Here is a generic news search that gets many hits, 365 days a year:
I'll ask you speed-monkeys once again, if those articles aren't telling the real story about speed and risk, what the hell is? Are your clever excuses on Usenet somehow more "real" than all those grim news items? If you spoke to the crash investigators would they tell you those reports were mostly fabricated? Want to bet on it?
And no, that doesn't mean singling out one story with suspicious circumstances and applying it to all the others. That's been your standard BS tactic when I post evidence. You zoom in on the one that might be bogus and ignore the majority.
Is real-world evidence less valid than conspiracy theories involving police, insurance companies and the NHTSA? Do you live on a cyber planet where you get to say whatever you want and thus it is so? Why do you ignore most evidence of speed-related crashes presented to you? My posting history is full of specific crash articles but they pbutt through your empty skulls with no effect. What sort of morons are you?
Here's more evidence again, since you have short attention spans:
In ignoring reality, you've honed the ability to lie with a straight face, like Rumsfeld telling us things are going "well" in Iraq despite 1,700+ American casualties, many more civilian rests, and his own admission that the insurgency could last up to 12 years. Not exactly what they'd hoped for, but spin is everything in war and bad driving, ain't it? I urge you all to read the book, "On Bullpoo" by professor Harry G. Frankfurt.
Maybe you exist in a parallel universe where physics works backwards and lower speeds somehow make crashes more severe? It would be fun to live in such a place (if I were a mindless pedal-masher), but I'm stuck here on Earth with heavy-footed liars tailgating and weaving their way through traffic.
Here's the news once again, since you've already forgotten about it:
C.T.
