For brevity, and the sanity of others, I'm going to leave the circle and authority discussion behind. Suffice to say that I continue to disagree.
Okay, can we draw a line please?
As much as everyone who visits Second Opinion likes a debate now and again, I think we can all agree this is getting a little out of hand. Long winded retorts are fine at times, but we now have pages of them covering the same subject.
FJones and I will be settling this with pistols at dawn, as soon as we can agree on the meaning of a few key terms. Like "pistols." And "dawn." And "at."
So, what about you? Why do YOU phrase things in insulting and condescending ways sometimes? I mean, if it is wrong for me to do it, it is wrong for you to do it. Yet you indeed do it. Do two wrongs make a right? Should we fight fire with fire? Why don't you set an example by doing it the right way even when I do it the wrong way?
After giving an individual fair opportunity to change his tone, I find that i) if I am enjoying the discussion, the adoption of a tit-for-tat strategy works best, and ii) if I am not enjoying the discussion, I am best served by leaving it. All within limits, of course. I didn't change my tone with you until a few months into the discussion, at which point I felt fair opportunity had been given, and that you either simply enjoy a discussion that includes a substantial amount of rhetoric, or that you're genuinely unaware of the effects your style has on the reader despite multiple, polite, attempts to point out such effects, and consequently that tit-for-tat might be a more effective way of showing you. Again, all within limits.
Look. You complained that someone was being haughty. Haughty is a term with obvious negative connotations. if you weren't bothered or offended by the tone or content of the post, then "haughty" was a poor word choice on your part. Clearly, you found SOMETHING objectionable in the post, so do we really need to split hairs on the relative offense (or lack thereof) implied by words such as "bothered," "annoyed," "Offended?"
Redleader and I had a civil and friendly exchange and follow-up on the matter. I'm not sure why you and I are still talking about this, but perhaps this would be best served by PM. In any event, noting that X's post to Y seems to be somewhat haughty doesn't mean that I personally am offended. To say I were would imply a level of emotional involvement and reaction that simply isn't there. So I don't think it's splitting hairs. In fact I think it's an important distinction.
To answer your hypothetical question, If I actually took the time to WRITE IN and say that the original writer was haughty, then yes, I would think that very clearly means I was bothered, annoyed, upset by, or offended by his post.
Or it would mean simply that you disagreed with an aspect of it.
Okay, fair enough. Let's both try to do this. In fairness, most people have not read a book on logic, or taken any classes. I am guessing you are an exception, as it seems you do have some training in logic. We just disagree sometimes on the application of the concepts.
Fair enough, re disagreement on application. With respect to books or classes on logic I think, especially when we're dealing with fairly elementary logical concepts, most people have a very strong intuitive understanding, even if they may not know particular terms.
But I thought I was rather clear in stating that part of my plan would be to change driver education, enforcement, and roads.
Tell you what. I'm just going to respond by quoting myself, in a post from a few weeks ago, to which you never responded, since the points have remained the same:
Reading your post, since we agree that increased speed is more dangerous, everything else being equal, I will respond to those points which remain relevant, specifically those involving your proposal for an overhaul of speeding laws, traffic enforcement, and driver training.
[...]
I asked you what data you were basing your prediction that, with the overhaul you propose, fatalities would not increase. All you've done here is 1) re-iterate your belief, and 2) state that you haven't FELT unsafe driving 80mph. The first isn't an argument, and the second isn't good evidence.
You see? This has come down to data. It came down to data quite a while ago.
To continue:
You asked why you should have to show data regarding the effects of increased speed limits in conjunction with changes to roads, technology, and training. My response:
The difference is that we KNOW what current rates of fatalities are on the roadways given current technology, current laws, current roads, and current training. We KNOW that increased speed will have the effect, all else being equal, of increasing the probability of accidents, and of the damage incurred by those accidents. Now, you claim that by increasing speed limits while changing other things as well, we can derive increased benefits (which are what?) which will be worth the costs (which are what?). The burden is on you to show what these things are. You haven't done so.
And again:
And how much will this increased enforcement cost, and how effective will it be? These are two questions, vital to your argument, to which you do not know the answers. So I do not see how you can feel at all justified or confident in your conclusions.
So, perhaps that will get us back on track.
I am more interested in a theoretical discussion. I like to pose questions or statements that begin with "If," that way we can determine if there is even a reason to discuss further or bother with data. If I say to someone, "IF we had better roads and education and enforcement, do you think we could drive faster?" and the person says "No," then why bother with data?
Two things. First, data is important to showing such a person's opinion to be incorrect. Your question asks a person to make an empirical claim; it's not asking about first principles, or anything one would think to be immune to actual data. Second, the question that has been asked repeatedly has been for data substantiating your claims.
I think your answer to my hypothetical is a resounding yes, but when it comes to applying the necessary changes, you disagree with me about the value of those changes.
This is all about costs/benefits, i.e. value.
Your personal opinion seems to be that loss of life is very bad. I agree. But I think saving time is more important than you do. Saving millions and millions of man hours is no small feat. People in every industry work at ways to save time, which in turn saves money. I think saving time is a good goal, and if a few people die in the process, so be it. That's the nature of progress.
Again, this boils down to actual numbers. No one has claimed that we should avoid using any technologies or rules that include the possibility of accidents. The question is whether the rule-change you wish to adopt is worth the costs. And, as we discuss the issue, my impression is that you haven't thought much about the appropriate dollar values to put on the lives we're putting at risk, the costs of instituting the changes to training, enforcement, and technology you have in mind (whatever those may be), or much how much we're really saving in dollars.
I understand that this may have begun as a theoretical bull session (non-pejoratively), but we've now come to the part where we're dealing with empirical questions. So, I think the answer now is: "I'm willing to accept the current costs/benefits of our traffic system, though I would of course like to improve them; however, given the uncertainty surrounding the effects of raising the speed limit, even in conjunction with the vaguely described reforms, I cannot support doing so."
If I told you we could invent a device that would teleport people to any point on the planet, but 100,000 people a year would die using it, would you want to invent the device? There is no right or wrong answer, but, if answering "no," doesn't that imply that we were wrong to invent the automobile? And the airplane?
Again, no one disagrees that sometimes we should adopt new technology or rules which involve the possibility of serious accidents. So the principle you're illustrating here isn't in contention. What IS in contention is whether the specific changes you propose are worth it.
Yes, it is difficult, because the data is biased and flawed, and in some cases, fabricated.
Sure, it's difficult. You have to be careful, as objective as possible, and be willing to keep an open mind so that you don't end up rejecting data simply because it's at odds with your preferences or prior beliefs, or accepting data simply because it conforms with your preferences or prior beliefs. It means encountering flawed studies, inconclusive studies, partially useful studies, etc.
And that's actually why most people tend to be biased towards conservative, slow changes in an area as complex as traffic regulation. It's very difficult to predict the effects of the very broad changes you advocate.
If you wished to be more careful, you might say first "listen, let's implement the changes in roads, enforcement, and training I propose, without changing the speed limits. If the number of accidents declines in a way I predicted, then that strengthens my predictions as to what would happen if we raised the speed limits to 80mph." And that would be a more persuasive approach. As it stands, you're essentially asking everyone to simply trust your instincts regarding a complex series of changes to a complex system. And I don't think anyone is likely to find that persuasive.
For example, If a driver goes 8 things wrong while slightly speeding, the data will count that as an accident caused by speed, when in fact, speeding has very little to do with it.
The data will count that as an accident in which speed was a factor. Now, we should point out that even if speed did not play ANY role in causing the accident, it will stand as a contributing cause to the amount of damage sustained. This is important, since in measuring the costs of a reform, we're just as much interested in the damage sustained in accidents as in the number of accidents.
The Maryland Driver's handbook has information that is completely fabricated. [...]
Sure, there will be sources of bad data.
Which leads me to my gripe about inconsistent policy. If safety is the primary concern, which you and others seem to think it should be, then WHY do we allow the sale of luxury cars that are larger and less safe (by way of their increased stopping distances?) What nonsense is this? Rich people who like large cars have a right to drive less safe vehicles because they want greater personal comfort?
I want to point out first that this is really a separate issue from the costs/benefits question regarding your proposed reforms.
I think that Amor responded to this question very well, much earlier in the thread. Her response was essentially that policy is the result of a political process, reflecting many concerns and interests, and that this results in policies that may attempt to compromise between competing concerns and interests. I find the example you chose here particularly interesting, as I think in Japan there actually is a weight-limit on cars, for safety reasons. I suspect we could find examples in the US of proposed legislation to do the same; and I'm sure we could very easily advance hypotheses as to why that proposed legislation was defeated which will have nothing to do with a disagreement about safety.
As to why do I or we allow it: we live in a democratic society, and policies that compromise between different concerns and interests in a way I personally may not think to be optimal are unavoidable.
I do not wish to make that argument. The drivers were expecting two lanes of travel to be going at the rate of traffic (the 3rd lane, the right lane, should be used for entering and exiting, and slow drivers). A driver disrupting that expected flow should move over to the right lane as soon as possible. In my hypothetical 75 MPH highways, it would be a violation to remain in the middle lane going 55 MPH (or 65 MPH), because it results in unsafe driving acts.
Okay. So drivers were expecting the two left lanes of traffic to be flowing at a rate of ~75mph, and you were in the center lane NOT driving ~75mph (because drivers refused to yield and let you into the right lane). And how does this mean that the drivers weren't driving unsafely, due to their own fault, when they tailgated you, cut you off, and failed to yield to you?
They are capable. They just chose not to do so, because doing so would have slowed traffic down considerably and made a lot of people take longer to get where they were going. Just because people CHOSE not to do so doesn't mean they weren't CAPABLE of doing so.
Okay, so here you seem to agree that such drivers did CHOOSE to drive unsafely (apparently for very altruistic reasons, i.e. a concern for the time of others); they were not forced to do so by your driving 55mph. Your argument is that they COULD drive safely; they just chose not to do so. But of course choices like these are exactly what people have in mind when they talk about the likely behavior of drivers: choices to tailgate and cut-off because they don't want to slow down for another vehicle, even though such acts are "very dangerous." The fact that so many drivers choose to take such "very dangerous" (your words) acts to avoid slowing down for a few moments tends to disconfirm your hypothesis that over 99% of drivers can drive 80mph safely, because making safe and appropriate choices in driving behavior is perhaps the largest component of driving safely.
Is it possible that some radical overhaul of training, enforcement, and roads could change their choices? It's possible. Do instances like you described make me very skeptical? Of course.
This seems pointless. one source may put the value of a human life at $500,000, and another may put that value at $20 million. Since there is no real way to quantify the value of human life, what is the point of using an arbitrary value as a basis for analysis?
The values aren't arbitrary. And placing a numerical value is important because they require us to clarify our intuitions and valuations, and enable us to compare those intuitions and valuations.
