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