number of crashes and a 24% increase in the likelihood that a vehicle occupant would be fatally injured. This increased crash rate would yield a 28% increase in the number of fatalities following the speed limit increase. "
So while your point was correct and my use was of the quote not clearly supportive of my point, consider the following:
"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." is a pretty straight forward statement about the increase of the severity of injuries, as you stated, however, at least 3-4% of those accidents would not have happened if the speed limit were not raised (See above NCHRP quote). In addition, it says: "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 rate" as the conditions of the measurements, it includes "crashes" as a separate item from injury and thus, seems to indicate that the results were at least partly the result of increased crash rates. The NCHRP quote would support this interpretation.
As for the increased safety of vehicles, one of the reasons fatalities have been reduced on our highways is because of those improvements. But you would be hard pressed, I think, to show that ALL the reduction is due to improved vehicles, especially when, as the study quoted says, the severity of injury and deaths increases significantly with increased speed.
Finally, it may be a bit of a quibble on your part, but do you really want to argue that the combination of more sever injuries and 3% more crashes is acceptable for adding 10mph to the speed of travel -- especially when the engineers who determine proper speeds have already posted those speeds?
As for gun control. Yes, I do argue many places for fewer guns...but not gun control as you would think of it. If you like, start a thread on gun control and why it's a good/bad idea. You might actually agree with me...or not. LOL
When you say:
"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."
I'm not sure of what you mean by "first years" -- which and how many? I am further confused by the "20% lower" but your own description of increased vehicle safety could easily account for that. AND when you say "fewer people are speeding" you may want to qualify that with where they are speeding verses the absolute speed they are doing, speeding or not. In addition, where do you get the numbers for "there are not fewer people speeding?" You are right that a "casual" researcher could say that it may mean speeding reduces accidents OR that vehicles are 30% safer, but without the data it's hard to know what to include. So if you could, give me the references or at least describe the conclusions from the studies.
From: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/interlocutor
a person who is having a conversation with you
Definition of interlocutor
1 :one who takes part in dialogue or conversation
So both are probably right to some degree.
Finally. You are quite correct to correct me for the use of 'wanton" It was a mistake on my part as you are correct that it refers to an attitude that may or may not be present and it's use did not help the conversation along. I regret it and thank you for the correction.
AJ
When you claim that in the study quoted:
"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?"
and you are right. My mistake was in assuming that an increased moderate, serious, and fatal injuries would be the result of more accidents. In reality, the crash rate does increase 3-4% (depending on the study) when moving from 55 to 65 on the Interstates and significantly higher on non-interstates (state and county controlled access roads).
"The NCHRP study found that higher speed limits were associated with an increased likelihood of deaths and incapacitating injuries. It found that increasing a speed limit from 55 to 65 mph on an "average" section of high speed road resulted in about a 3% increase in the total number of crashes and a 24% increase in the likelihood that a vehicle occupant would be fatally injured. This increased crash rate would yield a 28% increase in the number of fatalities following the speed limit increase. "
So while your point was correct and my use was of the quote not clearly supportive of my point, consider the following:
"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." is a pretty straight forward statement about the increase of the severity of injuries, as you stated, however, at least 3-4% of those accidents would not have happened if the speed limit were not raised (See above NCHRP quote). In addition, it says: "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 rate" as the conditions of the measurements, it includes "crashes" as a separate item from injury and thus, seems to indicate that the results were at least partly the result of increased crash rates. The NCHRP quote would support this interpretation.
As for the increased safety of vehicles, one of the reasons fatalities have been reduced on our highways is because of those improvements. But you would be hard pressed, I think, to show that ALL the reduction is due to improved vehicles, especially when, as the study quoted says, the severity of injury and deaths increases significantly with increased speed.
Finally, it may be a bit of a quibble on your part, but do you really want to argue that the combination of more sever injuries and 3% more crashes is acceptable for adding 10mph to the speed of travel -- especially when the engineers who determine proper speeds have already posted those speeds?
As for gun control. Yes, I do argue many places for fewer guns...but not gun control as you would think of it. If you like, start a thread on gun control and why it's a good/bad idea. You might actually agree with me...or not. LOL
When you say:
"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."
I'm not sure of what you mean by "first years" -- which and how many? I am further confused by the "20% lower" but your own description of increased vehicle safety could easily account for that. AND when you say "fewer people are speeding" you may want to qualify that with where they are speeding verses the absolute speed they are doing, speeding or not. In addition, where do you get the numbers for "there are not fewer people speeding?" You are right that a "casual" researcher could say that it may mean speeding reduces accidents OR that vehicles are 30% safer, but without the data it's hard to know what to include. So if you could, give me the references or at least describe the conclusions from the studies.
From: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/interlocutor
a person who is having a conversation with you
- He often challenges his interlocutors [=the people he is speaking to] with difficult questions.
Definition of interlocutor
1 :one who takes part in dialogue or conversation
So both are probably right to some degree.
Finally. You are quite correct to correct me for the use of 'wanton" It was a mistake on my part as you are correct that it refers to an attitude that may or may not be present and it's use did not help the conversation along. I regret it and thank you for the correction.
AJ
ajqtrz
Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Better training enables the Germans to handle higher speeds as evidenced by the reduced rates of fatalities on the autobahn.
The improvement in vehicle safety is greatly appreciated, but it does not increase the distance between automatically. It is a simple thing that if you have more time to react you have a better chance of avoiding an accident, all other things being equal. Since a car traveling 10mph over the speed limit covers more ground in that one second, it stands to reason that "close calls" at 55mph are sometimes "accidents" at 65mph. No amount of vehicle safety features will improve human reaction times, though training and enforcement of current laws may get people to be less distracted.
Hmmm.....I agree that if all the things listed as "perfect" are actually "perfect" AND you are the only one on the road AND you are perfectly awake, perfectly attentive, and perfect in every way, then the chances of you causing an accident are 0%... but let's face it, you are not perfect in every way. And even if you were, your vehicle is not, nor is the road. I once slid off a road going 5mph under the posted limit because road workers left a layer of sand on the curve. My light vehicle slid right off the the road even though I was in perfect condition, my vehicle was in perfect condition, and so on. AND of course, does every mile of your travel meet those conditions? Probably not. So my estimate stands that over the length of any non-perfect trip there is a chance of an accident AND that chance increases about 12% per 5mph over the speed limit.
As for the tailgaters I did say "if nothing changes"...but then that things do change and that is the problem. It is, as I've said, the differences in speed and direction that cause crashes. And yes, you are right, if they stay far enough back, but 40% of freeway crashes include rear-endings due to following too closely. My thought is that they are following too closely because they are in too much of a hurry AND therefore would speed if they could. I've often noted that when I change lanes the person directly behind me, who may have been following me for miles, feels it necessary to speed up by 5-10 mph and go on. People don't drive rationally, they drive how they feel at the moment.
We have to have a method by which we agree upon the speed and direction and the speed limit is it. BTW the speed limit is often set as the 85th percentile of the speed actually used on the road. In other words, they measure what people actually do and then set the speed limit were 85% of the people will be comfortable with it. At least that's how I understand the formula. If true then you would think 85% of drivers would be comfortable with the speed limit and use it. But 40% (surprisingly low) go over the speed limit by 5mph or more, so I'm not sure how the forumula is used or applied.
AJ
mucksterme
Oh Wise One
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
This is still quite misleading. Even if we assume your number is correct, what does it equate to? 5mph doesn't mean 12% chance of accident, just 12% increased chance. Increased from what? 0.00000001%? that's 0.0000000112%, not a very noticeable change.
Distracted driving, vehicle and road conditions including traffic all play a huge role, and in combination with speed may increase accidents, so a blanket statement that 5mph= 12% increased risk is simply incomplete.
If we had all variables accounted for and a massive amount of data then I'd be able to get behind your statement.
I disagree here as well. They are following too closely because they are crappy drivers. These are people my father used to refer to as "an accident looking for a place to happen"
Their motivation for speeding may be because they are in a hurry, or maybe their assessment of all of the current conditions lead them to the conclusion that 5mph faster does not carry sufficient increased risk to be concerned about. Is your assessment more accurate than theirs?
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Should we drop this and start a 4th thread on the CL/BS instead since those are offering up such stimulating discourse?
- Status