Carl Taylor
I guess you are referring to how you keep banging on about "more kinetic energy = more damage". Carl, nobody disagrees with you on this point.
The problem is with your logic. You make arguments like this: Conclusion: Speeders are on drugs. People here disagree with the logical inference you are making, not with the premise itself.
Most people here are in favour of safety. However, you are equating slowness with safety. Many of the discussions in this NG revolve around whether or not this is true. Again, your powers of logic let you down. We have something like this: Premise: Less kinetic energy = less damage in a crash Conclusion: Less kinetic energy = saving lives
We can prove 'reductio ad absurdum' that this argument form is invalid, by looking at this argument: Premise: Less kinetic energy = saving lives Premise: We want to save as many lives as possible Conclusion: We should minimise kinetic energy.
You ignore this conclusion every time you exceed 0mph in your car. Therefore I buttume you think this conclusion is rubbish. So, logically, either one of the premises is rubbish, or the deduction process was wrong. So, which is it?
Another line that people in this NG take against the earlier invalid argument form is: what if less kinetic energy means more likely to have a crash in the first place? Since there is evidence to back this up, it is a claim that you should take seriously.
What about the people who get on a mission to not let anyone past? Is that not just as hazardous?
-- (at the end of my patience stick now)
