Pastor Rick Strawcutter preaches How Any Idiot Can Beat a Radar Speeding Ticket in Michigan
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5186628884102899588&hl=en

download ASAP since Google Video is banning and deleting all videos in 6 months
http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/04/case-of-censored-videos.html

Phil replies((I find this rather surprising considering the conclusion I reached was the same as a possible conclusion the author of the study mentioned. That this possible conclusion doesn’t support your agenda as an NMA member doesn’t negate it as possible.))

Schwinn asks((What is it that you do, then?))

Phil replies((You should have assertained this prior to acting like such an ass. Maybe you’d have had a little more respect for my opinion. However since you already hold contempt for my opinion what my occupation is holds no relevance to our conversation.))

This passage implies that my conclusions are correct more crashes with more injuries is a reason to recomend that the study be extended before a conclusive long-term decision on the 65mph speed limit be made. It was expected that all the sections of roadway would react favorably to the 65mph speed limit but because not all the roadways reacted favorably to the speed limit increase further study needs to be done before a conclusion can be reached.

Or maybe this passage would be easier for you to comprehend “As noted previously, accident rates fluctuate over time. In periods between 1984 and 1996, rates vary as much as 12 percent per year. The study captured data for a fixed 18-month period. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine whether the increase in accidents in 65 MPH zones represents a normal fluctuation in accident rates OR suggests that increased speed contributes to increased accidents.”<——–(READ THIS VERY SLOWLY TO FULLY COMPREHEND IT)

Did you not read that far down the study or were you intentionally misdirecting us?

First off, you conclusions simply make no sense. As the study states very clearly, “Changes in the measured average travel speeds in the 65 MPH zones were found to experience nominal differences compared to prior 65 MPH conditions, as some locations increased and some decreased, generally less than 2 mph.” In other words, even though the posting was 65MPH, the speeds generally remained the same. In fact, they even said “The change to the 65 MPH speed limit during the study period had minimal impact on actual travel speeds.”

If travel speeds changed oh-so-minimally, then how come there were suddenly more accidents and fatalities?

I have no problem dealing with insults from you… I can take it.

As for me doing my job as poorly as I interpreted the study, I’ll have you know that I am still rather gainfully employed, and doing a pretty good job at my R&D engineering work in the high-tech industry. The R&D job supports my knowledge and scientific reasoning ability every day, as I couldn’t possibly succeed without those skills.

What is it that you do, then?

Schwinn writes((This is called science and engineering. It’s a concept lost on many people, and only taught in limited fashion in high schools, unfortunately. As an engineer, I do this type of proper testing all the time, so I’m very familiar with it.))

If you do your job as poorly as you interpreted that study then you must be homeless and hungry.

The 12.0 in 65mph compared to the 12.9 in ADJACENT 55mph zones was pointed out and implied that there was spillover from the 65mph zones onto the 55mph adjacent zones. The control group was the portions of highway PRIOR to the 65mph increase both the portions that were raised and the portions adjacent that remained 55mph. To compare the 12.0 increase in crashes in zones that were raised to 65mph to the adjacent zones that remained at 55mph and suffered a 12.9% increase in crashes in an attempt to make it appear as if the portions that were raised to 65mph would have suffered an additional .9% increase if the had remained as a 55mph zone is intellectually dishonest. I will not concede that you have sucessfully made a point because your assertions are a farce.

quote from study “Notably, accidents on sections of highways with 65 MPH speed limits increased 18.3 percent. Accidents with injuries increased by 9.4 percent, and the total number of people injured increased by 5.9 percent from a comparable time period.”
Phil writes((CFrom a comparable time period (this is known as a control group) when compared to the control group of a similar time period prior to the increase in speed limits 18.3% more crashes 9.4% more crashes with injuries and 5.9% more people suffering injuries nwere experienced.
Of course if you want to concede the point that after the increase to 65mph there were more crashes that injured more people I’d be willing to move on to your next misinterpretation if that is your wishes.))

Side note: Insulting me will gain you no respect and only be met with insults from me aimed at you. We can disagree on the material without any personal insults being exchanged. Does the NMA give classes on how to try and intimidate anyone who has a view that differs from the NMA because every one of you NMA Idiots I have tried to have a discussion with ends up trying the same Dumbass tactics of insulting me, my education and my understanding of the principles. I don’t expect you to agree with me nor should you expect me to agree totally with you. That being said there is no reason we can’t discuss the issue without you making it a win/lose debate.

The 12.0/12.9 matter: Scientifically speaking, the 12.0 increase in the “data” group of 65MPH zones is telling, but to do any proper scientific study, you must have a control group to compare it to. The idea being that since every study has variation from time to time, the control group can pretty reasonably account for any such variation in the data. By this metric, the 12.0/12.9 are showing that the data is relatively comparable, and that even if you do nothing, the accident rate increased by 12.9%, as per the control group… due to other uncontrolled variables. Therefore, the 12.0% increase on the 65MPH zone is showing no significant deviation from the control. In other words, the one thing “changed” between the two zones (65 vs 55) shows no significant effect on accident rates.

This is called science and engineering. It’s a concept lost on many people, and only taught in limited fashion in high schools, unfortunately. As an engineer, I do this type of proper testing all the time, so I’m very familiar with it.

Notice I have not mentioned the NMA or anything here… because its basic science and experimentation. The NMA doesn’t have to “twist” numbers in any way here, because this is how real engineering is done. Everything else is BS and misdirection. If you don’t have a control group in your study, a lot of questions can arise making the “study” relatively moot.

Before I continue on your other ranting, can we at least consider this point made? I don’t want to go off on any more tangents with this matter until we solve each and every point you wish to contest… you seem to lose track of the information I am providing too easily. I’m happy to continue onto the next point as soon as this one is clear.

Phil replies(This says it all! papers from the NMA and other sites(likely other sites that the NMA has linked you to). There are so many studies out there concerning so many aspects of speed limits and safety yet the only 1 that you believe is the one that the NMA tells you to believe, all the others are “misinformation” and contain “improper conclusions”)

Schwinn writes((that the accidents in the 55 zone increased by 12.9%, while those in the 65 zone increased by 12%… that’s a net DECREASE if you know how to read the data scientifically.))

Phil replies((I have to laugh at this because it shows just how brainwashed you are by the NMA. If I get what you are trying to say it is that because the 55mph zones experienced a 12.9% increase then the increased speed limits experiencing only a 12% increase is actually a .9% decrease? Does the NMA give classes on how to manipulate and twist data like that?

quote from the article((An analysis of certain 65 MPH zones and ADJACENT 55 MPH zones were made for comparison basis with accidents from the 12-month period before 65 MPH was implemented, to the 12-month period after 65 MPH was implemented. The highways analyzed were I-78, I-80 and I-287. The findings showed that accidents increased in the 65 MPH zones by 12.0%, and increased in the 55 MPH zones by 12.9%.))[emphasis added]

Phil replies((Note I emphasized the word adjacent. The word adjacent is there not because they were comparing the 12.9% and 12% respectively but because they were showing a causual link of spill over of the increased 65mph limits onto ADJACENT 55mph highways. Therefore my conclusion was correct that they did increase 12% and 12.9% respectively. Understadably Accident rates fluctuate over time. In periods between 1984 and 1996, rates vary as much as 12 percent per year. The word flucuation implies both increases and decreases and also it says it would be impossible to distinguish if the 12 and 12.9% were part of that normal fluctation. best case scenario is an even in 65mph zones and a .9% increase in the 55mph zones. worst case scenario is 12% increase in the 65mph zones and 12.9% in the adjacent 55mph zones. in actuality the scenario is propably somewhere in between. Which BTW Equates to a net increase. ))

Phil writes((Oh yeah you must have missed the portion where it said “An analysis of CERTAIN 65 MPH zones and adjacent 55 MPH zones were made for comparison basis with accidents from the 12-month period before 65 MPH was implemented, to the 12-month period after 65 MPH was implemented.” NOTE it says CERTAIN not ALL so it would be a moot point for you to suggest that an overall increase wasn’t present given studywide roadways that recieved the increased sped limit yielded an 18.3% increase in crashes. That would be some 6.3%-18.3% above the normal fluctuation.))

Schwinn writes((As for the severity issue, you’ll note the study showed a DECREASE in fatal accidents as well… making that entire paragraph of yours rather moot.))

Phil replies((You are joking right? You can’t be that ignorant and be an engineer too. Fatal injuries can’t happen without injury. “Accidents with injuries increased by 9.4 percent, and the total number of people injured increased by 5.9 percent from a comparable time period.” fortunately there were fewer life threatening injuries. “It should be noted, however, that fatal accidents comprise less than one percent of all reported accidents and may not be a statistically relevant indicator of safety.”))

Phil replies((Studywide results “Notably, accidents on sections of highways with 65 MPH speed limits increased 18.3 percent.Accidents with injuries increased by 9.4 percent, and the total number of people injured increased by 5.9 percent from a comparable time period.” This tells us there were more crashes and more people were injured in those crashes no matter how you try to twist it.))

schwinn writes((The only choice I am making is to not waste any more time with your empty data sets. If you have read the data, you must have it… if you have it, why do you refuse to show your work?))

I want to see how long you’ll hang your hat on the “why are you affraid to show me” BS if you are still suggesting that in 6 months I’ll show you what I have. However we both know that to be your red herring. You know those studies say exactly what I posted from the summary of each but being a member of the NMA knowing you can’t discredit those studies you ignore them. When they are brought up you discredit the messenger because most aren’t as educated as you pretend to be. If all you have is I won’t show my copy of a study your position is already weak. I too have been down the road where some anonymous person doubts everything you offer and keeps asking for more information. I made a statement you said it was incorrect but can’t prove it incorrect so you are trying to waste my time here. I gave you the study authors and dates published if you REFUSE to view the material it is on you not me. We have already seen that if you had the study in hand you’d interpret it incorrectly anyway so why are you here? Run along and remain ignorant as long as you want. I gave you the tools to expand your mind but I can’t force you to use them.

Once again, you aren’t reading me right. Your right, I don’t want to research everything all over again… because every time I do, I find that the NMA’s statements hold water, while the other data is misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Anytime ANYONE contradicts the NMA’s stance, they spew forth supposed data, but never actually reference it… so I have to go off and research it all again. Why is that? I mean, if the other person claims to have studies that prove their point, then why are they never provided?

I already posted one link of a source which contradicts your statements, and you still don’t seem to want to rebut it directly… instead, you want me to go off on a research expedition for data you supposedly have already read… yet refuse to show.

You say you read the 18-month study I posted, yet you seem to be missing the text. You state that there were “more crashes”… yet the study says “The findings showed that accidents increased in the 65 MPH zones by 12.0%, and increased in the 55 MPH zones by 12.9%. Accident rates fluctuate over time. In periods between 1984 and 1996, rates vary as much as 12 percent per year. The study captured data for a fixed 18-month period. Accordingly, it is not possible to determine whether the increase in accidents in 65 MPH zones represents a normal fluctuation in accident rates or suggests that increased speed contributes to increased accidents.”

In other words, your statement of them increasing is an improper conclusion. If anything, you can say there was no difference, but making a statement of INCREASE is a lie, at best, since even the study says it’s likely not statistically significant… but even still, that the accidents in the 55 zone increased by 12.9%, while those in the 65 zone increased by 12%… that’s a net DECREASE if you know how to read the data scientifically.

As for the severity issue, you’ll note the study showed a DECREASE in fatal accidents as well… making that entire paragraph of yours rather moot.

The only choice I am making is to not waste any more time with your empty data sets. If you have read the data, you must have it… if you have it, why do you refuse to show your work?

Let’s examine what you have told us:

You just told us you don’t have the time, inclination, or see the fruitfulness of this debate. You don’t have the time to look up all the material and websites that contradict what I offered.

You haven’t looked up anything, researched anything, or tried to find the entire truth about what you have been commenting on, You read what the N.M.A. wrote here and you RAN with it.

You haven’t looked up anything because you don’t have the inclination to, You haven’t studied any reports because you don’t have the time.

You’ve just exhibited exactly what I was talking about, not doing any research for yourself…just following blindly like a sheep.

Thing is if you posted anything as far as a list of sources that contradict what I am saying I’d do the research and find them so that I can disprove your assertions. If the evidence was compelling enough it may alter my opinion.

Yes you did link to an 18 Month Study Report on 65 MPH Speed Limit in New Jersey done by the New Jersey Department of transportation. I read it and formed a conclusion to what the EVIDENCE said. It tells me that the change from 55-65mph created a driving enviroment where more crashes happened and more people in those crashes were injured but fortunately those injuries included fewer life threatening injuries. It is evidence that the raise from 55mph to 65mph in New Jersey had a negative result on traffic safety.

When I brought forth the severity issue, you did as any good little NMA member would do and say it really isn’t an issue if you decrease the number of crashes so too you decrease the number of injuries and fatalities. Unless you eliminate the possibility of crash entirely severity of the existing crashes is an issue. Since you can’t eliminate crashes entirely the severity of the crashes must be considered. To say that severity isn’t an issue is a complete lie. It is possible to have 1/2 as many crashes all with increased severity and end up with 1/2 the number of actual crashes but twice the number of injuries or fatalities. As witnessed in the EVIDENCE you supplied, raising the speed limit doesn’t always accomplish fewer crashes.
(In fact in that case:
” Fatal accidents in 65 MPH zones have decreased since the implementation of the 65 MPH speed limit. There were ten fewer deaths, representing a 9.6 percent decrease, on the sections of highway that now have the 65 MPH speed limit and seven fewer fatal accidents, representing a 7.9 percent decrease, than on those sections of highway for a comparable time period. It should be noted, however, that fatal accidents comprise LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of all reported accidents and MAY NOT BE a statistically RELEVANT indicator of safety.

Notably, accidents on sections of highways with 65 MPH speed limits INCREASED 18.3 percent. Accidents with injuries INCREASED by 9.4 percent, and the total number of people injured INCREASED by 5.9 percent from a comparable time period. An analysis of certain 65 MPH zones and adjacent 55 MPH zones were made for comparison basis with accidents from the 12-month period before 65 MPH was implemented, to the 12-month period after 65 MPH was implemented. The highways analyzed were I-78, I-80 and I-287. The findings showed that accidents INCREASED in the 65 MPH zones by 12.0%, and INCREASED in the 55 MPH zones by 12.9%.”)

It is a choice you are making that you will not view any of the evidence that I supplied in a nice neat list for you to refer to. so for your reference to data that supports my opinion simply reread the evidence that you supplied a link to and then refer to the list of studies I supplied and see how many of them have similar results of increased crashes, injuries, or deaths resulting from higher posted speed limits. If you choose to NOT view those studies that is on you not me I have already discredited your argument using your own evidence. Anything further from you without viewing those studies is a blatant waste of both our time, so you may as well use that time to view a study or two.