Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!drutx!druxu!tll From: tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Fast driving Message-ID: <904@druxu.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Jan-84 15:57:55 EST Article-I.D.: druxu.904 Posted: Mon Jan 30 15:57:55 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Feb-84 04:23:10 EST References: <249@houxb.UUCP>, <1643@randvax.ARPA>, <896@druxu.UUCP>, <469@ihuxs.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver Lines: 25 I get a little annoyed by people who make foolish arguments against statistical presentations. In particular, the following was recently posted: Would 135 years of driving 16 hours a day (divided by how many people?) 'wasted' to save one person's life be 'wasted' if that person saved was your spouse, lover, mother, father, child or best friend? Obviously, if I knew that one of these people who are special to me would be saved by having everyone else drive slowly, then *I* would want everyone else to drive slowly. On the other hand, the people who are now driving slowly, using up their lives for no similar gain (since, by this same foreknowledge, they would know that only MY mother will die) would not like it at all. When talking about large statistics (such as highway death rates), it is entirely inappropriate to bring in emotional arguments. The ONLY logical conclusion we can reach from this person's argument is that people should not be allowed to drive at all, since someone driving at 5 miles per hour MIGHT still kill my (or your) spouse, lover, etc. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll