For all the bickering about the morality of this issue and the legality of the law, it's actually quite simple (if, like me, you don't like the current ruling). Change the law to allow federal funding of this sort of research. Or better yet, amend the Constitution and prohibit the government from outlawing this sort of research.
Wow, I can't believe I just read a post on slashdot that argues for the benefits of trailer-living.
Places like California don't allow trailers because they are a blight and people don't move them when they are in harms way. Instead, they stay in them because they don't have the financial means to go anywhere, and then are entombed in their tin-can house.
If you don't believe that speeding is a major factor in car accidents, Google for articles citing NHTSA. Look at the numbers yourself and make your own judgement.
I have. That's why I'm so eager in sharing my judgement that the numbers don't match the reaction. Speed is not a significant cause of accidents.
There are many drivers on the road who are dumb, illiterate or otherwise inept. Do you trust their judgement?
Agreed. No, I don't trust their judgement, but there isn't much I can do about that. I also understand that going 42 in a 35 is no big deal, even for the most judgement-challenged of us.
Look, my point is that, 1) speed is not as significant of a causation as commonly thought (but is significant when it comes to the extent/potential of damage/injury, but more importantly 2), that we overreact and apply rules that are disproportionate to the risk involved. Worse yet, 3) we apply rules that are meant to tackle erroneously correlated problems instead of the real problem (i.e. failure to yield, not paying attention, etc.).
Thank God for another logical soul. I've been lobbying to get commercial trucks off of I-35 for 10 years now. It doesn't even have to be rail..why not make a new highway system just for commercial cargo? It wouldn't even have to be that great, because truck drivers are already used to being stuck in traffic (since they are generally causing the jams). And, it frees up Interstate travel for smaller, more manageable vehicles. It would probably improve safety as well.
Of course somebody doing 60 down a residential street is an idiot. But giving somebody a ticket for doing 28 in that same place when the speed limit is 25 is really, really stupid, and does nothing for safety.
I think I see a pattern forming in this thread. Just because many of us argue for sane, logical, rational approaches that speed limits are artificially low for revenue purposes, doesn't mean we advocate reckless speeding.
And, I'd like to see your sources. I concur with "distraction", but I've commonly heard that "failure to yield" is the top cause of accidents--like the girl who turn left right in front of me (coming the opposite direction of me).
Finally, in your list of causes, speeding is sort of a catch-all that law enforcement uses. Ok, so I'm going 75 in a 70 zone and don't stop in time and cause a fender bender. Was it because I was going 5 mph over the limit? If I was going slower would I have stopped in time? Nobody knows, so it's all chalked up to "speeding". I got a speeding ticket once when I ran into the side of somebody (turned out to be their fault, and they dropped my ticket) because, and I quote, "you were obviously speeding, because if you weren't you would have been able to stop in time". Arghhh. Yes, because when somebody makes an illegal left turn right in front of me and I have 25 feet to go from 30-zero (to include reaction time), I should have been going 15 instead of 30.
All valid points. However, you are missing the main point that speed is not the primary factor in urban related accidents. Not paying attention and failure to yield (i.e. running into somebody because you didn't see them, or you didn't understand the rules of the road).
Lowering speed limits does not change this, as people do a fine job running into each other at or below the speed limit already.
I provide no solution, because the "problem" of speeding isn't the problem in this case that needs a solution. So it is sort of implied when I rag on public officials' lust to enforce revenue measures that my solution would be to stop obsessing about speed and start ticketing bad drivers. I could issue more tailgating, impeding traffic, and failure to yield tickets in one day than I could speeding tickets in a month.
Are they really artificially low? Personally, I don't believe that, I think you made that up to have an excuse to speed.
Yes. Let me provide an entire bucket of anecdotal evidence:
My wife is an Actuary. Determining the risk of ensuring a driver is unnecessarily complicated by arbitrary speed limits and zealous law enforcement. They teach this in school, and it's on the actuarial tests.
I live in Texas, with 75 mph speed limits. I travel between Austin and San Antonio, easily driving 80-85 mph, while being passed by most people. The conditions are fine for 80-90 mph, yet the max federal limit is 75. There is NOTHING on I-35 requiring 75 mph limit, no bad tarmac, no school, no whatever...just an arbitrary federal limit.
The mere fact that our city streets are littered with 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 mph zones, regardless of the neighborhood, road size/condition, population density proves that speed "limits" are completely arbitrary. If 30 mph is the speed that kills, then why aren't all speed limits everywhere 30? What if its 40? What if its 25? It's all arbitrary (here in the US at least..in the UK, I found it to be even more restrictive with binary speed limits...slow in towns and fast on the motorways..which I actually prefer).
When dangerous conditions are present, I'd prefer they post signs like they do for curves and off-ramps...you know the yellow signs that post a SUGGESTED speed (that are conservatively low, to account for people with poor vehicle control or hard to control vehicles). Those are generally very close to realistic speeds. I drive a low to the ground sporty car, and can easily handle 45 mph offramps at 60 mph, but I don't, because the suggested speed probably has more to do with the merging conditions ahead. That makes sense. A random 50 mph zone on a flat country road that is posted as 45 or 70 elsewhere makes NO sense.
Well, that's the only valid thing said about speed in this entire post.
That's why most sane people don't do 70 mph in residential areas. It also highlights the stupidity of 45 mph zones in the US that could easily be 80mph zones (most of the western half of the country).
in which you think a completely unrelated point: that cops try to pad municipal budgets with law enforcement tricks, disproves the actual point: that speeding kills people
Um, no...running into things with your car kills people. Speed is generally irrelevant. Look at a typical day's accident reports in Austin, TX. How many are attributed to speed or stopping distance? Not very many. There are always a few, "following too closely" ones, that could be argued to be attributable to speed, but those are rarely ticketed for speeding (because you can follow too closely under the speed limit...see I-35 during rush hour, where speeds rarely top 35 in a 70 zone). So, they were under the speed limit, but they were driving too fast to stop in time?
all you have done is changed the subject matter you moron
meanwhile, back on topic: show the fuck down you asshole, so you don't kill anyone in your hubristic ignorance
capisce?
Yes, because I've killed so many people during my debilitating bouts of hubris.
See, I just disproved your 3rd grader logic by using 4th grader logic.
And by the way, the majority of accidents in the US occur at intersections, where cars are just starting to accelerate, or are slowing down. Speed is not an issue. People's stupidity and the ridiculously easy licensing in this country is to blame.
That's not true, unless you can show me something that proves that slowing people down decreases accidents. All it does is slow people down, which causes more traffic density, which increases the chances of accidents.
I'm not saying that speeding prevents accidents, I'm merely saying that the speed-causes-accidents fallacy is overstated.
If you REALLY want to see accidents go up, put in unrealistically slow speed limits AND an unnecessary stop light.
so society picks a speed limit, and lives are saved
Errrr...the municipality picks an artificially low speed limit and tickets are written.
The next time you are on the highway and the speed limit drops to 55 from 70 for no apparent reason, keep your speed at 70 mph. I guarantee you that you'll come out at the other end just fine. Or, try this....next time the highway speed limit is 70, go 75 and watch the death and destruction NOT ensue.
Where's the fallacy? He's rebutting the innuendo that speeding is the main cause of accidents. if most accidents happen under the speed limit, then they weren't attributable to speeding.
If anything, the guy wanting to set up speed radars to prevent accidents is the one with the logical fallacy.
The majority of accidents also happen at intersections as well. Sorry, no citations, just 20+ years of traffic engineering interest. Speed is generally not relevant in the cause of accidents (but is important in the severity of accidents).
You are right. People don't run red lights (generally) because the risk is high, whereas driving 70 in a 55 carries generally no risk.
Reducing speed doesn't ensure a decrease i accidents though. It doesn't work in other cities because municipalities get all hell-bent on enforcing speed limits instead of enforcing more important, accident reducing laws like illegal lane changes and failure to yield.
Speeding tickets = increased driving safety is one of the most egregious logical fallacies I can think of.
Pardon my ignorance, but after watching that video, I have no idea what is going on, or what the big deal is. After reading through this forum, am I right to assume what was being demonstrated was this guy was able to play a pirated video game off a USB dongle? Really? Is that it? Lame.
If this is the case, then this story is relevant to everyone in the age range of about 14-20.
I will not sacrifice my livelihood in the futile effort to preserve my privacy. If others want to be small-minded enough to be bigoted against me, that's their problem. I don't worry about perception. If I did, I'd live a sad, hermit-like life, and hide under a silly Star Wars pun alias...oh wait...
Slashdot Mirror
For all the bickering about the morality of this issue and the legality of the law, it's actually quite simple (if, like me, you don't like the current ruling). Change the law to allow federal funding of this sort of research. Or better yet, amend the Constitution and prohibit the government from outlawing this sort of research.
...is to buy one that is already built.
Wow, I can't believe I just read a post on slashdot that argues for the benefits of trailer-living.
Places like California don't allow trailers because they are a blight and people don't move them when they are in harms way. Instead, they stay in them because they don't have the financial means to go anywhere, and then are entombed in their tin-can house.
You do realize that your snopes link corroborates the claim that Gore's home uses 12-20x more energy than average homes, right?
I live in Texas. Please explain what this "basement" thing is. It sounds great.
Even more helpful would be if you defined the term you accuse him of misusing.
Define "modest". My house is 2500 sq. ft...quite large by many standards in the world, but quite modest for Texas.
If you don't believe that speeding is a major factor in car accidents, Google for articles citing NHTSA. Look at the numbers yourself and make your own judgement.
I have. That's why I'm so eager in sharing my judgement that the numbers don't match the reaction. Speed is not a significant cause of accidents.
There are many drivers on the road who are dumb, illiterate or otherwise inept. Do you trust their judgement?
Agreed. No, I don't trust their judgement, but there isn't much I can do about that. I also understand that going 42 in a 35 is no big deal, even for the most judgement-challenged of us.
Look, my point is that, 1) speed is not as significant of a causation as commonly thought (but is significant when it comes to the extent/potential of damage/injury, but more importantly 2), that we overreact and apply rules that are disproportionate to the risk involved. Worse yet, 3) we apply rules that are meant to tackle erroneously correlated problems instead of the real problem (i.e. failure to yield, not paying attention, etc.).
Thank God for another logical soul. I've been lobbying to get commercial trucks off of I-35 for 10 years now. It doesn't even have to be rail..why not make a new highway system just for commercial cargo? It wouldn't even have to be that great, because truck drivers are already used to being stuck in traffic (since they are generally causing the jams). And, it frees up Interstate travel for smaller, more manageable vehicles. It would probably improve safety as well.
That's the only time in my life that I have been embarassed by Texas (and particularly for some of my extended family who were part of the problem).
What about the time we provided a two-term President?
Of course somebody doing 60 down a residential street is an idiot. But giving somebody a ticket for doing 28 in that same place when the speed limit is 25 is really, really stupid, and does nothing for safety.
I think I see a pattern forming in this thread. Just because many of us argue for sane, logical, rational approaches that speed limits are artificially low for revenue purposes, doesn't mean we advocate reckless speeding.
And, I'd like to see your sources. I concur with "distraction", but I've commonly heard that "failure to yield" is the top cause of accidents--like the girl who turn left right in front of me (coming the opposite direction of me).
Finally, in your list of causes, speeding is sort of a catch-all that law enforcement uses. Ok, so I'm going 75 in a 70 zone and don't stop in time and cause a fender bender. Was it because I was going 5 mph over the limit? If I was going slower would I have stopped in time? Nobody knows, so it's all chalked up to "speeding". I got a speeding ticket once when I ran into the side of somebody (turned out to be their fault, and they dropped my ticket) because, and I quote, "you were obviously speeding, because if you weren't you would have been able to stop in time". Arghhh. Yes, because when somebody makes an illegal left turn right in front of me and I have 25 feet to go from 30-zero (to include reaction time), I should have been going 15 instead of 30.
All valid points. However, you are missing the main point that speed is not the primary factor in urban related accidents. Not paying attention and failure to yield (i.e. running into somebody because you didn't see them, or you didn't understand the rules of the road).
Lowering speed limits does not change this, as people do a fine job running into each other at or below the speed limit already.
I provide no solution, because the "problem" of speeding isn't the problem in this case that needs a solution. So it is sort of implied when I rag on public officials' lust to enforce revenue measures that my solution would be to stop obsessing about speed and start ticketing bad drivers. I could issue more tailgating, impeding traffic, and failure to yield tickets in one day than I could speeding tickets in a month.
Are they really artificially low? Personally, I don't believe that, I think you made that up to have an excuse to speed.
Yes. Let me provide an entire bucket of anecdotal evidence:
My wife is an Actuary. Determining the risk of ensuring a driver is unnecessarily complicated by arbitrary speed limits and zealous law enforcement. They teach this in school, and it's on the actuarial tests.
I live in Texas, with 75 mph speed limits. I travel between Austin and San Antonio, easily driving 80-85 mph, while being passed by most people. The conditions are fine for 80-90 mph, yet the max federal limit is 75. There is NOTHING on I-35 requiring 75 mph limit, no bad tarmac, no school, no whatever...just an arbitrary federal limit.
The mere fact that our city streets are littered with 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 mph zones, regardless of the neighborhood, road size/condition, population density proves that speed "limits" are completely arbitrary. If 30 mph is the speed that kills, then why aren't all speed limits everywhere 30? What if its 40? What if its 25? It's all arbitrary (here in the US at least..in the UK, I found it to be even more restrictive with binary speed limits...slow in towns and fast on the motorways..which I actually prefer).
When dangerous conditions are present, I'd prefer they post signs like they do for curves and off-ramps...you know the yellow signs that post a SUGGESTED speed (that are conservatively low, to account for people with poor vehicle control or hard to control vehicles). Those are generally very close to realistic speeds. I drive a low to the ground sporty car, and can easily handle 45 mph offramps at 60 mph, but I don't, because the suggested speed probably has more to do with the merging conditions ahead. That makes sense. A random 50 mph zone on a flat country road that is posted as 45 or 70 elsewhere makes NO sense.
Well, that's the only valid thing said about speed in this entire post.
That's why most sane people don't do 70 mph in residential areas. It also highlights the stupidity of 45 mph zones in the US that could easily be 80mph zones (most of the western half of the country).
in which you think a completely unrelated point: that cops try to pad municipal budgets with law enforcement tricks, disproves the actual point: that speeding kills people
Um, no...running into things with your car kills people. Speed is generally irrelevant. Look at a typical day's accident reports in Austin, TX. How many are attributed to speed or stopping distance? Not very many. There are always a few, "following too closely" ones, that could be argued to be attributable to speed, but those are rarely ticketed for speeding (because you can follow too closely under the speed limit...see I-35 during rush hour, where speeds rarely top 35 in a 70 zone). So, they were under the speed limit, but they were driving too fast to stop in time?
all you have done is changed the subject matter you moron
meanwhile, back on topic: show the fuck down you asshole, so you don't kill anyone in your hubristic ignorance
capisce?
Yes, because I've killed so many people during my debilitating bouts of hubris.
See, I just disproved your 3rd grader logic by using 4th grader logic.
And by the way, the majority of accidents in the US occur at intersections, where cars are just starting to accelerate, or are slowing down. Speed is not an issue. People's stupidity and the ridiculously easy licensing in this country is to blame.
That's not true, unless you can show me something that proves that slowing people down decreases accidents. All it does is slow people down, which causes more traffic density, which increases the chances of accidents.
I'm not saying that speeding prevents accidents, I'm merely saying that the speed-causes-accidents fallacy is overstated.
If you REALLY want to see accidents go up, put in unrealistically slow speed limits AND an unnecessary stop light.
so society picks a speed limit, and lives are saved
Errrr...the municipality picks an artificially low speed limit and tickets are written.
The next time you are on the highway and the speed limit drops to 55 from 70 for no apparent reason, keep your speed at 70 mph. I guarantee you that you'll come out at the other end just fine. Or, try this....next time the highway speed limit is 70, go 75 and watch the death and destruction NOT ensue.
Where's the fallacy? He's rebutting the innuendo that speeding is the main cause of accidents. if most accidents happen under the speed limit, then they weren't attributable to speeding.
If anything, the guy wanting to set up speed radars to prevent accidents is the one with the logical fallacy.
The majority of accidents also happen at intersections as well. Sorry, no citations, just 20+ years of traffic engineering interest. Speed is generally not relevant in the cause of accidents (but is important in the severity of accidents).
You are right. People don't run red lights (generally) because the risk is high, whereas driving 70 in a 55 carries generally no risk.
Reducing speed doesn't ensure a decrease i accidents though. It doesn't work in other cities because municipalities get all hell-bent on enforcing speed limits instead of enforcing more important, accident reducing laws like illegal lane changes and failure to yield.
Speeding tickets = increased driving safety is one of the most egregious logical fallacies I can think of.
Pardon my ignorance, but after watching that video, I have no idea what is going on, or what the big deal is. After reading through this forum, am I right to assume what was being demonstrated was this guy was able to play a pirated video game off a USB dongle? Really? Is that it? Lame.
If this is the case, then this story is relevant to everyone in the age range of about 14-20.
the unsterilized offspring of a cat will '...result in 420,000 cats in 5 years,'
Sounds like an opportunity for a new fast food chain.
I will not sacrifice my livelihood in the futile effort to preserve my privacy. If others want to be small-minded enough to be bigoted against me, that's their problem. I don't worry about perception. If I did, I'd live a sad, hermit-like life, and hide under a silly Star Wars pun alias...oh wait...
I am so glad that there is another Christian that understands that Sex is a beautiful gift from God and is something to be reveled in
So beautiful in fact, it gets its own capitalization rules!
And the above post, my friends, is why I can't take religion or religious people seriously.
People who do stupid stuff when they are young grow up and do stupid stuff when they are old.