 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2008Higher speedlimits = no increase in collisions or severity there of
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp "Mannering used a statistical model to calculate accident probabilities based on his own examination of data from 390,000 accidents recorded by the Indiana Vehicle Crash Record System. After applying the model, he concluded that the increased speed limit had no effect on the probability of suffering an accident nor did it increase the severity of accidents that did occur. In 2006, only 5.78 percent of the state's accidents were caused by unsafe speed, a decrease from 2004. The study also noted that a 15 MPH increase in the speed limit did not produce a 15 MPH increase in the actual speed traveled. Instead, real speeds increased only 12 MPH. " > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > increase in the speed limit did not produce a 15 MPH increase in the > actual speed traveled. Instead, real speeds increased only 12 MPH. " Hey stupid. The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to the 55 and immediately highway deaths dropped by 16%. Case closed, moron. On Jun 26, 11:53 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Hey stupid. The issue was settled in 1974 when we went to the 55 and > immediately highway deaths dropped by 16%. Case closed, moron. Can you give me tips on how to keep reality from intruding on my world- view? Like they say, if you're going to learn, learn from the master! Dave >> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and immediately highway deaths dropped by 16%. Case closed, > moron. Explain the lack of increase when the 55 mph was removed? >>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Explain the lack of increase when the 55 mph was removed? 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. >> SFB spewed: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>>> MPH increase in the actual speed traveled. Instead, real speeds >>>> increased only 12 MPH. " << censor SADDAM crapola >> >> Explain the lack of increase when the 55 mph was removed? > >1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. IOW, they cooked the books to get the result they wanted. Maybe SFB could get a job at Enron or Bear Stearns seeing how it likes fraud. >Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. Amen to that! -- S&DDAM admits to putting others in danger with its beater: "Foot pumps are a joke. I had one once and since the piston only moves like 2 inches it took 50 pumps to raise the pressure by one psi. Go with the hand pumps where the piston moves around 15 inches. One of my tires has exposed cords and i have to pump it up every week. " --Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, 3/6/08 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/yvrmhl Msg ID: Xns9A59DDA463296riemann1850yahoocom@216.168.3.70 >>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp >>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. > Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. How does one reclassify a dead guy? >>>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2442.asp >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > How does one reclassify a dead guy? This shouldn't have to be re-explained to you. It's when the person died. In 1974 they shortened the period of time between the collision and death. Prior to 1974 I think it was a year.... this dramatically decreased what was considered a fatality from a traffic collision. >>> 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. >>> Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > this dramatically decreased what was considered a fatality from > a traffic collision. LOL! I didn't realize it was ever "explained" to me in the first place. Love to see a cite for that. >>>> 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. >>>> Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > LOL! I didn't realize it was ever "explained" to me in the first > place. Love to see a cite for that. It was well cited several times in the last few YEARS. google it yourself. >>>>> 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. >>>>> Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It was well cited several times in the last few YEARS. google it > yourself. Sorry, I have a life outside of r.a.d. I can't really remember a million posts in the last few years. >>>>>> 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. >>>>>> Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Sorry, I have a life outside of r.a.d. I can't really remember a > million posts in the last few years. Same here, which is why I don't want to spend my time digging up something you missed that has been discussed many times over. >>>>>>1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. >>>>>>Everything about the 55mph NMSL was fraud. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Sorry, I have a life outside of r.a.d. I can't really remember a > million posts in the last few years. Obviously, few of us can. However, Brent is correct, it's been discussed at length here before, so if you care to learn more, cites are only a google away. I believe it might have been JCW or maybe Chuck Tomlinson that posted an excellent summary of the issue. nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> Sorry, I have a life outside of r.a.d. I can't really remember a >> million posts in the last few years. > Obviously, few of us can. However, Brent is correct, it's been > discussed at length here before, so if you care to learn more, cites are > only a google away. I believe it might have been JCW or maybe Chuck > Tomlinson that posted an excellent summary of the issue. Well, to be fair, most people haven't been posting/reading r.a.d as long as you or Brent have been (myself included). But it is fair to say that Larry should just search r.a.d. for the issue in question. >>> Sorry, I have a life outside of r.a.d. I can't really remember a >>> million posts in the last few years. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > long as you or Brent have been (myself included). But it is fair to > say that Larry should just search r.a.d. for the issue in question. seems that it's UseNet standard for the one making the claim to provide the cites supporting their claim,when asked. Not to just tell the doubter to search for them. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in news:ya- dnfdoGZSZm_jVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@comcast.com: > This shouldn't have to be re-explained to you. It's when the person > died. In 1974 they shortened the period of time between the collision > and death. Prior to 1974 I think it was a year.... this dramatically > decreased what was considered a fatality from a traffic collision. HAHAHA. Yeah and that happened 9000 times in 1974. HAHAHA. You car loons will lie about anything. > 1974 is when they changed how fatalities were measured. You have made that preposterous statement a million times here at RAD and never supplied an iota of proof. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.