4 ms·

Why should I demonstrate that? You are the one making assertions without evidence.

by ugh 16y ago

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Ummm. Perhaps you forgot about the part where you claimed, without citation, that "nearly two in five deaths in traffic accidents are caused by speeding in Germany". So it would seem we're both guilty. The difficulty in providing any kind of documentation here is that there are many orthogonal factors at play, making it difficult to say much of anything without very carefully defining terms. For example, (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5309267 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5309267 ) The bad news is [between 2000 and 2008, in Utah,] 110 people died because they weren't wearing a seat belt, by far the No. 1 reason, outranking things like speed, fatigue, DUIs or distractions. Clearly, not wearing a seat belt is not a cause of an accident. It's an aggravating factor, making the results worse in the event that an accident does occur. I submit that in most cases, speed fills the same role. Consider the wikipedia article at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traffic_fatalities#Causes https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traffic_fatal... # That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed. # That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed. # That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact. # That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis. # That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions. A close reading of this reveals that it's not generally one's absolute speed (e.g., the fact that they're going 80MPH), but their speed relative to most other drivers, irrespective of the speed limit. So if the speed limit is 65 and I'm going 75 along with most of the traffic, my risk is minimized; slowing to the posted speed increases risk. The third bullet seems to support my claim. It does not say that crashes are more likely at higher speeds, but that the severity of a crash, when one does occur, will be worse. Finally, the last bullet again references speed relative to conditions. Thus, on a given road in given weather, visibility, traffic, etc., 80MPH may be just as safe as 65 under other conditions; and in winter conditions, even 40MPH might be more dangerous than any of those. It's not the speed as such, particularly with respect to any particular posted one-size-fits-all number, but the speed relative to actual conditions. But the laws regarding speed limits do not recognize this at all. So again, for a meaningful debate, I think we need to separate the discussion into causes of accidents, aggravating factors for accident severity, and the way in which laws address these issues.
- ugh 16y ago
  No point in continuing here, just one thing: You don’t have “60 when wet” or digital traffic signs with speed limits in the US? (I’m more than happy to accept numbers on good faith. If someone cites a number I just assume that it is well sourced, at least if it seems plausible. I just applied that assumption to myself but if you have to know my source is here: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pk/2009/Unfallgeschehen/begleitheft__Unfallgeschehen,property=file.pdf http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/In...)

Why should I demonstrate that? You are the one making assertions without evidence.

by ugh 16y ago

Why should I demonstrate that? You are the one making assertions without evidence.

Ummm. Perhaps you forgot about the part where you claimed, without citation, that "nearly two in five deaths in traffic accidents are caused by speeding in Germany". So it would seem we're both guilty. The difficulty in providing any kind of documentation here is that there are many orthogonal factors at play, making it difficult to say much of anything without very carefully defining terms. For example, (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5309267 http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=5309267 ) The bad news is [between 2000 and 2008, in Utah,] 110 people died because they weren't wearing a seat belt, by far the No. 1 reason, outranking things like speed, fatigue, DUIs or distractions. Clearly, not wearing a seat belt is not a cause of an accident. It's an aggravating factor, making the results worse in the event that an accident does occur. I submit that in most cases, speed fills the same role. Consider the wikipedia article at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traffic_fatalities#Causes https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Traffic_fatal... # That the evidence shows that the risk of having a crash is increased both for vehicles traveling slower than the average speed, and for those traveling above the average speed. # That the risk of being injured increases exponentially with speeds much faster than the median speed. # That the severity of a crash depends on the vehicle speed change at impact. # That there is limited evidence that suggests that lower speed limits result in lower speeds on a system wide basis. # That most crashes related to speed involve speed too fast for the conditions. A close reading of this reveals that it's not generally one's absolute speed (e.g., the fact that they're going 80MPH), but their speed relative to most other drivers, irrespective of the speed limit. So if the speed limit is 65 and I'm going 75 along with most of the traffic, my risk is minimized; slowing to the posted speed increases risk. The third bullet seems to support my claim. It does not say that crashes are more likely at higher speeds, but that the severity of a crash, when one does occur, will be worse. Finally, the last bullet again references speed relative to conditions. Thus, on a given road in given weather, visibility, traffic, etc., 80MPH may be just as safe as 65 under other conditions; and in winter conditions, even 40MPH might be more dangerous than any of those. It's not the speed as such, particularly with respect to any particular posted one-size-fits-all number, but the speed relative to actual conditions. But the laws regarding speed limits do not recognize this at all. So again, for a meaningful debate, I think we need to separate the discussion into causes of accidents, aggravating factors for accident severity, and the way in which laws address these issues.

ugh 16y ago
No point in continuing here, just one thing: You don’t have “60 when wet” or digital traffic signs with speed limits in the US? (I’m more than happy to accept numbers on good faith. If someone cites a number I just assume that it is well sourced, at least if it seems plausible. I just applied that assumption to myself but if you have to know my source is here: http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Presse/pk/2009/Unfallgeschehen/begleitheft__Unfallgeschehen,property=file.pdf http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/In...)