> >>On Mar 4, 11:27 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>>On Mar 4, 12:44 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>On Mar 4, 9:01 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> >>>>>On Mar 4, 11:45 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>>>>On Mar 3, 6:27 pm, Stephen Harding <smhardin...@msn.com> 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