 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 20:43, schrieb Darren New:
> Well, one difference is that bird flu and SARS will continue to kill
> more and more people unless you do something about it, while cars tend
> to get safer over time.
They would, if usage patterns of cars didn't change. In the early days
30 km/h would have been fast, traffic density was close to nil, and
nobody would have even /thought/ about telephones that could be used
while driving in a car.
Unfortunately, the safer cars get the more careless the drivers become.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 07:49 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> I agree though, it does sound a tad large just for the USA...
>
> You're counting "all crimes" and think it means "murder".
The top of the result page clearly says "United States | rate of murder
and nonnegligent manslaughter".
However, the pod in question does have a tiny piece of text that says
"overall crime statistics". I didn't notice that. That'll be it, then...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 06:10 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 23.06.2011 16:02, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>
>> What about the number of killed people in aircraft per year ?
>
> Far less than in car accidents. Flying is actually the safest way to
> travel on a risk-per-distance basis, even before trains.
Any random drunk that wants to can stagger into a car and proceed to
cause utter carnage. You can't really do that with an aeroplane.
A plane undergoes rigorous safety checks every single damned time it
goes anywhere. You're *supposed* to do that with a car too. You're
literally supposed to check that all the tires look good, etc., every
time before you drive off. How many people ever do this?
Planes are guided by air traffic control. They have two pilots. They
have automated computer failsafes. There's less traffic per volume of
space to actually hit. Need I continue?
If you did all this for cars, car travel would become a crapload safer
too. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/06/2011 07:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
>> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
>
> Huh?
>
> What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of
> the germ theory of disease.
SARS is a *viral* disease. While there exist broad-spectrum antibiotics
which will kill almost any pathogen that might hurt you, killing a virus
is much harder. (It's not technically "alive", for starters...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 22:03, schrieb Orchid XP v8:
> On 23/06/2011 06:10 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 23.06.2011 16:02, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
>>
>>> What about the number of killed people in aircraft per year ?
>>
>> Far less than in car accidents. Flying is actually the safest way to
>> travel on a risk-per-distance basis, even before trains.
>
> Any random drunk that wants to can stagger into a car and proceed to
> cause utter carnage. You can't really do that with an aeroplane.
>
> A plane undergoes rigorous safety checks every single damned time it
> goes anywhere. You're *supposed* to do that with a car too. You're
> literally supposed to check that all the tires look good, etc., every
> time before you drive off. How many people ever do this?
>
> Planes are guided by air traffic control. They have two pilots. They
> have automated computer failsafes. There's less traffic per volume of
> space to actually hit. Need I continue?
>
> If you did all this for cars, car travel would become a crapload safer
> too. ;-)
Then again, would you want to spend half an hour or so going through
checklists (or security screening, for that matter) every time before
you take your car for a spin? Or ask for traffic control's permission
every time you switch lanes or make a turn? :-P
Cars would also be a /tad/ more expensive if they were built to meet
airplane safety criteria.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 13:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> How many people ever do this?
Truck drivers.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 13:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> On 23/06/2011 07:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
>>> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of
>> the germ theory of disease.
>
> SARS is a *viral* disease.
Even more to my point. That's even more the reason to be more afraid of SARS
than of cars. The only way to be safe from it is avoid it completely.
Also, you've given no evidence that you don't have the causality backwards.
People paniced about SARS and bird flu, and hence much fewer people caught
it. People don't panic about cars, and hence many more people die. Thus,
panic about a danger is a good thing. QED. ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2011 12:29, clipka wrote:
> Unfortunately, the safer cars get the more careless the drivers become.
I've read studies where they found that anti-lock brakes didn't reduce the
number of accidents because people just followed closer. I imagine it's the
same thing.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Coding without comments is like
driving without turn signals."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 23.06.2011 22:49, schrieb Darren New:
> On 6/23/2011 13:05, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> On 23/06/2011 07:53 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> On 6/23/2011 8:33, Invisible wrote:
>>>> 2. There's very little you can do about deadly diseases.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> What century do you live in? I live in the one after the invention of
>>> the germ theory of disease.
>>
>> SARS is a *viral* disease.
>
> Even more to my point. That's even more the reason to be more afraid of
> SARS than of cars. The only way to be safe from it is avoid it completely.
>
> Also, you've given no evidence that you don't have the causality
> backwards. People paniced about SARS and bird flu, and hence much fewer
> people caught it. People don't panic about cars, and hence many more
> people die. Thus, panic about a danger is a good thing. QED. ;-)
Wasn't that Andrew's point in the first place - that the ratio of panic
about diseases vs. panic about cars is somewhat out of proportion?
QED indeed :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011/06/23 16:49, Darren New a écrit :
> On 6/23/2011 12:29, clipka wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the safer cars get the more careless the drivers become.
>
> I've read studies where they found that anti-lock brakes didn't reduce
> the number of accidents because people just followed closer. I imagine
> it's the same thing.
>
In fact, anti-lock breaks can CAUSE some accident.
Some reasons:
1 - Usualy, only one rotation reading per fotation.
2 - They are NOT progressive. It's all or nothing. It can literaly jerk
your foot off the break pedal.
3 - Been all/nothing, they can realy shake your car around, possibly
quite violently.
4 - In an emergency, if you brake near the sliding point and ONE wheel
slips a little more than the others, ALL breaking stops, then comes back
at FULL force, possibly causing all 4 whells to lock.
Correctly implemented anti-lock brakes should have multiple analog
sensors of multiple parameters:
Braking tork.
Suspention load.
Continouus rotation speed: e.e. arount 100 reading per rotations. Most
have less than 5...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
