If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher > restrictions with higher age limits. Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > Yeah - and they're always in front of you, and they're always in the > middle of trying to figure out which Happy Meal each of the little > broodlings wants, and which drinks they want to go with them... And a cellphone jammed into one ear on yakking away with hubby(or the ex)/the office/therapist or whom ever about some stupid crap that would not be worthy of a land line... > Which is why it's ALWAYS faster to just park the goddamn car and walk > inside. Which is why I don't eat at fast food joints, prefering to go to regular restaurants where I can sit and enjoy my meal (**** off, LBMHB) which is generally better food at only a slightly higher price. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:46:34 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
> wrote: >On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:43:32 -0700, Olaf Gustafson > >wrote: > >>I'd say the people I see most frequently in fast food drive thrus are >>soccer moms > >Yeah - and they're always in front of you, and they're always in the >middle of trying to figure out which Happy Meal each of the little >broodlings wants, and which drinks they want to go with them... > >Which is why it's ALWAYS faster to just park the goddamn car and walk >inside. It's often faster, but not always. I've also learned that if I want KFC, go before 5 PM - they are handing me the food even before they can hand me the change if I do that. After 5, ya' gotta wait. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
In article ich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern > wrote: >On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher >> restrictions with higher age limits. > >Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is. Without separating the effects of inexperience from the effects of age, such data (presuming it isn't otherwise flawed) does not support harsher restrictions with higher age limits. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote:
> >> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher > >> restrictions with higher age limits. > >Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is. > Without separating the effects of inexperience from the effects of age, > such data (presuming it isn't otherwise flawed) does not support harsher > restrictions with higher age limits. Teens crash most. Therefore, restricting teen driving means fewer crashes. That teenagers will stomp their widdle feet and go "No fair!" is immaterial. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ich.edu>,
Daniel J. Stern > wrote: >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote: > >> >> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher >> >> restrictions with higher age limits. > >> >Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is. > >> Without separating the effects of inexperience from the effects of age, >> such data (presuming it isn't otherwise flawed) does not support harsher >> restrictions with higher age limits. > >Teens crash most. Therefore, restricting teen driving means fewer crashes. >That teenagers will stomp their widdle feet and go "No fair!" is >immaterial. If it merely shifts the crashes from the 16-19 set to the 20-23 set, or spreads them out across that period, it's not really an improvement. Why do your critical thinking skills go out the window any time age issues come up? Is there a "grumpy old man" gene somewhere in your DNA that switched on when you reached 21? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article ich.edu>, > Daniel J. Stern > wrote: > >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote: > > > >> >> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and harsher > >> >> restrictions with higher age limits. > > > >> >Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is. > > > >> Without separating the effects of inexperience from the effects of age, > >> such data (presuming it isn't otherwise flawed) does not support harsher > >> restrictions with higher age limits. Inexperience can be trained out. Age-related lack of judgement can only be solved by time. No amount of experience will eliminate lack of judgement. > >Teens crash most. Therefore, restricting teen driving means fewer crashes. > >That teenagers will stomp their widdle feet and go "No fair!" is > >immaterial. > > If it merely shifts the crashes from the 16-19 set to the 20-23 set, > or spreads them out across that period, it's not really an improvement. You are forgetting that some subset of the crashes may be due to lack of judgement. So, in that case, not *all* of the crashes are being shifted. Some are actually being eliminated. > Why do your critical thinking skills go out the window any time age > issues come up? Spoken like someone in their early twenties. Eliminating crashes is good. Why would you be against that? HAND, E.P. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com>,
> wrote: > >Matthew Russotto wrote: >> In article mich.edu>, >> Daniel J. Stern > wrote: >> >On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Matthew Russotto wrote: >> > >> >> >> Of course, the _intended_ application is to justify more and >harsher >> >> >> restrictions with higher age limits. >> > >> >> >Crash data show that's where the biggest problem is. >> > >> >> Without separating the effects of inexperience from the effects of >age, >> >> such data (presuming it isn't otherwise flawed) does not support >harsher >> >> restrictions with higher age limits. > >Inexperience can be trained out. Age-related lack of judgement can >only be solved by time. No amount of experience will eliminate lack of >judgement. You still have to separate those effects to find valid support for age restrictions. >You are forgetting that some subset of the crashes may be due to lack >of judgement. So, in that case, not *all* of the crashes are being >shifted. Some are actually being eliminated. > >> Why do your critical thinking skills go out the window any time age >> issues come up? > >Spoken like someone in their early twenties. Thirty-three. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote: > In article .com>, > > wrote: > > > >Inexperience can be trained out. Age-related lack of judgement can > >only be solved by time. No amount of experience will eliminate lack of > >judgement. > > You still have to separate those effects to find valid support for age > restrictions. No, actually, you don't. If there are age-based reasons (such as lack of proper judgement), then that supports age-based restrictions. The logic is straight-forward. What isn't supported by logic is that somehow a separation of factors is relevant. HAND, E.P. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|