Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:
>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> Laws of physics?

>Laws of physics.

>> The "in a crash" phrase pre-supposes that the car will be in a crash
>> presumably in a crash with a lighter "baseline" vehicle as they make a
>> reference to the "baseline". [That's my assumption.]

>You've obviously not read the studies in question. You wouldn't need to

Correct. I've not read the studies. I haven't found them at the
Transport Canada web site.

If you can tell me where to find them, I'll read them.

>assume if you'd only just read instead. The figures for safety effects of
>airbags, vehicle mass increases, etc. are *across all crashes*. The reason
>why North American airbags show such a low (2%) safety benefit is that
>they have a negative or neutral effect in more crashes than they have a
>positive effect in. The negative-effect crashes pull down the figure.

I'm not arguing about the marginal benefit of airbags when seatbelts
are available and used.

>> OK; Bolt 400 pounds of lead to the floor of the car and crash it into a
>> bridge pylon. I guarantee that the vehicle occupants will be worse off
>> than the occupants of an un-ballasted vehicle.

>There are single-car crashes that tend to exert a downward influence on
>the safety benefit of extra vehicle mass, but car-on-car crashes are more
>common than car-into-pylon crashes. That's why the figure is 9% rather
>than (say) 12%.

Interesting that you haven't addressed the basic engineering aspects
of "just add weight".

Provide the entire initial report and I will read it.

>> Furthermore, increasing the vehicle's inertia reduces its ability to
>> change direction to _avoid_ a crash or to minimise the severity of
>> impact.

>That's a separate question entirely.

>Just because something doesn't agree with your political agenda does not
>make it "junk science". Furthermore, you're on very thin ice making
>accusations of "junk science" when you obviously have a very poor grasp of
>basic statistical principles.

Please don't make any assumptions about my grasp of statistical
principles; basic or otherwise.

Please don't assume that I have a political agenda.

Cite the initial report and I will read it.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> >You've obviously not read the studies in question.

> Correct. I've not read the studies. I haven't found them at the
> Transport Canada web site.

Head over to the UMTRI website.

> If you can tell me where to find them, I'll read them.

Jolly good. Get back to us then.

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:

>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> Maybe you have something against junk science. Junk science is
>> motivated by political agenda; not by a pursuit of knowledge.

>Except in FelscheWorld, where "junk science" means anything Bernd
>Felsche disagrees with.

Don't attack the messenger if you don't like the message.

Provide the facts that support your argument that heavier vehicles
are safer.

Provide the original paper to which you refer. I will read it.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Please don't make any assumptions about my grasp of statistical
> principles

I don't need to. You've provided ample evidence that your grasp of
statistical principles is weak and spotty.

> Please don't assume that I have a political agenda.

I don't need to. You've provided ample evidence of same in your spews and
rants about the "junk science" and "lies" regarding bigger cars being
safer than small ones.

> Cite the initial report and I will read it.

The initial report's already been *cited*. I guess English isn't really
your strong suit, either. I've already told you where to find it; now the
only questions besides "will you actually read it, or just pretend?" are
"will you comprehend it?" and "will you admit to its conclusions being
valid?".

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> >> Maybe you have something against junk science. Junk science is
> >> motivated by political agenda; not by a pursuit of knowledge.
>
> >Except in FelscheWorld, where "junk science" means anything Bernd
> >Felsche disagrees with.

> Don't attack the messenger if you don't like the message.

I'm not. I'm attacking the messenger 'cause he's wrong.

> Provide the facts that support your argument that heavier vehicles
> are safer.

You know where the study is. Go get it.

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:

>On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> >You've obviously not read the studies in question.

>> Correct. I've not read the studies. I haven't found them at the
>> Transport Canada web site.

>Head over to the UMTRI website.

Most of the 13,000+ publications in the catalogue aren't
downloadable.

The site search at UMTRI is *broken*. Shows an error page.

Care to elucidate as to _which_ publication you're talking about
instead of simply pointing at the library "building"?

I've found "Vehicle design versus aggressivity" by Joksch, H. C.
Is that the one?
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"Transport Canada studies uncovered that overall, air bags reduce the
risk of injury by just two per cent for adults who wear seatbelts.
That's almost negligible. A seatbelt alone reduces a driver's risk of
death by 42 per cent."
http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/cars/airbags/

The benefit of weight was mentioned in the CBC news piece by Dr. Leonard
Evans:
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=2350

His findings are also supported by research of Charli E. Coon, J.D.,
Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...ent/BG1458.cfm

And now let's see your cites.

Ivan

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> >> >You've obviously not read the studies in question.

> >> Correct. I've not read the studies. I haven't found them at the
> >> Transport Canada web site.
>
> >Head over to the UMTRI website.
>
> Most of the 13,000+ publications in the catalogue aren't
> downloadable.

That's true. But they don't charge very much (10=A2/page) to photocopy, and
they mail what you order at actual postal cost.

DS

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Care to elucidate as to _which_ publication you're talking about instead
> of simply pointing at the library "building"?

Well, I'm not talking about just one publication, but a very good start
will be "Traffic Safety" by Dr. Leonard Evans. It is NOT free; if you
cannot find it at a library, it'll cost you around $100, same as it cost
me.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

My copy is signed by the author.

DS