[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: NMA STUDY



In article <3uq2g1$f10@news-e1a.megaweb.com>,
KENNY MORSE <kennystar@megaweb.com> wrote:
>
>>Read the damn study and then come up with a good reason to refute it.
>>You're just blowing hot air. I work in the media; just because you say
>>it the loudest doesn't mean you're right.
>
>I will ONLY respond to people who make their challanges with
>courtesy/professionalism.
>
>Flaming is an Internet excuse for being rude.  I don't talk
>to rude people.....do you?
>
>Loud enough?

That's a good one, Kenny.

OK, here goes:

Re: NMA Study

Mr. Morse: It has come to my attention that you are a professional working
in the media and also in traffic schools. We seem to be in a disagreement
re: the behavior of drivers on highways with speed limits higher than
65 mph (cf. CVC 22348). Your assertion is that at arbitrarily high
speed limits, a number of drivers will exceed the posted limit by 10
to 15 miles per hour comparable to the number of drivers who today
exceed the posted (slower) speed limits. You have stated that you 
base this assertion on an analysis of your current and past students'
behavior. I assert that your analysis of the situation is in error and
that further examination of an existing traffic study (i.e. I refer you
to the URL given previously in this thread) may lead you to correct
your error. This study was commissioned by an unbiased federal agency.
This study supports the hypothesis that the majority of American drivers
travel at a safe speed which is independent of the posted limit. A raising
of speed limits in certain locations may help to lessen the deviance in
travel speeds and thus counterintuitively decrease accidents.

I am also distressed by your refusal to examine the document in
response to my previous request. I apologize for the tone of my 
previous request; it seems to have been misinterpreted as a "flame,"
or personal attack. My intention was not to attack you personally,
it was to refute your arguments in a conversational, though somewhat
rough tone which was in my opinion consistent with (though not identical
to) the tone of your article to which I was replying, and a
reflection of my feeling toward your dismissal of the traffic
study without first reading it.

I hope that you will read the study and consider its findings, and
look forward to your reaction to having read it.







-- 
Adam Villani
addam@cco.caltech.edu
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
"I was in this prematurely air-conditioned supermarket..."


References: