At 11:26 AM 1/15/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
>Here's a question: Does the study examine differences in the range of speeds
>used on the same roads at the same time? I would imagine that if everyone were
>going 80 mph they would be driving much more safely than if people on a
>highway were driving a range of speeds from 50-80. I'm sure that if everyone
>were driving 80 they'd have a higher risk during the time they were driving
>than if everyone were driving 50, but they would also be on the road at least
>40% less time than those driving 50, so their overall cumulative risk may be
>lower even though their minute by minute risk may be higher, as you
Aha! That's it: impose lower speed limits - it plays to the same interests
of fine collections and insurance, _and_ saves lives. (I mean, of course, after
The problem with that though is that it's _creative_, it's something _new_, and the big organizations will not want to flip their arguments 180% degrees. Besides needed thinking, this would demonstrate that their true motives are to create a controlled environment which they can benefit from, rather than save anybody's time.
As for the innocent people getting killed - I agree, that's an issue.
And we don't know the extent of it. Why? Because the statistical agencies
don't care about this, apparently.
I didn't mean to post a comprehensive analysis of the issues. I don't have the data, the expertise, or the time. All I meant to demonstrate that the few numbers published in the study support the opposite conclusion form what they are trying to make.
It's a general problem with economic calculations - they do not take into account at all the ultimate benefits people want to receive from the economic system, such as free time, knowledge of the world, freedom, and happiness.
So all economic indicators count the progress of the machine world. Looks like the machines already rule the planet, and humans just serve them.