Quote:
Originally Posted by Torture
But that's what I'm saying. It's the same numbers and the same order of magnitude. They're not putting out totally different numbers by a full order of magnitude, they're just saying it in a different way. Dispute the numbers and how they got to them if you want but the City is being consistent.
- The first article said all accidents in the City cost a total of 1.2 billion and reducing speed limits would save 10%-20%. 10% of 1.2 billion is 0.12 billion or 120 million.
- The second article said that the City would save 120 million by reducing speed limits.
Get it? I didn't pull 10% out of the air, it was in the article. 120 million is the same number as 0.12 billion, which is a 10% savings from 1.2 billion.
Both articles have the City saying the same number and the same order of magnitude, they're just saying it in a different way. |
What second article are you talking about? if it is
this one it says nothing about saving 120M by doing this. All it states is pedestrian-car accidents cost society 120M per year.
Then they wanted to reduce speed limits to help cut this cost to society down. But it was pointed out that most of these pedestrian-car collisions do not occur on the roads they are talking about changing speed limits on, essentially doing nothing to solve the problem they set out to fix. Since then they realized no one wanted to spend millions to put an almost non-existent dent in that 120M/year. So they moved their talking point to all accidents, all collisions city wide, including pedestrian-car, car-car, car-property. Now that gives us a nice big number to work with... 1.19B/year. Wow, such big number, who can argue with that. Then they took that number, distributed the cost evenly across all accidents (wtf, not math so good) and said a 10% reduction in accidents will save us 120M/year
. Now it seems worth it to spend millions to save 120M/year.
The fact that both numbers end up being 120M/year is a coincidence, they were given as two very different sets of data. 120M/year is the cost of pedestrian-car collisions. 120M/year also happens to be 10% of the 1.19B that all types of collisions cost per year. You seem to be the only one thinking they are saying the same number in a different way. It is most certainly a moving of the goal posts once the first plea to 'think of the children' failed the first time.