You don't have to be suicidal to be distractable, tired, or overconfident.
Edit: I also like how in the paragraph after you state your love of 'science and data', you promote vague, theoretical, self-reported anecdotal evidence (that isn't even part of a scientific study) as a basis for your argument.
You sound pretty smart (or at least you think you are).
If you are so interested in proving me wrong about the shift from 55 to 65 not having resulted in blood running down the streets (which is exactly what was predicted back then) go do the research yourself.
I don't think I need a research paper to know that AT WORST it made no difference at all. I was not in diapers when this happened. I had already been driving for a while. So, I went through the transition as and adult. Was exposed to all the "the sky is falling" crap and come out of the other side, years later, realizing these people were all full of it.
Had the transition been horrific the media would still be counting the dead every day just like they did for the Iraq war.
Don't believe me? Fine. Go figure it out. I don't need to waste my time on something I already know to be true.
I don't think I need a research paper to know that AT WORST it made no difference at all.
Then your life is not about science and data. If it was, you'd know that counterintutive findings happen all the time in science. For example, the Big Bang theory was famously named for the 'ridiculous example' presented by people trying to discredit that theory. Finding counterintuitive results are a major part of why we do scientific studies in the first place.
Had the transition been horrific the media would still be counting the dead every day
Shall I start counting the logical fallacies you're throwing out (as a 'lives science' guy, no less)? Why does something have to be carnage, sorry, 'blood running down the streets', to be 'worse'? This is how sensantionalist tabloid journalists talk, not reasoned scientists.
(or at least you think you are)
Ironically, I've had a partial scientific test done which indicates that yes, I am smart, regardless of whether or not I personally think so. Being smart is nice, but it's not everything. I was on track for 140ish - not a genius, but above average. But, given that you 'value science and data', you should probably be made aware of me having done a partial WAIS-R by a properly trained professional. It's not perfect, but it was independently run and it's better than self-reported anecdotal hypothetical 'data'.
I don't need to waste my time on something I already know to be true.
I'm wasn't trying to convince you one way or the other; I was just trying to remind you that danger isn't just from people being intentionally suicidal in the traffic control world.
I'm also calling you on your amazing lack of good scientific process, given you call yourself a 'science and data' person, and that you're trying to convince others. Throwing out a strong, opposing opinion ridiculing the initial point, then countering criticism with "I have nothing to prove!" is just poor form in general, let alone in science.
I wasn't making fun of you. I assumed you are smart and I said so.
I didn't come up with "blood running down the streets" politicians were actually saying such things back then to try to justify their position against raising the speed limit from 55 to 65. I don't know the true motivation behind them making such claims. My best guess is that the Federal Government exerted pressure by means of threatening to remove funding or some such thing. Pure conjecture on my part at this point.
My point is that plenty of people are mercilessly voting my comments down yet nobody is taking the time to learn a little history and research what I am saying. I don't need to because I was there and remember the idiocy of the entire thing. For about a year or so media outlets tried their best to push the "speed kills" and "65 is bad" agenda but reality somehow chose to defy them. Blood did not run dow the highway as politicians predicted. Not even close. And so after about a year or so they all stopped talking about it because everyone realized what the politicians were pushing was nonsense. We actually had less accidents with the increase in speed limit.
Anyhow, as i said elsewhere, HN is a cargo cult club. If i had come here fully aligned with the crowd and proclaimed how 10 foot wide lanes would save lives I'd collect a bunch of little votes and make all of you happy. Instead an asshole who dares to not be in line with y'all and for that I am personna non gratta. And that's sad. This isn't a place where opposing points of view are welcome at all.
I get it. I haven't been reading HN for probably a year. Now I remmber why I stopped.
You don't have to be suicidal to be distractable, tired, or overconfident.
Edit: I also like how in the paragraph after you state your love of 'science and data', you promote vague, theoretical, self-reported anecdotal evidence (that isn't even part of a scientific study) as a basis for your argument.