Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz
Except I've shown in numverous posts that the points you make are in fact not true. I've shown that time on the road is not the only variable that you have to worry about when you're deciding if you're going to see more deer.
Yes, based on time you would have a 10% chance of a deer crossing your path.
But since deer on on the road for a finite period of time, and you are covering more ground in that time you're chance of encountering a hazard (say a deer) at any point on that road increases by the same ammount that you have decreased it due to your time on the road.
It all balances out, no matter how fast you drive, for the same stretch of road, your chances of encountering a hazard (such as a deer) are exactly the same.
An increase in speed, increases the chance that you'll encounter the spot where a hazard exists.
An increase in speed decreases the chance that a hazard will exist durring the time that you are on the road by the exact ammount that it is increased due to your speed.
I'm not sure how I can make that more clear!
|
i guess you can't. You haven't so far. Tell me this, if you were driving from Banff to Golden at 100km/h are you likely to see more or less deer than somebody who drives the same stretch of road at (a silly example) 10 km/h? I have a hunch that the slow person would see more deer, even though you travel the same distance. If you disagree with that, well, I don't know what else to say. The speed difference we have been talking about is not 90km/h, so it wouldn't be that drastic of a difference (obviously) but why would the general trend not hold? I have presented this argument a couple times ( as the 2.7 vs 3 deer on a stretch of road) and you have not responded to it.
I'm not stupid enough to say that speeding is safer or anything like that, it obviously isn't, and I know that we are having a stupid argument right now that really has little to do with the intended topic here. I have been wrong in the past, so if you could bring yourself to explain to me using the sepecifics of the example above how the point in question is wrong, I will accept that.