FightingArts Estore
Pressure Points
From a medical professional, straight facts on where and how to hit that can save your life.
Stretching
Limber or not, anyone can add height and speed to their kicks with this method.
Calligraphy
For yourself or as a gift, calligraphy is special, unique and lasting.
Karate Uniforms
Look your best. Max snap. low cost & superior crafted: “Peak Performance Gold” 16 oz uniforms.

MOTOBU
Classic book translation. Hard to find. Not in stores.
Who's Online
0 registered (), 44 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
ksusanc, kellypnik123, leyinn, Ron_Cooley, businns
22902 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Dobbersky 12
cxt 7
trevek 6
JKogas 5
futsaowingchun 2
July
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
New Topics
centerline concepts
by futsaowingchun
07/14/14 10:49 PM
language of syllabus
by trevek
07/11/14 03:36 PM
ITF TaeKwonDo or Shotokan Karate????
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:14 AM
10 San Sik drills-Wing Chun's foundation
by futsaowingchun
06/30/14 11:20 AM
"Ip Man" and "Ip Man 2" the movies.
by TaekwonDoFan
06/30/14 11:02 AM
Iaido movements speed
by TooNice
04/14/14 01:47 PM
Anderson Silva - Leg Break
by Dobbersky
12/30/13 08:32 AM
Where Are They Now?
by Dobbersky
05/30/13 08:08 AM
Gi or no Gi Grappling?
by Prizewriter
04/16/12 02:48 PM
MMA - A passing Fad
by Dobbersky
04/12/12 11:16 AM
Recent Posts
ITF TaeKwonDo or Shotokan Karate????
by cxt
Yesterday at 11:35 AM
centerline concepts
by Dobbersky
07/18/14 06:14 AM
language of syllabus
by trevek
07/14/14 04:50 PM
Gi or no Gi Grappling?
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:38 AM
MMA - A passing Fad
by Dobbersky
07/10/14 07:35 AM
Anderson Silva - Leg Break
by Dobbersky
07/09/14 06:13 AM
Throwing
by JKogas
07/03/14 07:40 PM
10 San Sik drills-Wing Chun's foundation
by futsaowingchun
06/30/14 11:20 AM
"Ip Man" and "Ip Man 2" the movies.
by TaekwonDoFan
06/30/14 11:02 AM
Forget all that health stuff
by TaekwonDoFan
06/29/14 03:18 AM
Forum Stats
22902 Members
36 Forums
35563 Topics
432450 Posts

Max Online: 424 @ 09/24/13 10:38 PM
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#350096 - 07/09/07 10:32 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:

I'd say it is the mis-use of speed which kills.





Exactly. Artificially restricting speeds to make up for crappy driver training is dumb. Especially when you consider that a road that's safe at 65mph in June becomes a deathtrap at 30 in a February ice storm. People don't tend to consider that - a car on ice at 30 will be less controllable than a car on dry pavement at 100. Lowering maximum speed limits is not the answer. Good training so that drivers learn how to control their car when it is on - or beyond - the edge of control, is the answer.

Sure, you can run a crap training program as we do here in the good ol' US of A, and if you keep the speed limits low enough it'll probably be somewhat safe, as long as the weather is nice. But as soon as the snow or ice storm hits, the roads turn into one big orgy of stupid, as drivers who don't think about such mundane topics as tire grip go entirely too fast for conditions, and then don't know how to correct when the car goes into a skid.

But it gets worse. A driving school in Minnesota was punished by the state because it had too high of a on-the-road to classroom time ratio. Drivers in this school learned to control the car at its limits. First the instructor would send 'em out in gokarts at the local kart track, and he'd throw oil down on one corner. After they mastered skid control in a kart, they moved on to a car which had casters in place of rear wheels - the slightest move of the wheel threw it into a skid and students had to master that before they could pass. His instruction was far and away more advanced and intense than regular driving schools, but because he didn't get approval from the state, and because he didn't spend enough time in a class room telling the students what a stop sign looks like, he got in trouble.

Not only does the USA fail to train drivers properly, but we punish those who try to do so. Our licensing and training program is broken, bigtime, and we deal with artificially low speed limits, AND a higher wreck rate as a result.
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350097 - 07/09/07 10:37 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Quote:

I'd say it is the mis-use of speed which kills.


Hallelujah! Yes yes! That was what I was trying to say. Thank Trevek, thanks!

-Taison out
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#350098 - 07/09/07 11:09 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
Quote:

except of course for providing you with the statistics that show the autobahn is safer than US highways.




But I had agreed to that statement

Quote:

Quote:

these sections of the road have been deemed save to travel at unrestricted speeds on. You did not answer my question as to why there is limits on the other half of the autobahn system



Yes I did. Read again.





I apologize and stand corrected as to you providing this explanation, My bad.

I have always been arguing that speedING kills, actually you are stuck on a short post i provided originally ( see below) that was in the form of a community announcement and aimed at driver awareness
Quote:

whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS

--------------------
With Honour in Bushido
Drew
http://www.bushidojos.websyte.com.au/
Toowoomba Self Defence




you are arguing semantics, I have always indicated that it is Illegal speed that kills, and i have also argued that the faster you travel ( whether illegal or not ) the more damage occurs. this is not only backed by stats (previously provided) but also by the universal laws of physics) Are you going to argue that speed does not influence the impact of a punch. do you not agree that a car hitting a child traveling at 100 km/h is not more likely to
a) cause the death of a child and
b) allows less time to react and stop.
then a car traveling at 40 km/h



You have not provided a coalition between anything. you have erroneously stated that there is a relationship between (for e.g.) road deaths and oxygen. in reality all you have done is stated two variables that are present in the said situation. in order for their to be a relationship a change in one must result in a change in the other. Seeing the levels of oxygen stay relatively stable and remains unchanged whether there is a crash a death or no traffic at all. there Is no relationship just a coexistence. a correlation is not a relationship it is the strength of a relationship.

on the other hand as speed increases the chance of death in an accident also increases, this is a relationship and the correlation between speed and chance of death is positive and strong. if it was drawn on a graph it would show a relative straight line increasing in hight as it moves to the right. if you are going to argue statistics at least get your terms correct first. ( and yes I have complete university level statistics )

I agreed with you previously that there are other factors that can influence road fatalities and that there may be a combination of factors, just like with the impact of a punch. I am not arguing that speed ( or speeding) is the only factor, I am have only ever said it was a significant factor in road fatalities.

If we want to be semantic then I am still correct, in order for a vehicle to be in involved in a fatal collision then it must be moving and traveling at a speed at a rate of distance over time. so technically every road fatality that has involved a moving vehicle has involved speed ( since a moving vehicle has speed, n.b. speed is velocity with out direction taken into account)

so it would seem that that regardless of how you take the my words (ie speed or speeding), physics tell us My statement is true.

OK From what I can decipher you are basically saying that in your opinion you believe that the posted speed limits are to low ( though I'l admit it took a while for you to get to that point, it seemed you where more keen to argue against me then to state your opinion)). This is your opinion and I respect that. and in some instances I would even agree with you. however in general i disagree. These speed limits are not just plucked out of the air, nor are they set to deliberately catch innocent driver (i concede that some do very much appear to be nothing but a trap, but only some). These limits have been determined using science, statistics, observation and experience, they are primarily based on independent studies, conducted by insurance companies, road assistance organisations, traffic authorities, and by national universities.

it seems to be easier to blame the authorities for revenue raising then to acknowledge that lower speeds do save lives.

I'm going to re post the clips I posted in the other thread for those who may want to have a look

<snip>
please watch the clip below:

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb6d2f00d77fddb/stopping_distances_tvc.mpg

and watch this clip which is a re-enactment of an actual accident. imagine you are the driver

http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb633405fd42f0f/Wmv_rs_pram_1_small.wmv

and then this one
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/resources/file/eb633905fd609b9/Wmv_rs_pram_2_small.wmv

<end snip>

Shadowkahn, I am happy to simply "agree to disagree" on this, it is after all only a differing of opinions, between two people from different cultures. I still hold firm to my believes, but I can also respect that you hold yours.
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#350099 - 07/10/07 07:42 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
MattJ Offline
Free Rhinoplasty!
Prolific

Registered: 11/25/04
Posts: 15634
Loc: York PA. USA
Drew -

I see your point about safety, and I'm not arguing that safety isn't a *small* component of the police duty in traffic enforcement. However, when you see things like this:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/virginians-face-3000-traffic-ticket/20070701103509990001

"Virginia is for lovers, or so the state slogan has declared since 1969. Starting today, Virginia also will be the home of the $3,000 traffic ticket. In an effort to raise money for road projects, the state will start hitting residents who commit serious traffic offenses with huge civil penalties. The new civil charges range from $750 to $3,000 and be added to existing fines and court costs. The civil penalty for going 20 mph over the speed limit will be $1,050, plus $61 in court costs and a fine that is typically about $200.

Virginia's traffic law is one of several thousand new state laws that take effect Sunday. Jan. 1 and July 1 are the most popular dates for state laws to become official. July 1 is especially popular for new taxes and fees because it's the start of the budget year in 46 states. For example, Arkansas will cut its sales tax on groceries from 6% to 3% Sunday.

Virginia's new traffic penalties are expected to raise $65 million a year and are part of an effort to improve the state's roads without raising taxes. A first-time drunken driver will face a $2,250 civil penalty, plus fines and court costs that typically run about $500 or more. Driving without a license? That's a mandatory $900 civil penalty, in addition to the ordinary $100 for a fine and court costs.

"It's outrageous," says traffic court attorney Thaddeus Furlong of Springfield, Va. "When Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class find out what they have to pay, there's going to be a backlash like you've never seen." Some other states impose extra civil penalties for traffic offenses, but the cost is usually $100 or $200, Furlong says. "What sets this apart is the Draconian size of the civil penalties," he says.

Another difference: The civil penalties apply only to Virginia residents, not out-of-state drivers. Virginians must pay in three installments over 26 months or lose their licenses. The state Legislature didn't think it could enforce the extra penalties in other states. Motorist club AAA Mid-Atlantic supports the new penalties. "These penalties are harsh, but normal fines haven't gotten people to drive sanely. Maybe this will," says Lon Anderson, spokesman for AAA Mid-Atlantic.

He says the new law will help reduce the nearly 1,000 traffic deaths the state records annually. "We wish motorists didn't have to pay more, but the fact is Virginia's transportation trust fund is broke," Anderson says."

Note how the emphasis is on revenue enhancement. And why doesn't Virginia tax (whoops......fine, I mean) out-of-state drivers like that? Maybe because tourists (ANOTHER revenue source) would stop coming through the state? Hmmmmm.......
_________________________
"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Top
#350100 - 07/10/07 12:34 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
shadowkahn Offline
anti-stupid crusader

Registered: 01/03/07
Posts: 234
Quote:

Quote:

except of course for providing you with the statistics that show the autobahn is safer than US highways.




But I had agreed to that statement




Which was my whole point. I'm not advocating that we speed. I'm advocating that we raise the speed limit.


Quote:

Quote:

I have always been arguing that speedING kills, actually you are stuck on a short post i provided originally ( see below) that was in the form of a community announcement and aimed at driver awareness
Quote:

whether on the black top or the dance floor

SPEED KILLS





But we must be sure that we are raising awareness of actual problems. Speed does not kill. Bad driving kills.

Are you going to argue that speed does not influence the impact of a punch. do you not agree that a car hitting a child traveling at 100 km/h is not more likely to
a) cause the death of a child and
b) allows less time to react and stop.
then a car traveling at 40 km/h





Certainly not - although I wish you'd stop resorting to what amounts to emotional cheap shots with the child examples.

An airplane traveling at 600 mph that hits a child will cause extraordinary damage to the child, yet we do not outlaw flying. Why? Because the likelihood of the airplane hitting the child is so remote that, even though the consequences are horrendous, there is little risk of it actually happening.

By the same token, if we trained our drivers even half as well as we train our pilots, the likelihood of a wreck of any sort would be so greatly reduced that, even with higher speed limits, the total number of deaths (and wrecks in general) would fall off.






You have not provided a coalition between anything. you have erroneously stated that there is a relationship between (for e.g.) road deaths and oxygen. in reality all you have done is stated two variables that are present in the said situation.




That's the definition of a correlation.

Quote:

in order for their to be a relationship a change in one must result in a change in the other.




Not necessarily but even accepting that argument at face value, consider this example. Satellite communications blackouts are often accompanied by increased intensity of the northern lights. A casual observer considering these two facts might conclude that the northern lights causes communications blackouts - he doesn't know that it's a solar flare that caused both. So even though the northern lights variable increases linearly with satellite blackouts, and is therefore correlated with it, that does not indicate a causal relationship.


Quote:

on the other hand as speed increases the chance of death in an accident also increases, this is a relationship and the correlation between speed and chance of death is positive and strong.




Yes, but the trouble with the speed kills crowd is that they've seen the correlation but haven't bothered to establish cause. With the exception of mechanical failure, EVERY "accident" is caused by someone screwing up. That's why I call them wrecks, not accidents, because people purposely decide not to become the best possible driver, and then they screw up. If they were better drivers, maybe they wouldn't have screwed up.

Quote:

if it was drawn on a graph it would show a relative straight line increasing in hight as it moves to the right.




Only if you take them from the same limited sample set. If you throw the autobahn into the mix then the number of wrecks decreases as speed limits increase to infinity, which is why the number of deaths per vehicle mile is lower than on the US highways - -they're simply better drivers over there.

Quote:

if you are going to argue statistics at least get your terms correct first. ( and yes I have complete university level statistics )




Yeah? Well, so have I. What's your point? I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I understand that there IS a difference. Do you?


Quote:

I am not arguing that speed ( or speeding) is the only factor, I am have only ever said it was a significant factor in road fatalities.




You can not make that opinion mesh with the *fact* that there are fewer wrecks per vehicle mile on the unlimited sections of the Autobahn than on US highways.

Quote:

If we want to be semantic then I am still correct, in order for a vehicle to be in involved in a fatal collision then it must be moving and traveling at a speed at a rate of distance over time. so technically every road fatality that has involved a moving vehicle has involved speed ( since a moving vehicle has speed, n.b. speed is velocity with out direction taken into account)




Quite correct. So if we take the argument that speed kills to its logical conclusion, we must ban cars. Otherwise, you can listen to me and train the drivers better so that speed doesn't get as many chances to kill.


Quote:

OK From what I can decipher you are basically saying that in your opinion you believe that the posted speed limits are to low ( though I'l admit it took a while for you to get to that point, it seemed you where more keen to argue against me then to state your opinion)).




I've been saying that all along. But if you're wrong, I'm going to argue against you as well

Quote:

This is your opinion and I respect that. and in some instances I would even agree with you. however in general i disagree. These speed limits are not just plucked out of the air,




Of course they are, because they're completely illogical. How can we have a 2-lane highway in Montana that's deemed safe enough to drive 80mph on, and then have an identically-built, identically straight 2 lane highway in Minnesota that's unsafe at higher than 55mph? It simply doesn't make any sense. Either a relatively straight 2 laner is safe at 80 or it's not. There's no magic safety force field over Montana that suddenly makes higher speeds safer. The only logical conclusion is that speed limits are arbitrarily set based on someone's OPINION of what is safe.

Quote:

nor are they set to deliberately catch innocent driver




Look up New Rome, Ohio some time if you don't believe speed limits are deliberately used to trap innocent drivers.

Quote:

(i concede that some do very much appear to be nothing but a trap, but only some).




And how do you determine the quantity of unnecessarily low speed limits out there?

Quote:

These limits have been determined using science, statistics, observation and experience, they are primarily based on independent studies, conducted by insurance companies, road assistance organisations, traffic authorities, and by national universities.




Again, that fails to mesh with facts. Are you saying that Montana used all of what you claim they use, and determined that 80mph is safe, or are you saying that Minnesota did it. They obviously didn't both do it since the speed limits are 25mph apart. So either Montana got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Minnesota is being a bunch of collective jackasses and artificially lowering the speed limits in order to boost revenue, or Minnesota got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Montana is trying to kill off its citizens. Which is it?

Quote:

Shadowkahn, I am happy to simply "agree to disagree" on this, it is after all only a differing of opinions, between two people from different cultures. I still hold firm to my believes, but I can also respect that you hold yours.




Don't stop now! Debate is fun!
_________________________
"Belt mean no need rope hold up pants" - Mr. Miyagi, RIP.

Top
#350101 - 07/10/07 01:34 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: shadowkahn]
Taison Offline
The Forum Dragon
Professional Poster

Registered: 09/06/05
Posts: 3629
Loc: BKK, Thailand
Quote:

So either Montana got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Minnesota is being a bunch of collective jackasses and artificially lowering the speed limits in order to boost revenue, or Minnesota got real studies and set a safe speed, in which case Montana is trying to kill off its citizens




[sarcasm] I'd go with the latter. They're trying to kill off their citizens. [/sarcasm] *slaps himself on the forehead*

-Taison out
_________________________
I got two fists.. Don't make me use my head as well!

Top
#350102 - 07/10/07 10:32 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: Taison]
drgndrew Offline
< a god, > a man.
Enthusiast

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 599
Loc: Toowoomba, Qld, Australia
Quote:

I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I understand that there IS a difference. Do you?




Causation can not be determined by observational data it can only be determined in a controlled experiment. I have only ever said that speed is a contributing factor not a cause. you are again taking my origin deliberately short post as literal.

with the odd exception all of your arguments are based on specific or based data ( e.g. the auto bahn). you are using outlying variables as proff to discredit a general statement ( the Minnesota eg). You have thrown in non related and low correlated "relationships" to discredit my independently and scientifically determined relationships ( for eg northern lights v's blackouts).

I am no longer continuing this "debate", as you are not debating you are arguing and using arguments that are flawed but may be seen as supporting to the casual reader. I ask that any reader of this post also read the appropriate sections of the "debate" here
http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/s...part=3&vc=1
and with a couple of posts on the previous page


Quote:

Don't stop now! Debate is fun!





this is what i meant by
Quote:

if I continue arguing this we both will be covered in mud , but you will enjoy it.




a wise man once said "don't wrestle with pigs , you will both be covered in mud, but the pig will enjoy it." ( in humour)

MattJ ( and everyone else). You can not disprove a general statement by giving a specific eg. it like trying to disprove "apples are good for you' by providing evidence of a person being allergic to apples. for that specific person the statement is untrue but for the General public it is very true

This is a problem I see with "discussion" boards there is actually little discussion going on and a lot more arguing (often hiding behind terms like debate). I'm not saying that I am innocent in this , i freely admit that i have fallen into the trap of arguing instead of discussing. If someone says I am wrong I often feel compelled to prove I'm not ( it is human nature). i start to do this by providing reasons behind my point of view and if possible some other kind of evidence to back those reasons up. but there will always be some one who has to then go and try to disprove your reasons, which I don't mind as it does test my reasoning. however more often then not the "eveidence" they put forward is nothing but here say and conjecture of just a blanks statement of denial.

I have argued points regarding martial arts/self defence tactics and at one stage my entire argument was considered BS because quote "you couldn't to that to a grappler". that was it not other reason provided. if this tactic was ineffective to a grappler, I want to know why so that I can further my own base. i had provided first hand accounts, scientific truths, and even a few statistics. all to show why I believed this tactic to work. the only counter I receive is "it won't work against me or a grappler or...." I was constantly being told I was full of it and having no actual reasons or proof supplied as to why other then emotional and ego driven here say.

Sorry for the rant.

I must acknowledge that shadowkahn has at least attempted to provide reasons behind his disagreement instead of just saying "I'm right, your wrong" and he hasn't resorted to name calling or personal attacks
same can be said about MattJ here.

I use to enjoy debating but no a days I see less debate and more ego fluffing.
Good bye
_________________________
Sumo Pacis (Choose Peace)

With Honour in Bushido
Drew Guest
www.ToowoombaSelfDefence.websyte.com.au
Bushi Dojos Self Protection
Toowoomba Self Defence

Top
#350103 - 07/11/07 03:57 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: drgndrew]
trevek Offline
Professional Poster

Registered: 05/15/05
Posts: 3337
Loc: Poland
I recall a few years ago Glasgow police had a real crack-down on speeding with cameras galore. Problem was that many places had no speed markers and appeared to be ok for higher speeds. Also the cops were not showing discretion, just zero tolerance. I think little secret was made of the fact it was a coffer swelling exercise.
_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

Supporting everyone saying "nuts to cancer"

Top
#350104 - 07/11/07 06:55 AM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
Midnightcrawler Offline
Dragon

Registered: 01/18/05
Posts: 184
Loc: England
Quote:

I recall a few years ago Glasgow police had a real crack-down on speeding with cameras galore. Problem was that many places had no speed markers and appeared to be ok for higher speeds. Also the cops were not showing discretion, just zero tolerance. I think little secret was made of the fact it was a coffer swelling exercise.




This is where much of the problem arises. Exercises in revenue generation by the police tend to cause the public to view the police and their motivations with disrespect and distrust. This in turn leads to an attitude on the part of the general public to ignore those laws which reduce their personal freedoms or choice.
_________________________
God only knows; Really.

Top
#350105 - 10/11/07 06:14 PM Re: Police and traffic safety [Re: trevek]
Midnightcrawler Offline
Dragon

Registered: 01/18/05
Posts: 184
Loc: England
To quote 'Jeremy Carkson'. "It isn't speed that kills, it's the sudden STOP.
_________________________
God only knows; Really.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >


Moderator:  Ames, Cord, MattJ, RazorFoot, Reiki 




Action Ads
1.5 Million Plus Page Views
Monthly
Only $89
Details

Fight Videos
Night club fight footage and street fights captured with the world's first bouncer spy cam

How to Matrix!
Learn ten times faster with new training method. Learn entire arts for as little as $10 per disk.

Self Defense
Stun guns, pepper spray, Mace and self defense products. Alarms for personal and home use.

TASER MC26C
Stop An Urban Gorilla: Get 2 FREE TASER M26C Replacement Air Cartridges With Each New TASER M26C!

 

Unbreakable Unbrella

krav maga