Quote:
Originally Posted by Burninator
lifer. Let's simplify this.
If I am travelling 100kph and you are travelling 200kph on the same road. By your logic you are safer, because you will be on the road for less time, in fact half the time as me. Come on, you don't actually think that do you? You are looking at this with way too small of a perspective.
Your hockey example doesn't work. Because in every driving example the cars are going the same distance (length of hockey game) and the variable is the time travelled (you would have to change the speed at which the tape of the hockey game was playing). In fact you have just used your own logic against yourself. What you are saying is that the slow driver is the person watching the game for 10 minutes and the fast driver is the person watching the same 10 minute game but sped up into 9 minutes. So who is more likely to see a goal scored (get into an accident)? The person watching the game at normal speed (100kph driver) or the person watching the game at 1.1 times faster (110kph)? Logic would dictate the slower person is more likely to see a goal scored, and the slower driver is more likely to avoid an accident.
|
To your first point, these is a big difference between the example of going 110 vs 100km/h that I am basing it on and the 200 vs 100km/h that you are using. Nobody is safe driving 200km/h on a public road.
the hockey example was not referring to chances of being in a crash, but chances of seeing a deer. It is exactly the same as the hockey example. It is based on the frequency of an event. If there are 5 goals per game in a hockey game (or 3 deer per 10 km stretch of road) you are more likely to see a goal if you watch the game for longer (you are more likely to see a deer if you are on that road longer). Look at it this way, if 100 deer cross the road in a day, and I'm driving for 9 hours but you're driving for 10, you shoudl see more deer than me. I'm not saying anything about accidents here, just the likelyhood of seeing a deer.