Big Cars Must Drive Slower

Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.

You're absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
to others.

As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.

The most important factor in road safety -- far out-weighing all others
-- is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested (and
then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.

Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often two)
doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause of accidents
isn't speeding, it isn't DUI, it's failure to yield the right of way.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Not really. Braking distance and steering stability is definitely a factor.
A Porsche Carerra is a safer car in an emergency than a Hummer H2. There's
simply no way for a vehicle that heavy to stop quickly or steer sharply
without losing traction.

I have no doubt that this is true. I'll bet that the #1 reason for this
failure to yield is cell phone use. Drivers simply are not paying attention
when they're on the damned phone!

You sorry assed hypocrite douchebag! And just what shall we do with you,
little miss 41 in a 25? I propose shoving a 6' samurai sword up your fat
ass.

Actually, my original post here was on the facitious side. Actually, a
bigger vehicle with a better driver posses less of a danger than a
smaller vehicle with a worse driver.

Now, to your point. Almost every accident can be traced back to one
driver (and often two) who know who has the right of way, yet failed to
yield the right of way anyway. The problem isn't if people CAN drive
safely. The problem is if people WILL drive safely. Driver Testing
can only determine if a person CAN drive safely. Virtually everybody
CAN drive safely. Driver Testing can not determine if a person WILL
drive safely.

The only way you can determine if a person WILL drive safely is to
allow them to drive. Then, If a person's driving endangers others,
they are not driving safely, and should be prosecuted. If they do so
habitually, prohibit them from driving. If they still continue, put
them in jail for a while. And, this is all done WITHOUT Driver
Licensing.

I would be happy if vehicles over a certain size get a special place
in parking lots where they must park. It's hard enough pulling out of
the parking space, even when you backed in, when you're flanked by
Excursions.

LOL thats what they said about the am raido too.

>
>

Me too, the bigger the vehicle the closer to the store. make those prissy
ass vehicles park in the rear

How much should I have gotten for doing 110mph in a 55mph in a 2000
pound car?

Kinetic energy fines; mv^2 if you must but the whole premise is flawed.
Are you sure you want to penalize people for driving cars with airbags
and door and roof reinforcements? What about a heavy bank of batteries
in a hybrid? We have a way of making people pay extra for their choice
of vehicle, we call it insurance.

I love this idea. A 500 pound motorcycle would get a hundred dollar fine
and two points *deducted* from the rider's license.

Yeah, that works!

In most states that scenario crossed the boundary from speeding to reckless
driving, but I realize that this line of argument has too many holes to
sustain itself (for e.g. a big rig, add a trailer, add two trailers, etc. A
Lotus Esprit weighing 1700lbs going 100, A Ducati, weighing 500, going 150
etc.)

My father purchased a 1938 Packard (I'm also a 1938 model) and, since radios
had to be added ( big box of tubes which sat on the floor, with a cable
attached tuner that was mounted on the steering column) that was exactly
the warning that he was given.. That tuning the radio would cause him to
crash the car. He told me that the persons giving the warning were, without
exception, "slow" people. From 1938 to 1957, when he left this mortal coil,
he never crashed the car.

I have always been amazed at the people who, apparently cannot do any two
things at one time, thinking that the rest of the population is likewise
limited. Helicopter pilots routinely fly with the left hand on the cyclic,
right hand on the stick, left foot on the left rudder, right foot on the
right rudder, and talking, through a headset into at least one, and usually
two, and sometimes four, radios. Formula One drivers routinely drive over a
hunderd miles an hour while talking on the radio.

What this means is that there should be a graduated driving license, just
like they have in Germany. They take a two-week intensive course, costing
thousands of dollars, and if they are slow, they get a limited license that
allows local roads only, no autobahn driving.

I am always tempted to respond to a person who says one cannot drive and
talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can't." because that is probably
the truth, but no one wants to hear it, and I am too nice to say it.
American democracy being what it is, they just want to drag everyone down to
the lowest common denominator - if *I* can't do it then *no one* should be
able to do it.

And it's true. Radios are a huge distraction and should be banned from
cars too. Also no food or drink allowed in the passenger compartment.
>
>
> >
> >

I'm all for making the SUV owners park in the rear of the lot. It
should be handled like handicapped parking. A special sticker on the
plate designating this vehicle as a highway tank that must be parked in
the tank area.

Something like that. Motorcyclists are pretty safe drivers anyway, in
my experience. They KNOW they're the little guy and have to be careful.
>
> Yeah, that works!

I've ridden for most of my life, and much as it pains me to say it, you're
so completely wrong. If it isn't some middle-aged idiot who just got a
Harley he doesn't know how to ride, it's a 20-something idiot who just got a
sportbike he doesn't know how to ride.

As another poster suggested, we really need graduated licenses. Even more
so for bikes. Do it like many Asian countries - you get a 500cc and under
license for a year or two, a 750 and under license for a period, and then a
full license.

It would be better for the sport, as fewer people would buy too much bike,
crash in their first year, and never ride again.

And again, I say that I can drive better when I devote the vast majority
of my attention to the driving task. People aren't saying that they
can't drive while talking on the cell phone, eating, drinking, changing
tapes or cds, tuning the radio, entering options into their in-car
navigation system, etc. They're saying that they can drive better when
they're not trying to do those things while driving.

That would wipe out the motorcycle industry. Nobody would take up
biking if they were told they had to buy two "trainer" bikes until they
could get a real cycle.

a 750 isn't a real bike I guess? I thought there were some pretty
decent ones on the market.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Funny, it hasn't wiped it out in countries that use this system.

I think it would sell a lot more bikes. The majority of people (in my
experience) who get a bike quit after a year or two, usually after their
first crash. It would make it easier to enter the sport, since you could
get one of the smaller bikes used pretty cheap - you can get a clean EX-500
(great starter bike) for around $2500. It would put some premium on having
a full license, and we all know exclusivity breeds envy and desire.

And it would create an incentive for the industry to come out with some
interesting small displacement bikes. They used to make 500cc and 600cc
cruisers, and they were a godsend to short people who wanted to ride. Pass
such a law and you might have fewer people start riding, but a much greater
percentage who do would keep riding for many years.

This is why John always yields to vehicles backing out of
parking spaces regardless of size of the vehicle doing the
backing and driver ability to see if other traffic is
present.

FYI I drive a Ford Focus ZX3.

--
John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore.

That's exactly what I said. I am polite enough to not say to a person who
says, one cannot drive and talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can't."

Maybe you do not understand, as my father's generation of non-drivers did
not understand how one could drive a car and tune a radio.

Maybe *you* can't.

*You* can drive better when *you* devote the vast majority of *your*

I appreciate that. Others can talk on multiple radios, while looking at a
laptop computer, hosting a GPS device, and drive across the country, twenty
times.

Everybody is different.

Another argument for graduated licenses, which I am all for. Give a real
driving test, with cellphones, and blaring sirens, and screeching semis, and
illegal street racing, and fire trucks, and max legal speed in the left
lane, and getting tail-gated, all of that stuff. Separate the Juan Fangio's
from the Elmer Fudds.

It is a good thing for me that my helicopter driver could autorotate and
talk on the radio at the same time because that is why I am alive today.

But some people cannot do that. They should probably not only not be
talking, they should not be driving - because apparently anything distracts
them.

But this is a never-ending sequential argument which will go nowhere
because, basically, if you do not get it, you do not get it.

There was a book, written by Tom Wolfe, about this subject called, "The
Right Stuff." If you have it, you have it. If you do not have it, you do
not even recognize that you do not have it.

But I am not saying that some people do not have it, they should know, but
they don't, so I refrain from the obvious.

>>>I am always tempted to respond to a person who says one cannot drive and

No, it isn't. You're saying that there are some people who can drive
while multitaking and others who can't. I'm saying that all people
drive better when they're devoting more attention to driving as opposed
to other tasks (even the ones who think they drive just fine while
multitasking).

Again, does that mean that people who can talk on multiple radios, while

country 20 times are not capable of better driving if they weren't
engaged in multiple secondary tasks?

To me, that doesn't make sense. Every single person will drive better
if they're devoting 99% of their attention to the driving task as
opposed to 70%. Sure, there are numerous drivers who get away without
crashing while only devoting 7/10 of their attention to the driving
task, but that doesn't mean that their liklihood of failing to maintain
control of the vehicle when a situation (that they didn't notice
initially since some of their attention was focused on the GPS device
instead of the road ahead) arises.

..."Every single person will drive better if..."

Well, that's the difference. You think that all drivers are the same.
Since I don't, I think that I have contributed all that I can. But I
sincerely wish you well.

Your opinions do not track with facts that have been proven
by many centuries of research into the human mind and how
it operates. Arguing ad nauseam does not make your wishes true.

FloydR

Whether all drivers are the same or not is not relevant to the issue.
What is relevant is the fact that devoting more attention to a given
task allows one to respond faster to events associated with it. I'll
grant that there are people who can engage in a task devoting only 70%
of their attention it and perform as well as another person who's
devoting 90% of their attention to it. That doesn't mean that the first
person's level of performance will not improve if they devote a higher
percentage of their overall attention to the task.

Then everyone can be an aviator, or astronaut. No need for an aviation
physical, everyone is the same. Many centuries of research into the human
mind and how it operates have proven....wait a minute. Proven what? Maybe
you could complete this.

Where was I? Oh yes, eye-hand coordination. Many centuries ago, when Ted
Williams played baseball, the USMC tested him and found that he had the
greatest eye-hand coordination that they had ever tested. The US armed
forces tested maybe ten million people and found that we are not all alike.
Well, Ted flew in WWII, and then came back to hit .409, and then flew in
Korea (he was John Glenn's wingman) and then was pretty good. Anyhow, I do
not have a personal opinion. I had the results of tests that told me how
good a person *could* do.

Colleges do not look at IQ tests for nothing. The armed forces do not look
at whether a person is a CAT I, II, IIIA, IIIB, or IV for nothing. They are
absolute predictors of how a person will perform.

But I am trying (nicely I thought) to get out of this conversation.
Obviously some people think that all people are the same. Educated in the
last twenty years, no doubt. But people are not the same. But if you want
to believe that, okay by me.

Now I think I will leave everyone (nicely, I hope) to their own beliefs.

You stupid liberal piece of rancid crap! Only someone as stupid as you
would need a sticker on the tag to tell the difference between an
Excursion and a Taurus!

Go jump into a fire, luzer!

From your comments, you seem to imply that your reflexes are as good,
or at least within the range of, Michael Schumacker. Not.

FloydR

No, they're not. You shouldn't drive your car into a situation where you
need to depend on braking distance and steering stability.

But its superior dynamics only come into play if the driver has already
been incredibly incompetent.

It was failure to yield long before there were cell phones, but I'm sure
they don't help.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

> Alan Baker wrote:

> Actually, my original post here was on the facitious side. Actually, a
> bigger vehicle with a better driver posses less of a danger than a
> smaller vehicle with a worse driver.
>
> Now, to your point. Almost every accident can be traced back to one
> driver (and often two) who know who has the right of way, yet failed to
> yield the right of way anyway. The problem isn't if people CAN drive
> safely. The problem is if people WILL drive safely. Driver Testing
> can only determine if a person CAN drive safely. Virtually everybody
> CAN drive safely. Driver Testing can not determine if a person WILL
> drive safely.

Except that typical North American driver testing doesn't even get as
far as determining if they *can*. And then society reinforces the
(wrong) message that the only thing that you need to do to drive safely
is not exceed the speed limit and not drive after drinking.

>
> The only way you can determine if a person WILL drive safely is to
> allow them to drive. Then, If a person's driving endangers others,
> they are not driving safely, and should be prosecuted. If they do so
> habitually, prohibit them from driving. If they still continue, put
> them in jail for a while. And, this is all done WITHOUT Driver
> Licensing.

You could start by actually doing what is done in Germany (and on this
continent for pilots): insist that everyone take a driving course of a
minimum number of hours with an approved curriculum covering all the
salient points of road safety, and only *then* allow them to take a
vastly toughened driving test.

The exams we all took in school worked by rigorously testing us on part
of the subject matter, but we all had to take *all* of the subject to
ensure that we'd know that bits that ended up on the exam.

North American driver licensing is a bad joke.

Well, that was exactly my point. No one (today) has the tested reflexes of
mschumacher...

http://www.mschumacher.com/

I once (1960) raced an XK-140 Jaguar at Laguna Seca, only because they ( I
think SCCA) allowed a pro-am race, to encourage the sport. I realized,
within one mile, after I was passed by two Ferraris, that I was way over my
head, and I retired, as soon as I could, at the end of one lap, having
scrubbed four Dunlop tires, and realizing that I was probably the only
person on the track paying for my own fenders.

I also drove an E-Type Jaguar across Europe (and drove my bride from Basel,
down the Munich to Frankfurt Autobahn at over 100mph - and she said do not
do that again - and I haven't.) but now I'm 67 and would never consider
doing what I once did. My reflexes are not what they once were, but I can
still drive and talk on the radio.

Anyway, I haven't learned anything new in this group and no one has learned
anything from me, so I'll unsubscribe and leave everyone in peace.

I think you mean "no food or drink allowed except in the passenger
compartment."

If I pay for a separate partitioned passenger compartment, I should be
able to eat and drink, listen to the radio, or watch DVDs while my
driver concentrates on driving.

> >
> >
> > >
> > >

Doesn't matter to me where the designated area is. Could be off to
the side rather than at the rear. Can't be the front, though...that's
for handicapped drivers.

I'm all for -TOWING- SUVs that park in marked compact car spaces.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

... and people with Mercedes and Jaguars, don't forget. ;-/

don't attempt to lower everyone to your level of incompetence.

This from a stupid fuckwit who needs special licence tag stickers to tell
the difference between an Excursion and a Focus.

Shut up, kOOk!

--

--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 10/23/05
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/dnox5 http://tinyurl.com/c92qg
Message ID:1130115926....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

What the fuck do you care, anyways? And why do you want to make it
*easier* for people to get morotcycles? Goes against all the other stupis
shit you spew around here, you ass licker!

> And it's true. Radios are a huge distraction and should be banned from

You fascist faggot! If I want to drive with a Mountain Dew in hand or eat
a Whopper while someone else drives, I damn well will do so and there is
nothing that you fascist cock suckers are going to do about it. And if
you try, you won't have any teeth left to eat with - providing that I
decide to let you live at all. Remember, me, Krusty and dwpjr are looking
for you, you shit eating douchebag! And its going to be one hell of a
party (with cigars and kegs) when we find you and get finished with you!

You missed the whole point I made above. Highway safety has more to do
with WILL not CAN one drive safely. Virtually everybody CAN drive
safely. The question is WILL they drive safely. All the testing and
training on earth CAN NOT determine or effect the WILL. Only the
Prosecution of those who WILL harm or endanger others will effect their
WILL.

Driver Licensing is a violation of our Right of Transit ordinarily used
for personal travel on our public highways.

Our public highways were intended to enhance our Right of Liberty.
But, the more our public highways are made unuseable by anything but
the automobile, the more this LIE that Driving is a privilege makes is
prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.

And you missed my points:

First, it doesn't matter if they are willing to drive safely unless they
can; that is, unless they *know how*, all the best will in the world
won't help.

Second, Germany's drivers are far safer than ours. This is a simple fact
you can figure out from counting accidents and fatalities. So doing what
Germany does (i.e. extensive driver training) is just empirically
sensible.

Fine. I happen to agree that driving is a right and not a privilege.

But because of the potential risks associated with the higher speeds of
the motor vehicle, it comes with some additional responsibilities.

Showing that one has the necessary skills to drive safely is one of
those responsibilities. That is all I meant by "North American driver
licensing"; that we don't teach or test for the necessary skills
adequately.

LOL FOOL

>

Johns is finally writing about something he has experience with --
having his fat butt carried in a rickshaw.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

But, virtually everybody of the age of consent CAN drive safely. Even
10 year olds, simply by observation of their parents' driving, have a
good idea of the rules of the road and how to drive safely.

If you studied all dangerous drivers, I dare say you would find out
that 99% of them CAN drive safely, dispite the fact they WILL (or DID)
not drive safely.

And, don't misinterpret this to mean that I believe 99% of the
population of age CAN drive safely. I would think it might be closer
to only 90%, or 85%. Leaving 10% or 15% who CAN NOT drive safely, for
one (usually) pyisical reason or another. But, as the majority of
people are cautious, striving not to endanger others or themself, the
majority of people who can't do something safely, simply won't do that
thing. So, even if more than 1% of the public CAN NOT drive safely,
being the majority of those who CAN NOT won't attempt to begin with, I
still stick to my percentages above, that only 1% of all accidents
could be attributed to an Inability, rather than Intention.

Germany does many things. Must we do EVERYTHING Germany does? Maybe
the greatest impact on driver safety in Germany is that Germany more
strictly prosecutes those who drive dangerously. Determing cause and
effect is more complex than just a surface purvey.

Great!

You contradict yourself. Either it's a Right, or a Privilege acquired
by proof of skill. As I maintain virtually everybody of age CAN drive
safely, I still maintain that Driving is a Right, devoid of any
necessity to prove skill. Just as is our Right of Liberty.

Also, you incorrectly use the word "responsibilities". Many people do,
as government deliberately has them taught incorrectly, for nefarious
reasons of their own.

One is in CHARGE of what they WILL do. One is RESPONSIBLE only for
what they HAVE done.

Also, being "RESPONSIBLE FOR" and being "REQUIRED TO" are two entirely
different concepts.

One is REQUIRED to Pay before Receiving. One is RESPONSIBLE for Paying
after Receiving.

I disagree. I attribute the vast majority of highway dangers to if
they WILL, not CAN, drive safely. And, the best way to effect the WILL
of people is to demonstrate a determination to strictly prosecute those
who WILL NOT drive safely. Do this, and the CAN will take care of
itself. Do this, and those who CAN NOT drive safely will, of their own
accord, either study and train in order to be able to drive safely, or
simply not drive at all.

Accident rates in Germany are far higher than in the USA. Driver
training and driver ed have never been shown to reduce accidents. It is
simply a barrier put up, but it does not prevent accidents.

Cite?

Cite?

I smell.... bullshit.

nate

That is because you are ignorant Nate. You assume everyone is as ignorant
as you are.

You just need to look up the accident rates for each nation. Europe has a
very high accident rate per 100 million miles. Further, in the USA driver
ed is a total failure. Where it is optional, insurance companies love it
because safe teenagers self-select into the program and can be indentified.
Otherwise, it has never been shown to have any effect at all.

For Germany, the death rate per 100 million kilometers is 1.9. In the
USA, it is 1.1. That is 73% higher compared to the USA. All that driver
training seems to be failing in Germany.
>
> I smell.... bullshit.
>
> nate
>

What's your source for these stats, and for what year? It doesn't match
Dr. Leonard Evans' authoritative data for any year I've got. That dataset
shows that in 2002, Germany had a death rate per billion vehicle KM of
11.1, for an international ranking of 12, while the US had a rate of 9.4,
for an international ranking of 10. The German rate is 18% higher (not
your ridiculous 73%). Furthermore, also in 2002, the US had 0.190 deaths
per thousand vehicles, for an international ranking of 16, while Germany
had 0.128 deaths per thousand vehicles, that is 32.6% fewer, for an
international rank of 7.

www.scienceservingsociety.com .

Deaths per billion vehicle KM, 2002, ranked from lowest to highest death
rate:

United Kingdom: 7.5
Norway: 8.3
Sweden: 8.3
Switzerland: 8.4
Finland: 8.5
Netherlands: 8.5
Australia: 9
Canada: 9
Denmark: 9.2
USA: 9.4
Ireland: 10.9
Germany: 11.1
Austria: 12.3
New Zealand: 12.4
Japan: 12.7
France: 13.6
Iceland: 16
Belgium: 16.3
Slovenia: 21.7
etc.

Lookit there: of the nine countries with lower (better) death rates than
the US, *seven* of them are European.

Deaths per 100 million kilometers driven
Egypt 43.2 Bahrain 3.2
Kenya 36.0 New Zealand 2.2
South Korea 29.0 Israel 2.2
Turkey 22.0 Taiwan 2.0
Morocco 21.0 France 2.0
Yemen 12.4 Germany 1.9
Austria 10.7 Japan 1.7
South Africa 10.4 Switzerland 1.6
Bulgaria 9.9 Ireland 1.5
Portugal 9.0 Denmark 1.5
Hungary 8.0 Finland 1.4
Macedonia 7.8 Thailand 1.3
Poland 6.3 Netherlands 1.3
Czech Republic 5.9 Norway 1.2
Spain 5.9 United States 1.1
Hong Kong 4.8 Sweden 1.1
Belgium 3.3 United Kingdom 1.0
Source: IRF, NSC, ASIRT, Others (various years)

Germany: 1.9. USA 1.1.

Difference = amount of change over the original whole times 100 to get a %.
Got a calculator?

Here is the bigger list:

Reading this man's chapters shows him to be a highly-biased writer. He
rails against airbags and commits elementary data analysis flaws, comparing
% decline from high rates in Europe to what admits were the lowest rates in
the world in the USA. Naturally we suffer. In fact, if you follow his
data, the death rates in industrialized nations have fallen so low that
differences among them are small compared to other parts of the world. He
also rails against the seat belt laws, which he claims are poor in the USA,
when in fact you can be stopped for not wearing seat belts all over the
country.

I don't have time to go to the library to get sources in German, Spanish
and so forth. I picked it from a safety-advocacy group.

No, that is what the speedaholic/DIG/LDN driver posters do.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

The highway fatality rate sank to a record low last year, the government
estimated Thursday, but the administration and auto safety advocates
bemoaned an increase in the total number of traffic deaths and urged a
national focus on seat belt use. The fatality rate slid from 1.48 deaths per
100 million vehicle miles traveled in 2003 to 1.46 deaths in 2004. It was
the lowest since records were first kept in 1966, when the rate was 5.50
deaths. Fifty-six percent of those killed weren't wearing seat belts, a rate
unchanged from 2003. NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge said seat belt use is
at 80 percent, an all-time high. But he added, "We could save thousands more
lives each year if everyone buckled up."

What is seat belt usage in Europe?

> "george conklin" <geo...@nxu.edu> wrote

>> Source: IRF, NSC, ASIRT, Others (various years)

Yeah, eh? Just grab a bunch of lists -- don't worry about what year
they're for, nor parameters of the ranking -- and selectively pick and
choose numbers for various countries to try and prove a point. Never mind
that numbers from different years and numbers from different lists are not
comparable.

What a jamoke.

Some do, but if you want to provide data, you know that you wouldn't mix
it from different years and different methodologies.

It is extremely high, in the high 90-percents range. Same with Canada.
Same with Australia. Largely because they have belt usage laws that are
enforced, with no US-style idiotic blithering about seat belt laws'
"intrusion on freedom".

You should ask Mr. Conklin for clarification on how the list was
compiled, before you make those off-the-cuff judgments.

Since he says it came from a number of sources and years, I don't see
how my criticism is "off-the-cuff".

Except he didn't say that. It may well be a logical synthesis from the
sources listed. You need to ask him.

off-the-cuff

adj : with little or no preparation or forethought

He didn't say it was as standardized synthesis and he already showed us
that the US stats were for passenger kilometers not vehicle kilometers.

Yes, that describes conklin's data quite well.

Drivel. Drivel and Drivel. Things change very slowly over 35-40 years, not
year to year.

So since he didn't provide all the background that you wanted, that
relieves you of any responsibility to ask him how the list was compiled?

No, that describes YOUR output in this thread, jensen. You appear have
a preconceived desire, knee-jerking all the way, to reject the material
the he posted.

Since when have you become a knee-jerk defender of Conklin's random
'facts'?

I wasn't defending what he posted, I was commenting on your summary
dismissal of the list that he posted, and your continued resistance to
actually asking him how the list was compiled.

He posted a bunch of numbers, drawn from various sources, after someone
else had posted a single source. I see no reason to accept his approach
if he can't be bothered to explain it when he is trying to post data
that conflicts with well-sourced data.

There's a reason behind that. Our government has a bad habit of lying
to the public about many things, including the supposed benefits of
airbags. In the late 70s, Claybrook claimed that airbags were
completely safe for unbelted children in the front seat and also claimed
that they were safe for adults of all sizes. This was despite the fact
that previous studies had shown that this was not the case.

There's also the fact that FMVSS 208 still requires that airbags be
designed to save an *unbelted* 50th percentile sized male. That doesn't
bode well for the smaller than average female driver who has to sit
closer to the steering wheel to reach the pedals.

And there's extensive data behind that. And a well-documented,
world-renowned, unassailably authoritative body of knowledge in Dr. Evans'
head behind that, too.

He gave the keynote speech at the National Academy of Sciences
Transportation Research Board annual symposium a couple of years ago. It
was a thoroughly rational, logical, and lucid speech.

Oddly enough, I didn't see Messrs. Conklin or Kozel there.

I think you're pulling numbers out of your ass. Every reliable source
I've seen puts the US and Germany roughly even.

nate

How's that? Daniel J. Stern's post from earlier today, referred to --

higher."

SMK: If the German rate is 18% higher than the U.S., that is
-substantially- higher, and certainly not the Mecca that the
speedaholic/DIG/LDN drivers like to think that it is.

yeah, like I said, roughly. Certainly not almost double like the other
poster was claiming.

Driving conditions in Germany are quite different than in the US. To
compare apples to apples. for the purpose of this discussion,
concentrate on *freeway* statistics. IIRC those were not just "roughly
even" but an actual dead heat, if not better in Germany. However, I
don't have those stats handy at the moment, although I'm sure someone
will chime in with them.

nate

Comparing Autobahn fatality rate to US interstate fatality and crash
rates shows that Germany has the lower figure. Overall, Germany has a
higher fatality rate.

My guess is that parts of Germany's secondary road system are built to a
much lower standard as compared to the US secondary road system.

I have posted the link to the statistics to m.t.r. in the past, so
Googling for them shouldn't be too difficult.

> You're absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
> to others.

Especially if a Bush is driving drunk, right?

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > proffsl wrote:
> > > Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > proffsl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The only way you can determine if a person WILL drive safely
> > > > > is to allow them to drive. Then, If a person's driving endangers
> > > > > others, they are not driving safely, and should be prosecuted.
> > > > > If they do so habitually, prohibit them from driving. If they still
> > > > > continue, put them in jail for a while. And, this is all done
> > > > > WITHOUT Driver Licensing.
> > > >
> > > > You could start by actually doing what is done in Germany (and
> > > > on this continent for pilots): insist that everyone take a driving
> > > > course of a minimum number of hours with an approved curriculum
> > > > covering all the salient points of road safety, and only *then* allow
> > > > them to take a vastly toughened driving test.
> > >
> > > You missed the whole point I made above. Highway safety has more
> > > to do with WILL not CAN one drive safely. Virtually everybody CAN
> > > drive safely. The question is WILL they drive safely. All the testing
> > > and training on earth CAN NOT determine or effect the WILL. Only the
> > > Prosecution of those who WILL harm or endanger others will effect their
> > > WILL.
> >
> > And you missed my points:
> >
> > First, it doesn't matter if they are willing to drive safely unless they
> > can; that is, unless they *know how*, all the best will in the world
> > won't help.
>
> But, virtually everybody of the age of consent CAN drive safely. Even
> 10 year olds, simply by observation of their parents' driving, have a
> good idea of the rules of the road and how to drive safely.

Utter and complete nonsense. *No one* can be a safe driver without
training. Not everything that makes a safe driver is immediately
observable, and obeying all the rules of the road won't keep you safe it
you don't understand those unobservable skills.

>
> If you studied all dangerous drivers, I dare say you would find out
> that 99% of them CAN drive safely, dispite the fact they WILL (or DID)
> not drive safely.
>
> And, don't misinterpret this to mean that I believe 99% of the
> population of age CAN drive safely. I would think it might be closer
> to only 90%, or 85%. Leaving 10% or 15% who CAN NOT drive safely, for
> one (usually) pyisical reason or another. But, as the majority of
> people are cautious, striving not to endanger others or themself, the
> majority of people who can't do something safely, simply won't do that
> thing. So, even if more than 1% of the public CAN NOT drive safely,
> being the majority of those who CAN NOT won't attempt to begin with, I
> still stick to my percentages above, that only 1% of all accidents
> could be attributed to an Inability, rather than Intention.

No one CAN driver safely unless they've received the TRAINING to know
HOW to drive safely.

Some still won't, but I'm reasonably confident that most don't have a
death wish.

Maybe. But the fact is that they actually TRAIN their drivers.

We -- in essence -- do not.

>
>
> > > > North American driver licensing is a bad joke.
> > >
> > > Driver Licensing is a violation of our Right of Transit ordinarily
> > > used for personal travel on our public highways.
> > >
> > > Our public highways were intended to enhance our Right of Liberty.
> > > But, the more our public highways are made unuseable by anything
> > > but the automobile, the more this LIE that Driving is a privilege makes
> > > is prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.
> >
> > Fine. I happen to agree that driving is a right and not a privilege.
>
> Great!
>
>
> > But because of the potential risks associated with the higher speeds
> > of the motor vehicle, it comes with some additional responsibilities.
> >
> > Showing that one has the necessary skills to drive safely is one of
> > those responsibilities.
>
> You contradict yourself. Either it's a Right, or a Privilege acquired
> by proof of skill. As I maintain virtually everybody of age CAN drive
> safely, I still maintain that Driving is a Right, devoid of any
> necessity to prove skill. Just as is our Right of Liberty.

Even rights are subject to reasonable limitations. Driving is an
activity fraught with risks and if a person has not taken reasonable
steps to reduce those risks, they should not be allowed to drive.

The reasonable step is to show competency by taking an adequate test of
ones skills and abilities.

>
> Also, you incorrectly use the word "responsibilities". Many people do,
> as government deliberately has them taught incorrectly, for nefarious
> reasons of their own.
>
> One is in CHARGE of what they WILL do. One is RESPONSIBLE only for
> what they HAVE done.
>
> Also, being "RESPONSIBLE FOR" and being "REQUIRED TO" are two entirely
> different concepts.
>
> One is REQUIRED to Pay before Receiving. One is RESPONSIBLE for Paying
> after Receiving.

What a bunch of specious nonsense.

>
>
> > That is all I meant by "North American driver licensing"; that we don't
> > teach or test for the
> > necessary skills adequately.
>
> I disagree. I attribute the vast majority of highway dangers to if
> they WILL, not CAN, drive safely. And, the best way to effect the WILL
> of people is to demonstrate a determination to strictly prosecute those
> who WILL NOT drive safely. Do this, and the CAN will take care of
> itself. Do this, and those who CAN NOT drive safely will, of their own
> accord, either study and train in order to be able to drive safely, or
> simply not drive at all.

No one can do what they don't know *how* to do, except by good luck.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Well, then Germany trains their drivers for high accident rates than in
the USA. The program is obviously a total failure.

Do you think that merely parroting something as fact will make it true?
the FACT is that your "statistics" were pulled out of your ass and
continue to be so, and the fact that you continue to make your
incorrect assertions after you've already been given the correct
information means that you care more about "winning" the "argument"
than actually being right. So why don't you just take your "victory"
now, without going through the farce of a "debate" and don't let the
door hit you in the ass on the way out, eh?

idiot.

nate