986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners - View Single Post

cfos · 10-07-2005, 12:57 PM

Hi, it is you that is missing the point.

Was it just me or was everyone else waiting for MNB to quote some statistic or link...? From a study conducted in 1999?

"In 1999 (the latest year for which fatality data are available)..."

Glad you are up-to-date. I imagine that nothing has changed in 6 years... I remember seeing a ball game at Enron Field 6 years ago before parking (verrry close) at the airport (Hobby or Intercontinental) and zipping through airport security while getting on a US Airways flight for a meeting at World Comm ... (This is an example of me expressing levity, albeit sarcastically, if you need an example).

Here is an interesting read:

http://www.dps.state.mn.us/OTS/crashdata/crash_facts.asp

If you read the article (I clicked on all crashes for 2004) you will find that there were 91,274 crashes in MN in 2004. I wonder how many CRASHES (not necessarilly fatalities) occur in the US as a whole...? Among the reasons cited for these crashes in MN are "driver inattention"... economic loss to MN $1.8 billion... There is also a nice little blip about "failure to yield right of way"...

Wow. Hopefully, the CDC is dead on at conducting research or you get better at finding links about "newer" research... I wonder what the "Powers" that be at JD Powers think of your research (surveying) abilities, am I right (more levity)? Can't you find something more recent? Even so, you should read up on the websites, if you scrolled down, you would have seen (your CDC website):

"Research should include interventions that focus not only on pedestrians, but also on drivers and the driving environment, such as strengthening enforcement strategies for speed limits, yield-to-pedestrian laws, and school zones. Changes in pedestrian and driver behaviors and modifications in roadway environments, including traffic-calming measures, may provide the strongest mix of prevention strategies."

To me, a device that would potentially modify roadway environments could be considered dangerous.

Because, I read your link and you don't appear to comprehend what you hade cited, I could just leave it at that. But, I'll continue.

Perhaps, my logic escapes you because you are not accustomed to thinking in terms of a valid arguement.

You talk of personal responsibility? Well, perhaps you should have been taught not to publicize something potentially detrimental and (according to RN) illegal in OTHER...Municipalities (you forgot to mention whether fire engines also run silently in your Municipality).

Perhaps if you read your report that you cited you would have put 2 and 2 together (the answer is 4, by the way) and realized that this is a potentially dangerous thing. Instead, you go into more and more detail and pull off a link.

By the by, who are you to say that everyone else maintains this personal responsibility...? If you think that everyone, "crosses on the green and not in between", you are mistaken.

If you want to mention guns, then do so -- I have no problem with them ( I own 8, responsibly) and unless you are at a Texas gun show (I'm being sarcastic), there are yellow sheets that you need to fill out before purchasing unless you have a cac permit. Is there a background check for your internet site (Im being sarcastic, but I'm sure you will post back with another poorly read/understood link)? If not, it isn't a relevant (or should I say valid?) comparison.

Aside from that, how can you proclaim yourself to be a provider of levity? I mean, spine911 used emoticons with his post. So did PL... Yet, you took it upon yourself to "correct" spine911 and myself..? I'm not sure if s/he was expressing levity, but I just happen to agree with what spine911 said regardless, and you attempted to correct me with more information, yet you proclaim that you are not promoting the item? Just providing a neutral perspective (with levity)? I think it is you that is not using logic.

Here is an example of a logistic syllogism (modus tollens). I admit that that "safe" can be replaced by any other word, but the point is to demonstrate a valid, logical argument:

(i) If Item A were safe, it would be legal in the United States.
(ii) Item A is illegal in Houston (Read PL's post)
Item A is not safe (and I am too lazy to do an internet search).

Safe Motoring!

10-07-2005, 12:57 PM	#14
cfos Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: usa Posts: 560	Hi, it is you that is missing the point. Was it just me or was everyone else waiting for MNB to quote some statistic or link...? From a study conducted in 1999? "In 1999 (the latest year for which fatality data are available)..." Glad you are up-to-date. I imagine that nothing has changed in 6 years... I remember seeing a ball game at Enron Field 6 years ago before parking (verrry close) at the airport (Hobby or Intercontinental) and zipping through airport security while getting on a US Airways flight for a meeting at World Comm ... (This is an example of me expressing levity, albeit sarcastically, if you need an example). Here is an interesting read: http://www.dps.state.mn.us/OTS/crashdata/crash_facts.asp If you read the article (I clicked on all crashes for 2004) you will find that there were 91,274 crashes in MN in 2004. I wonder how many CRASHES (not necessarilly fatalities) occur in the US as a whole...? Among the reasons cited for these crashes in MN are "driver inattention"... economic loss to MN $1.8 billion... There is also a nice little blip about "failure to yield right of way"... Wow. Hopefully, the CDC is dead on at conducting research or you get better at finding links about "newer" research... I wonder what the "Powers" that be at JD Powers think of your research (surveying) abilities, am I right (more levity)? Can't you find something more recent? Even so, you should read up on the websites, if you scrolled down, you would have seen (your CDC website): "Research should include interventions that focus not only on pedestrians, but also on drivers and the driving environment, such as strengthening enforcement strategies for speed limits, yield-to-pedestrian laws, and school zones. Changes in pedestrian and driver behaviors and modifications in roadway environments, including traffic-calming measures, may provide the strongest mix of prevention strategies." To me, a device that would potentially modify roadway environments could be considered dangerous. Because, I read your link and you don't appear to comprehend what you hade cited, I could just leave it at that. But, I'll continue. Perhaps, my logic escapes you because you are not accustomed to thinking in terms of a valid arguement. You talk of personal responsibility? Well, perhaps you should have been taught not to publicize something potentially detrimental and (according to RN) illegal in OTHER...Municipalities (you forgot to mention whether fire engines also run silently in your Municipality). Perhaps if you read your report that you cited you would have put 2 and 2 together (the answer is 4, by the way) and realized that this is a potentially dangerous thing. Instead, you go into more and more detail and pull off a link. By the by, who are you to say that everyone else maintains this personal responsibility...? If you think that everyone, "crosses on the green and not in between", you are mistaken. If you want to mention guns, then do so -- I have no problem with them ( I own 8, responsibly) and unless you are at a Texas gun show (I'm being sarcastic), there are yellow sheets that you need to fill out before purchasing unless you have a cac permit. Is there a background check for your internet site (Im being sarcastic, but I'm sure you will post back with another poorly read/understood link)? If not, it isn't a relevant (or should I say valid?) comparison. Aside from that, how can you proclaim yourself to be a provider of levity? I mean, spine911 used emoticons with his post. So did PL... Yet, you took it upon yourself to "correct" spine911 and myself..? I'm not sure if s/he was expressing levity, but I just happen to agree with what spine911 said regardless, and you attempted to correct me with more information, yet you proclaim that you are not promoting the item? Just providing a neutral perspective (with levity)? I think it is you that is not using logic. Here is an example of a logistic syllogism (modus tollens). I admit that that "safe" can be replaced by any other word, but the point is to demonstrate a valid, logical argument: (i) If Item A were safe, it would be legal in the United States. (ii) Item A is illegal in Houston (Read PL's post) Item A is not safe (and I am too lazy to do an internet search). Safe Motoring! Last edited by cfos; 10-07-2005 at 01:15 PM.