Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!)
-
@groaner said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@dcon said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@groaner said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
due to construction that was going on a few years ago...
"ago"
Last time I was up in Santa Rosa was 2014, so I can't speak to the situation up there today. I was, however, able to sample 101 south of the city as recently as last night and found nothing that raised eyebrows.
Guess I'm thinking of Petaluma... (on the way to Santa Rosa, so same thing!) On the 2lane section where they're building a new bridge.
-
@dkf said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Of course, the real problem is the practice of setting speed limits at speeds that are substantially different from the actual safe speed of the road (which will depend on things like traffic levels, sight lines, bend curvature, common weather-related road-surface conditions, etc.)
I'd say a sudden drop in speed limit followed by a sudden increase is definitely unsafe.
-
@xaade said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I'd say a sudden drop in speed limit followed by a sudden increase is definitely unsafe.
It's either unsafe, or indicative of a road that would be very unsafe without it (e.g., because some idiot has put a kindergarten on a highway).
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
You can't guilt me into driving like a mindless pussy no matter how good it makes you feel to drive that way.
Here we say "drive like an Oregonian". Those motherfuckers follow every traffic sign precisely, and have no concept of "going with the flow".
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@blakeyrat said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@masonwheeler said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Come on. You're from the Puget Sound area. You know better.
Yeah but I do lots of driving on the east side (of the mountains; not of Lake Washington). I-82 is a paradise for people who like to drive fast. Half the time you see tanks driving around, too.
You mean west Idaho?
-
@blakeyrat said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Here we say "drive like an Oregonian". Those motherfuckers follow every traffic sign precisely, and have no concept of "going with the flow".
Well, hell. They can't pump their own gas, so what do you expect!?!
-
@remi said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Over here, when people complain of speed cameras being a trap to make money, they mean that the camera is not in a place with an obvious need to check speeds (e.g. not at the entrance of a town after a long straight in the countryside), or maybe that there are only 2 signs before it reminding you of the speed limit instead of tens of them, or maybe that the speed limit at the camera location is a tiny bit slower than the speed limit on the rest of the road.
If you think that speed cameras are anything more than an automated cash grab then you are delusional.
-
@dcon said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Well, hell. They can't pump their own gas, so what do you expect!?!
Has Oregon decided that electric vehicles also can't be filled up by their owners, in order to preserve filling station attendant jobs?
-
@blakeyrat said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
You can't guilt me into driving like a mindless pussy no matter how good it makes you feel to drive that way.
Here we say "drive like an Oregonian". Those motherfuckers follow every traffic sign precisely, and have no concept of "going with the flow".
-
@dkf said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@dcon said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Well, hell. They can't pump their own gas, so what do you expect!?!
Has Oregon decided that electric vehicles also can't be filled up by their owners, in order to preserve filling station attendant jobs?
Don't give them any ideas...
No, wait, do that. That would be hilarious.
-
@dkf said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@dcon said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Well, hell. They can't pump their own gas, so what do you expect!?!
Has Oregon decided that electric vehicles also can't be filled up by their owners, in order to preserve filling station attendant jobs?
LOL! I never thought of that! I know we have some Oregonians here...
-
No idea. I know electric spots are normally nowhere near the normal gas stations, and never have people (or cars) anywhere near them.
-
@magus said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
No idea. I know electric spots are normally nowhere near the normal gas stations, and never have people (or cars) anywhere near them.
We need to fix that. New Jersey will soon follow.
-
@dkf said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I'm guessing that whatever expertise you have in that area is currently considered (by people other than myself) to be non-notable.
To the authorities, anyways.
-
@groaner said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Someone going 70 or 75 in a 55 during light traffic and ideal conditions, who's staying in lane and not swerving or tailgating is not someone I'd call an asshole.
Then you're part of the problem.
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates speeding is illegal but not necessarily bad. I am very strict on residential streets but never on highways. You can't guilt me into driving like a mindless pussy no matter how good it makes you feel to drive that way.
Enjoy risking other people's lives.
-
@groaner said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
The police and the public have arrived at a workaround: in general, people drive at speeds they feel comfortable, and the police stay lax in their enforcement, focusing on drivers who are actually a threat to safety.
It's cute you believe that.
-
@groaner said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Better to not ever exceed the speed limit, then! Stick to 25 MPH and you're in the clear!
You're arguing in bad faith.
-
@polygeekery said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
If you think that speed cameras are anything more than an automated cash grab then you are delusional.
I agree. The technology is way too janky to be accurate enough on such a scale, and those in control of it are way too-- well, "corrupt" is the far end of the spectrum, but certainly on that spectrum-- to handle that technology responsibly.
Speed enforcement is good. Speed cameras is not a good way of enforcing speeds.
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights. Love them (as long as someone watches the watchers to make sure they're not fucking around with yellow light times).
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates speeding is illegal but not necessarily bad. I am very strict on residential streets but never on highways. You can't guilt me into driving like a mindless pussy no matter how good it makes you feel to drive that way.
Enjoy risking other people's lives.
Your ignorance is really not all that fun for me. It's sad that you apparently do enjoy your self righteous risky behavior of driving too slow.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights.
Except for the additional accidents they seem to cause, of course. But why let empiricism get in the way of a good self righteous rant?
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Your ignorance is really not all that fun for me. It's sad that you apparently do enjoy your self righteous risky behavior of driving too slow.
No one responded to my call for studies & evidence that driving the speed limit increases the risk of driving. There's plenty that shows excess speed and careless driving (which are heavily causation'd) do. So, enjoy pretending that you aren't engaging in risky behavior because you selfishly want to go fast.
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights.
Except for the additional accidents they seem to cause, of course. But why let empiricism get in the way of a good self righteous rant?
I think you mean "They increase rear-end accidents because selfish assholes are driving too fast for the conditions, following too closely, and can't stop in time, and thus cause more car damage" vs. "Red light cameras cause a drastic DECREASE of in-intersection collisions, including t-bone collisions, which result in injury and death".
I think that's what you mean. So if we go by philosophy of "I'd rather face a jury of 12 than be carried by 6" or whatever, you and other people would MUCH rather slam into a car at a red light & get arrested, then run through a red light and get killed.
OR you could always not speed & tailgate (ie: do the fucking speed limit) and not have to worry about "slamming on your brakes". Again, bad behavior doesn't excuse, etc.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Your ignorance is really not all that fun for me. It's sad that you apparently do enjoy your self righteous risky behavior of driving too slow.
No one responded to my call for studies & evidence that driving the speed limit increases the risk of driving. There's plenty that shows excess speed and careless driving (which are heavily causation'd) do. So, enjoy pretending that you aren't engaging in risky behavior because you selfishly want to go fast.
So now you're saying that @Groaner was actually arguing your point when he was talking about driving 25mph? And now you're arguing in bad faith talking about reckless driving? Typical.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights.
Except for the additional accidents they seem to cause, of course. But why let empiricism get in the way of a good self righteous rant?
I think you mean "They increase rear-end accidents because selfish assholes are driving too fast for the conditions, following too closely, and can't stop in time, and thus cause more car damage" vs. "Red light cameras cause a drastic DECREASE of in-intersection collisions, including t-bone collisions, which result in injury and death".
I think that's what you mean. So if we go by philosophy of "I'd rather face a jury of 12 than be carried by 6" or whatever, you and other people would MUCH rather slam into a car at a red light & get arrested, then run through a red light and get killed.
OR you could always not speed & tailgate (ie: do the fucking speed limit) and not have to worry about "slamming on your brakes". Again, bad behavior doesn't excuse, etc.
Yes, keep denying reality and see how well that works out for you.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
You're arguing in bad faith.
"I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!"
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I think you mean
And since people here love feelz over facts, here's some facts:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095756415302786
It is revealed that the use of red light running photo enforcement on the whole is positive, as demonstrated by reductions in all types of fatal crashes by 4–48 percent, and injury-related angle crashes by 1 percent. However, it slightly raises PDO-related angle crashes and moderately increases injury and PDO related rear-end crashes. The safety effectiveness of red light running photo enforcement is sensitive to intersection location.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15389580309858 [pdf warning]
In reviewing the international literature, it is clear that red
light camera enforcement is highly effective in reducing red
light violations and right-angle injury crashes associated with
red light running. Although results vary considerably due in
part to the methodological weaknesses of the studies, the re-
sults all indicate that red light camera enforcement reduces in-
jury crashes; the best estimate is about 25–30%. The Retting
and Kyrychenko (2002) study, which attempted to address both
regression-to-the-mean and halo effects, indicates red light cam-
eras reduce injury crashes by 29%. Rear-end crashes increased
in many studies, but rear-end injury crashes increased less and
were more than offset by the reductions in right-angle injury
crashes.I'd link to Motorists.org, but they seem to take pleasure in intentionally mis-representing studies by either coming to the wrong conclusions, only looking at PDO and not injury crashes, or outright lying. So here's one of those studies directly (PDF warning)
https://www.motorists.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2007Virginia.pdf
It is therefore not surprising that when the comprehensive crash costs for rear-end and angle crashes are monetized, the cameras are associated with an increase in crash costs in some jurisdictions (e.g., an annual increase of $140,883 in Arlington) and a net reduction in comprehensive crash costs in other jurisdictions (e.g., an annual reduction of $92,367 in Vienna). When these results are aggregated across all six jurisdictions, the cameras are associated with a net increase in comprehensive crash costs. However, when considering only injury crashes, if the three fatal angle crashes that occurred during the after period are removed from the analysis (the only fatalities that occurred during the study out of 1,168 injury crashes), then the cameras were associated with a modest reduction in the comprehensive crash cost for injury crashes only.
These results cannot be used to justify the widespread installation of cameras because they are not universally effective.
These results also cannot be used to justify the abolition of cameras, as they have had a positive impact at some intersections and in
some jurisdictions. The report recommends, therefore, that the decision to install a red light camera be made on an intersection-by-
intersection basis. In addition, it is recommended that a carefully controlled experiment be conducted to examine further the impact
of red light programs on safety and to determine how an increase in rear-end crashes can be avoided at specific intersections.Someone here is from Pennsylvania, right? This one's for you: (emph mine)
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/other_topics/fhwasa09027/resources/Reducing%20Red%20Light%20Thru%20Yellow%20and%20Cameras.pdf
**In addition to reducing red light violations, longer traffic signal change intervals and red light cameras can reduce potential intersection conflicts and injury crashes, based on results of prior research.** Stimpson et al. (1980) reported that increases in yellow signal timing duration of 1.3 seconds significantly reduced potential intersection conflicts. A study of modified traffic signal change interval timing at urban intersections reported that injury crashes were reduced by 12 percent at experimental sites relative to control sites (Retting et al., 2002). Numerous studies report significant crash reductions associated with red light camera enforcement. In Oxnard, California, injury crashes at intersections with traffic signals were reduced by 29 percent following the introduction of red light cameras (Retting and Kyrychenko, 2002). Front-into-side collisions — the crash type most closely associated with red light running — also were reduced by 32 percent overall, and front-into-side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent. Analyses of police reported crashes in seven US cities found that, overall, right-angle crashes decreased by 25 percent following the introduction of red light cameras (Council et al., 2005). Reviews of international red light camera studies concluded that red light cameras reduce right-angle crashes by 24 percent (Aeron-Thomas and Hess, 2005) and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent (Retting et al., 2003).
Some studies have reported that although red light cameras reduce front-into-side collisions and
overall injury crashes, they can increase rear-end crashes — at least in the short run. Because the types of
crashes prevented by red light cameras tend to be more severe than rear-end crashes, research shows a
positive aggregate benefit. Council et al. (2005) reported a 15 percent increase in rear-end collisions
concurrent with a 25 percent decrease in right-angle crashes, but estimated a positive aggregate economic
benefit of more than $18.5 million during 370 site years, which translates into a crash reduction benefit of
approximately $39,000 per site year. Not all studies have reported increases in rear-end crashes. The
international review by Aeron-Thomas and Hess (2005) did not find a statistically significant change in
rear-end crashes.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights. Love them (as long as someone watches the watchers to make sure they're not fucking around with yellow light times).
Which is exactly what they do. Years ago they deployed them in AZ with the promise to the city that the cameras would pay for themselves. They found out that people were not running red lights as they had thought so then they played around with the yellow light timing until they started making money.
I am against all of this crap.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights.
... except after they're installed, the yellow light timer is turned down below the recommended interval specifically so the camera catches more cars.
The guy in Oregon who was "busted" for calling himself an engineer (remember that?) was actually pointing that out in his letter which got him in trouble.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates speeding is illegal but not necessarily bad. I am very strict on residential streets but never on highways. You can't guilt me into driving like a mindless pussy no matter how good it makes you feel to drive that way.
Enjoy risking other people's lives.
But he is not. You are arguing in bad faith.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I'd link to Motorists.org, but they seem to take pleasure in intentionally mis-representing studies by either coming to the wrong conclusions, only looking at PDO and not injury crashes, or outright lying. So here's one of those studies directly (PDF warning)
I would dig further but I feel it safe to assume that we could correct that to:
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I'd link to Motorists.org, but they
seem to take pleasure in intentionally mis-representing studies by either coming to the wrong conclusions, only looking at PDO and not injury crashes, or outright lying.come to conclusions that I don't like So here's one of those studies directly (PDF warning)
-
@blakeyrat said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
You can't guilt me into driving like a mindless pussy no matter how good it makes you feel to drive that way.
Here we say "drive like an Oregonian". Those motherfuckers follow every traffic sign precisely, and have no concept of "going with the flow".
-
@blakeyrat said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
On the other hand, red light cameras are A++ because it's a clear cut "you ran a light or didn't" case, compounded with ain't no goddamn way anyone can argue ethically running red lights.
... except after they're installed, the yellow light timer is turned down below the recommended interval specifically so the camera catches more cars.
The guy in Oregon who was "busted" for calling himself an engineer (remember that?) was actually pointing that out in his letter which got him in trouble.
-
@lorne-kates quoted in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
if the three fatal angle crashes that occurred during the after period are removed from the analysis ... then the cameras were associated with a modest reduction in the comprehensive crash cost for injury crashes only.
Now, I'm no expert, but I would say removing the only three fatal crashes from your before/after analysis is going to skew the comprehensive crash cost comparison. (And, since I'm lazy, was the "after" here after the installation of red light cameras, or after the removal of the cameras?)
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
as long as someone watches the watchers to make sure they're not fucking around with yellow light times
I'm actually tracking such an interception (that has no cameras, natch) where they're timing out the lag slightly differently every other week or so. To what end, I'm not sure, because there aren't any extra sensors being used there....
-
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Yes, keep denying reality and see how well that works out for you.
Says the person ignoring facts.
-
@polygeekery said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Which is exactly what they do. Years ago they deployed them in AZ with the promise to the city that the cameras would pay for themselves. They found out that people were not running red lights as they had thought so then they played around with the yellow light timing until they started making money.
Hence my caveat of "watch the watchers". Fucking around with yellow lights gets people killed, and city officials who do that should be put on trial for manslaughter.
-
@polygeekery said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
I would dig further but I feel it safe to assume that we could correct that to:
And you would be incorrect. In fact, most of the studies I cited came from their citations. Except their conclusion is "red light cameras increase accidents", when the study's ACTUAL TEXT says one of the following:
- Red Light Cameras do not increase accidents
- RLC do not statistically increase accidents
- RLC in the short term increase POD (ie: car damage only rear-ends), but significantly decrease fatal in-intersection accidents (head-on, right angle, etc)
- "Although the results would seem X, this study does not have the statistical data to draw a conclusion, and further study with better controls is required".
If you're going to ignore facts and flight insults, kindly fuck off the Garage. This isn't the Garage. I've cited my facts and data. Refute them or fuck off.
-
@izzion said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Now, I'm no expert, but I would say removing the only three fatal crashes from your before/after analysis is going to skew the comprehensive crash cost comparison. (And, since I'm lazy, was the "after" here after the installation of red light cameras, or after the removal of the cameras?)
You're right. You aren't an expert. If you were, you would have read the study to find out why those three fatalities were considered or not.
The reason for this discrepancy is
that three fatal crashes—the only ones that occurred during the study—caused Fairfax
County’s crash cost to become a very large, negative number because of the high cost
of fatal crashes.In other words, they were statistical anomalies that were very much outside the range of the collected data. There was nothing to compare them against, or normalize them too.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Yes, keep denying reality and see how well that works out for you.
Says the person ignoring facts.
No.
-
@pie_flavor said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@boomzilla said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Yes, keep denying reality and see how well that works out for you.
Says the person ignoring facts.
No.
Do you actually have anything to contribute?
-
@lorne-kates is this where I use the word 'contribute' in a snappy retort involving declaring I fucked your mother?
-
@lorne-kates
Well, or they're just massaging the numbers to come up with something - the study period went from no fatal T-bones before the red light cameras to 3 fatal T-bones after the red light cameras, which kind of debunks their whole theory, so why not just throw them out.And having actually glanced through the numbers in the study now, their whole methodology is riddled with that sort of "p-hacking" mentality... "well, if we look at the numbers au natural then adding the cameras was negative across the board, but once you start considering the way that police officers coded accident severity (excluding those fatalities, since they don't get coded in a way that lets us do the comparison) then the red light cameras had a positive effect so yay"
-
@pie_flavor said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@lorne-kates is this where I use the word 'contribute' in a snappy retort involving declaring I fucked your mother?
Sure, but she isn't employed by the DMV, so your point is moot.
-
@izzion said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
but once you start considering the way that police officers coded accident severity
Other way around. The police office coded severity was inconsistent.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@polygeekery said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Which is exactly what they do. Years ago they deployed them in AZ with the promise to the city that the cameras would pay for themselves. They found out that people were not running red lights as they had thought so then they played around with the yellow light timing until they started making money.
Hence my caveat of "watch the watchers". Fucking around with yellow lights gets people killed, and city officials who do that should be put on trial for manslaughter.
So let's not incentive them to do so.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Except their conclusion is "red light cameras increase accidents",
So...I was correct? Got it.
-
@lorne-kates said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
@izzion said in Uber, the sociopathic company full of psychopaths, now with murder! (Because regulations aren't "Disruptive" enough!):
Now, I'm no expert, but I would say removing the only three fatal crashes from your before/after analysis is going to skew the comprehensive crash cost comparison. (And, since I'm lazy, was the "after" here after the installation of red light cameras, or after the removal of the cameras?)
You're right. You aren't an expert. If you were, you would have read the study to find out why those three fatalities were considered or not.
The reason for this discrepancy is
that three fatal crashes—the only ones that occurred during the study—caused Fairfax
County’s crash cost to become a very large, negative number because of the high cost
of fatal crashes.In other words, they were statistical anomalies that were very much outside the range of the collected data. There was nothing to compare them against, or normalize them too.
They were inconvenient for your point so you discarded them. Got it