Dang, Corvettes a lot safer than I thought...

[spurraider21]

Not true.

If his claim was correct, then the speed limit sign was controlling the speed of the victim's car. If his claim wasn't true, then the victim (or some other force) was controlling the speed of the victim's car.

The first is obviously flawed however posters here routinely use these kinds of word games as escape hatches when they are cornered. You are no exception.

i dont think an honest interpretation of what he was saying could be taken to mean that the signs literally, on a mechanical level, cause vehicles to slow down.

he was saying you can generally use speed limits to estimate how fast a car is traveling.

ie i could reasonably guess that an average vehicle traveling on a highway with a 65 speed limit (at nighttime without traffic) will be traveling faster than an average vehicle traveling on a road with a 35mph speed limit in similar traffic conditions.

so assuming the other vehicle was not speeding as wildly as ruggs' vehicle, and absent the vehicle recording data, you could ballpark the other vehicle's speed by basing it on the speed limit. obviously if more specific details are available (eyewitness who could gauge the speed, or the vehicle computer information), you would no longer rely on such a crude estimate

[RandomGuy]

i dont think an honest interpretation of what he was saying could be taken to mean that the signs literally, on a mechanical level, cause vehicles to slow down.

he was saying you can generally use speed limits to estimate how fast a car is traveling.

ie i could reasonably guess that an average vehicle traveling on a highway with a 65 speed limit (at nighttime without traffic) will be traveling faster than an average vehicle traveling on a road with a 35mph speed limit in similar traffic conditions.

so assuming the other vehicle was not speeding as wildly as ruggs' vehicle, and absent the vehicle recording data, you could ballpark the other vehicle's speed by basing it on the speed limit. obviously if more specific details are available (eyewitness who could gauge the speed, or the vehicle computer information), you would no longer rely on such a crude estimate

Pretty much.

The probability curve of the speed of the other car will have a negatively skewed normal distribution around the speed limit, with a pretty steep drop off to the right of the speed limit.

This is true for just about any road in the US.

[RandomGuy]

Either speed limit signs control vehicle speeds or they don't.

You're moving the goalposts and throwing a fit because I won't play along.

Was "control" just a bad choice of words?

Jesus, you are literally too stupid to argue with.

[Ef-man]

Jesus, you are literally too stupid to argue with.

Of all the hills to die on, he chose Karrin’s.

[DMC]

i dont think an honest interpretation of what he was saying could be taken to mean that the signs literally, on a mechanical level, cause vehicles to slow down.

Then don't use the word "control". They only encourage drivers to not exceed the posted limit. As such they cannot be relied upon as indicators of vehicle speed.

he was saying you can generally use speed limits to estimate how fast a car is traveling.

That's a bad argument no matter how often you say it.

ie i could reasonably guess that an average vehicle traveling on a highway with a 65 speed limit (at nighttime without traffic) will be traveling faster than an average vehicle traveling on a road with a 35mph speed limit in similar traffic conditions.

He wasn't referring to averages. He was estimating the speed of a particular vehicle.

so assuming the other vehicle was not speeding as wildly as ruggs' vehicle, and absent the vehicle recording data, you could ballpark the other vehicle's speed by basing it on the speed limit. obviously if more specific details are available (eyewitness who could gauge the speed, or the vehicle computer information), you would no longer rely on such a crude estimate

Noted that it went from "reasonable argument" to "crude estimate"

There's no way to know, based on the speed limit, how fast the vehicle was traveling. It might make you feel better to guesstimate but the fact is the speed limit does not factor in to the actual speed. Like I originally said, apply that to both vehicles. If you didn't know the speed of the corvette, and minus any other information than "crash" and "two vehicles" and "speed limit sign", how fast would you estimate the vehicles were travelling at the time of the crash? Might as well say they were both going the speed limit. That's the most likely according to you and RG. Knowing less about something doesn't make a bad method better. It would be better to say "I don't have enough information". RG thinks he always has enough information to hazard a guess and call it math or science. He got bent over again on this one

[DMC]

Pretty much.

The probability curve of the speed of the other car will have a negatively skewed normal distribution around the speed limit, with a pretty steep drop off to the right of the speed limit.

This is true for just about any road in the US.

just stop already

[spurraider21]

Then don't use the word "control". They only encourage drivers to not exceed the posted limit. As such they cannot be relied upon as indicators of vehicle speed.

you're getting hung up on the semantics when it was pretty clear what he meant when he said "control" even if it wasnt the ideal word choice. i think they allow you to get general estimates of vehicles traveling there (subject to traffic conditions)

That's a bad argument no matter how often you say it.

agree to disagree. i think that absent more specific knowledge, its a fair way to estimate

He wasn't referring to averages. He was estimating the speed of a particular vehicle.

same difference. he is treating that vehicle as an average vehicle, absent any information to the contrary. ie we know Ruggs was speeding, so it would be pretty dumb to use the speed limit as a gauge for his speed. the other driver, for whom we had no reason to believe was speeding or driving erratically, i think its a fair way to make a crude estimate

Noted that it went from "reasonable argument" to "crude estimate"

i think in this context it's a distinction without a difference

There's no way to know, based on the speed limit, how fast the vehicle was traveling. It might make you feel better to guesstimate but the fact is the speed limit does not factor in to the actual speed. Like I originally said, apply that to both vehicles. If you didn't know the speed of the corvette, and minus any other information than "crash" and "two vehicles" and "speed limit sign", how fast would you estimate the vehicles were travelling at the time of the crash? Might as well say they were both going the speed limit. That's the most likely according to you and RG. Knowing less about something doesn't make a bad method better. It would be better to say "I don't have enough information". RG thinks he always has enough information to hazard a guess and call it math or science. He got bent over again on this one

there isn't a way to "know." he's making an educated guess. making a crude estimate. we didnt have any reason to believe the vehicle was driving in some erratic way or extreme speed. its probably a good starting point +/- 10 mph or so. obviously its better to have specific information, but its a reasonable place to default to.

[DMC]

you're getting hung up on the semantics when it was pretty clear what he meant when he said "control" even if it wasnt the ideal word choice. i think they allow you to get general estimates of vehicles traveling there (subject to traffic conditions)


agree to disagree. i think that absent more specific knowledge, its a fair way to estimate


same difference. he is treating that vehicle as an average vehicle, absent any information to the contrary. ie we know Ruggs was speeding, so it would be pretty dumb to use the speed limit as a gauge for his speed. the other driver, for whom we had no reason to believe was speeding or driving erratically, i think its a fair way to make a crude estimate


i think in this context it's a distinction without a difference


there isn't a way to "know." he's making an educated guess. making a crude estimate. we didnt have any reason to believe the vehicle was driving in some erratic way or extreme speed. its probably a good starting point +/- 10 mph or so. obviously its better to have specific information, but its a reasonable place to default to.

What information did Darrin have that RG did not have?

Would the speed limit sign be admissible in court as an indicator of vehicle speed?

Do you agree that speed limit signs do not normally control vehicle speed?

[DarrinS]

You guys still arguing about this?

By the way, lots of traffic lights on that street, which makes Ruggs' speed even more insane.


Here's the scene

[DMC]

Wow just look at that normal skewed distribution curve!

[DarrinS]

Wow just look at that normal skewed distribution curve!

Maybe he was thinking lognormal.

[DMC]

Maybe he was thinking lognormal.

Linearithmic!

Disagreeing with him is a bad faith argument though because you're supposed to change his words to something that makes sense then say he's an expert.

[spurraider21]

What information did Darrin have that RG did not have?

Would the speed limit sign be admissible in court as an indicator of vehicle speed?

Do you agree that speed limit signs do not normally control vehicle speed?

yes this is exactly what we are talking about when RG was just doing some basic napkin math on a forum

[DMC]

yes this is exactly what we are talking about when RG was just doing some basic napkin math on a forum

Then the answer is no, it would not be admissible because it doesn't control vehicle speed. Your "napkin math" hand wavium doesn't matter.

[spurraider21]

Then the answer is no, it would not be admissible because it doesn't control vehicle speed. Your "napkin math" hand wavium doesn't matter.

nobody ever said it would be admissible in court or that it was necessarily accurate. it was a rough guesstimate that you are taking entirely too seriously

[DarrinS]

yes this is exactly what we are talking about when RG was just doing some basic napkin math on a forum

Her speed is pretty irrelevant in this case, don't you think?

[DMC]

nobody ever said it would be admissible in court or that it was necessarily accurate. it was a rough guesstimate that you are taking entirely too seriously

Do speed limit signs generally control speed for cars, yes or no?

[DMC]

btw we have entered poster B phase.

For the court reporter, we've gone from estimate, to crude estimate and now to guesstimate and napkin math. What's the odds that the next regression will be SWAG?

[spurraider21]

Her speed is pretty irrelevant in this case, don't you think?

depends on what you're trying to figure out.

imo randomguy wasted his time trying to "debunk" OP's post about Corvettes being safe. if you are trying to explain the extent of damage taken by the corvette, its somewhat significant to know at what speed the Rav4 was traveling, no? a corvette traveling 127 mph hitting a stationary Rav4 would have a different result than one hitting a rav4 traveling ~45mph in the same direction, no?

[spurraider21]

btw we have entered poster B phase.

For the court reporter, we've gone from estimate, to crude estimate and now to guesstimate and napkin math. What's the odds that the next regression will be SWAG?

thanks for showing the 2 posts above wherein you prove that literally nobody argued that the 45 mph thing was meant to be an exact number that would be admissible in court

[DMC]

depends on what you're trying to figure out.

imo randomguy wasted his time trying to "debunk" OP's post about Corvettes being safe. if you are trying to explain the extent of damage taken by the corvette, its somewhat significant to know at what speed the Rav4 was traveling, no? a corvette traveling 127 mph hitting a stationary Rav4 would have a different result than one hitting a rav4 traveling ~45mph in the same direction, no?

uh oh, Philo stepping in deep water now.

[DMC]

thanks for showing the 2 posts above wherein you prove that literally nobody argued that the 45 mph thing was meant to be an exact number that would be admissible in court

If you cannot answer the question I asked, you're using bad faith. Anyone else would know that I am simply asking you for your legal opinion.

[DarrinS]

depends on what you're trying to figure out.

If you are trying to explain the extent of damage taken by the corvette, its somewhat significant to know at what speed the Rav4 was traveling, no? a corvette traveling 127 mph hitting a stationary Rav4 would have a different result than one hitting a rav4 traveling ~45mph in the same direction, no?

true

But, this case is about the reckless driving of Ruggs. Even if the victim was driving 70, this would still be a horrific crash, as collision severity is based on closing speed.

[spurraider21]

If you cannot answer the question I asked, you're using bad faith. Anyone else would know that I am simply asking you for your legal opinion.

already said it wouldnt be admissible. nor did anybody claim it would be

[spurraider21]

true

But, this case is about the reckless driving of Ruggs. Even if the victim was driving 70, this would still be a horrific crash, as collision severity is based on closing speed.

100% agree. but i dont think anybody was arguing this.

RG was taking on the OP's post about how safe the corvette was. and instead of just letting it go he did some napkin math about how the RAV4 was in motion so the force of impact was different than hitting a wall.

it was unnecessary for him to dive into that nitty gritty, imo. but when he did, to account for the fact that the RAV4 was moving in the same direction as the corvette, and absent independent info, he suggested using the posted speed limit as a rough estimate for how fast the RAV4 was likely moving. i 100% agree that this is irrelevant re: ruggs' dui and recklessness.