"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

Quoted so Shanek can see it.

Thanks.

Those statistics are for all of Montana's roads, not just the interstate and rural highways where the speed limit was removed.

http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana.htm
http://www.hwysafety.com/hwy_montana_2001.htm
http://www.motorists.com/issues/speed/dornsife.html
http://www.motorists.com/ma/globestory.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-montge.html
http://www.unipress.com/people/fhp/hwy_montana_2001.htm

And besides:

http://www.sci.csuhayward.edu/statistics/Resources/Quiz/mphan.htm

Thus, even the seemingly remarkable "near doubling" of the fatality rate in Montana is not convincing. The counts are just too low. Furthermore, the language surrounding the Montana statistics is so specific ("interstate" only, "caused by high speed" only) that one suspects they may have been selected from among several other relevant statistics just because they appear to be so remarkable.

This effect was also seen in New Zealand, too:

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm

 

[Santa666]

"Those who would give up their essential liberty in order to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

If I may be so bold as to quote Shanek quoting Ben Franklin here. A question has been asked of Shanek and been left unanswered. Which of our essential liberties are we being deprived of, in the name of safety, when we are asked to adhere to regulations which prevent us from carrying dangerous weapons and explosives onto an aircraft. Perhaps it is an essential liberty to allow any and all persons to endanger the lives of those around them. I will ask the question again, but to everyone this time. Who would get on a plane with someone carrying an explosive device, knowing they had such a device solely because preventing them from having it was an infringement upon their liberty. Is this a stupid question? Of course it is, so is the idea of a government run facility (or even a privately owned one) NOT instituting safety precautions to prevent citizens from killing each other. This should be common sense. Good day for now.


Santa (making my list) Clause

 

[shanek]

Or people stayed off the unrestricted roads altogether, causing a fall the quantity of traffic using these roads.

Those figures aren't just for the roads where the speed limit was dropped. They're for all of Montana's roads.

This is a basic thing. Why can none of you see that problem?

 

[shanek]

Hang on - are you saying that a private company couldn’t as part of their terms and conditions state that an "ID card" had to be shown to board one of their plans or that a contact body search was required?

Asked and answered, several times. An airline can only place such a condition on their own airline; they work in competition with other airlines, who are free to set different conditions. With government, it's one way forced on all of them.

 

[rdtjr]

Those figures aren't just for the roads where the speed limit was dropped. They're for all of Montana's roads.

This is a basic thing. Why can none of you see that problem?

They were for all of those roads showing both before and after the speed limit was removed on the highways and the rate of incidence still went way up for the roads as a whole during that time frame.

This means that either the rate of additional accidents was very, very high on the no-speedlimit highways (enough to make the big spike even when the other roads were factored in) or that removing the speedlimits on the highways also increased the incidence of accidents on ancillary roads (perhaps drivers had a tough time no longer going very, very fast once back on regular roads and streets). Either way, it is pretty bad news for supporters of no speedlimits.

 

[rdtjr]

Asked and answered, several times. An airline can only place such a condition on their own airline; they work in competition with other airlines, who are free to set different conditions. With government, it's one way forced on all of them.

What if the airlines collude so that the effect is the same? They might just agree that very restrictive regulations are best for overall safety and adopt industry standards. Are they not allowed to do that? What is your recourse then?

 

[Darat]

Asked and answered, several times. An airline can only place such a condition on their own airline; they work in competition with other airlines, who are free to set different conditions. With government, it's one way forced on all of them.

Thanks for the answer. Does that mean you are saying companies can’t decide to co-operate? For instance in the case of airlines - they all get together and say "Look we want to be able to use common procedures - cuts costs and makes life easier for everyone – and two of those are that we'll all agree that all passengers must have a full contact body search and provide an ID card."?

 

[shanek]

This means that either the rate of additional accidents was very, very high on the no-speedlimit highways (enough to make the big spike even when the other roads were factored in) or that removing the speedlimits on the highways also increased the incidence of accidents on ancillary roads (perhaps drivers had a tough time no longer going very, very fast once back on regular roads and streets).

Or something else was going on entirely and the removal of speed limits had absolutely nothing to do with it. Correlaiton ≠ causation.

 

[shanek]

What if the airlines collude so that the effect is the same?

Collusion largely doesn't work. There's still room for a competitor to come in or, more likely, one of the colluding airlines will renege on the deal in order to attract more customers. This sort of thing happens all the time.

 

[shanek]

Thanks for the answer. Does that mean you are saying companies can’t decide to co-operate? For instance in the case of airlines - they all get together and say "Look we want to be able to use common procedures - cuts costs and makes life easier for everyone – and two of those are that we'll all agree that all passengers must have a full contact body search and provide an ID card."?

See my above response.

 

[rdtjr]

Collusion largely doesn't work. There's still room for a competitor to come in or, more likely, one of the colluding airlines will renege on the deal in order to attract more customers. This sort of thing happens all the time.

[sarcasm]No. Industries have never successfully colluded for long periods of time before...[/sarcasm] Guess all the anti-consumer, anti-labor, and anti-competitive collusion of the 19th and early 20th century is simple fairy tales?

Why would they compete in this particular area? I think most of us would rather fly the airline with tighter security. The security screening is grating and annoying and sometimes intrusive, but given the choice I think most of us would take the one with more security rather than less... I'm not saying people would be lining up for body-cavity searches, but you get the point.

The small number of people not willing to go through reasonable security checks would not be significant enough to make a great deal of extra money and has the potential to drive away a lot of customers. Just imagine the scare adds created by the "security conscious" airlines.

 

[rdtjr]

Or something else was going on entirely and the removal of speed limits had absolutely nothing to do with it. Correlaiton ≠ causation.

What other factors were different during that time period? Was the weather worse as a whole? Incidence of DUI up?

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation is the proper phrase. How many other variables are there that directly effect road traffic that can even be tracked? I thought of two, both easily on the record (one of which is even in the same report). When a known variable is changed and you see a large change in results that is something worth looking at. Keep in mind that sometime correlation does equal causation. (For example there is a very high correlation between how far I push my accelerator pedal and the velocity of my car... that also happens to be causation almost 100% of the time).

 

[shanek]

[sarcasm]No. Industries have never successfully colluded for long periods of time before...[/sarcasm] Guess all the anti-consumer, anti-labor, and anti-competitive collusion of the 19th and early 20th century is simple fairy tales?

Actually, yes, for the most part they were, or at least highly exaggerated.

Why would they compete in this particular area? I think most of us would rather fly the airline with tighter security.

But there's more than one way to be secure, and some methods work better than others. And there's every reason to believe that the current measures they subject us to don't work that well at all.

 

[shanek]

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation is the proper phrase. How many other variables are there that directly effect road traffic that can even be tracked?

Who knows? But it's ridiculous to say that the loss of speed limits on the interstates and rural highways is responsible for the change in fatalities elsewhere given that a) your only evidence is the number of fatalities and b) the fatality rate on those particular roads actually went down.

 

[davefoc]

Shanek wrote:

Collusion largely doesn't work.

I think there is something to what Shanek says here. This is a big topic and I don't want to imply any expertise in it, but I tend to believe people that argue that the success of collusion by companies to stifle competition and the need for anti-trust legislation has been exagerated.

In this case however it is close to certain that any airline would enforce security rules that probably would include the requirement of ID to obtain a ticket. Even if a particular airline decided not to have such a requirement it is almost certain that its insurance company would not allow them to operate. If the government just removed themselves entirely from the airline regulation business I think it is very likely that the industry would create an organization charged with insuring airline safety that was funded by insurance carriers and airlines tht would serve a similar function as the government airline regulation agencies.

I don't know if airlines would be more or less safe if the government removed itself from airline security and safety oversight. I tend to think air travel would be more safe, but I am not sure by a long shot. But I am certain that no airlines would develop that didn't require security mechanisms that restrict the personal liberty of passengers in some ways. With or without government control Shanek shouldn't be looking for an airline that's not going to ask for ID as he boards with his AK-47 slung over his shoulder, carrying a bag of plastique while he smokes his favorite cigar anytime soon.

 

[rdtjr]

Who knows? But it's ridiculous to say that the loss of speed limits on the interstates and rural highways is responsible for the change in fatalities elsewhere given that a) your only evidence is the number of fatalities and b) the fatality rate on those particular roads actually went down.

Did the rate of fatalities on the speedlimit roads actually go down during this period? Where can we see this data? You were just complaining at the top of the page that the highway and non-highway data were plotted together and I gave two reasons why that should usually benefit the roads with the higher accident rate.

So, if the fatality rate on the speedlimit roads actually went down (and I still wonder where you got that number) doesn't that refute your contention that the fatalities did not change on the loss of speed limit roads? In fact, that makes the case for the no-speedlimits roads even worse... the fatality rate went down everywhere else that makes the increase on those roads that much more drastic. At the very least there is a very strong correlation there (and when only one variable is known to have changed, it becomes a very important variable). It would be foolish to discount this and say it had to be another variable. If you could come up with other variables that could result in such a change let us know so we can entertain them.

Edit to add: The more I think about this new tidbit the worse it gets. If the fatality rate dropped on all of the other roads then you've got a serious problem. Not only do you have to look for other variables you have to look for variables that adversely affect only the non-speedlimit roads. Weather? Nope, should affect both sets of roads equally? DUI? Most DUIs should be on more local roads between a DUIs drinking spot and home, probably should adversely affect local roads more but let's call it a wash anyway. What else? Anything I can think up should affect the roads and drivers equally wherever they drive. The one remaining factor and difference between the roads in the speedlimit.

 

[Kerberos]

[sarcasm]No. Industries have never successfully colluded for long periods of time before...[/sarcasm] Guess all the anti-consumer, anti-labor, and anti-competitive collusion of the 19th and early 20th century is simple fairy tales?

I once had a similar discussion with shanek, where he insisted that cartels can only exist if they were backed by government. I then produced an example of a cartel that had existed without government support and he replied:

"Cartels are not part of the free market; they can only exist with the support of government or organized crime. Since you say this one was illegal, then that would be organized crime.

Try again." link

So there you have it, any example of cartels or collusion or cartels you might finds is ipso facto caused by the government or the mafia. The Danish mafia is BTW far more fearsome than it's less professional Russian or Italian counterparts, since they're so effective in hiding their existence that I was unaware they even existed until Shanek's brilliant logic revealed their existence. In the same thread Shanek also explains how the fact that nobody knows every single detail of how a pencil is made, proves that the free market will magically solve any problem it's faced with. Truly few other sceptics on this board or elsewhere can produce such astonishing revelations as he.

 

[Earthborn]

I don't think airlines need to collude to all implement very strict conditions on passengers. I think it will probably happen as a result of competition.

So we allow airlines to set their own security standards and get the government out of it. Which airline wants the reputation of being lax on security in this day and age? Which airline is going to advertise the fact that they allow people with guns on board, or that it is going to 'respect people's privacy' by not looking in their suitcases for bombs? I'd say none of them.

And which passengers, apart from some crazy libertarians and terrorists, are going to fly with that airline? I'd say absolutely no one.

My prediction: if airlines are free to set their own security standards, they will fiercely compete in the toughness of their security. In their advertising they will greatly exaggerate the dangers of terrorism and the necessity of ever more invasive security measures. And passengers will be made scared enough to accept it all.

The security will be very expensive to the airlines, and ticket prices will increase dramatically. The government takes care of security now, which you can see as a form of subsidy to airlines. If the government demands less taxes because it no longer has to provide this subsidy, the increased ticket price will not cause much loss in ticket sales: People will have more to spend on airtravel.

Good thing though that the free market always does things more efficiently than the government does. If we are to believe the free market proponents, than the airlines will provide much better security at much lower cost. Give them the freedom to set their own security standards, and watch how fast they will install those full body x-ray machines that can check everything in and on the bodies of thousands of passengers in mere minutes.

Libertarians will celebrate it is another triumph of the free market over the government. After all, the airlines provide greater security at an overall lower price. That some of them once considered such extensive security as their worst nightmare will be forgotten. After all: nobody is forced to fly, are they?

 

[rdtjr]

I once had a similar discussion with shanek, where he insisted that cartels can only exist if they were backed by government. I then produced an example of a cartel that had existed without government support and he replied:

"Cartels are not part of the free market; they can only exist with the support of government or organized crime. Since you say this one was illegal, then that would be organized crime.

Try again." link

So there you have it, any example of cartels or collusion or cartels you might finds is ipso facto caused by the government or the mafia. The Danish mafia is BTW far more fearsome than it's less professional Russian or Italian counterparts, since they're so effective in hiding their existence that I was unaware they even existed until Shanek's brilliant logic revealed their existence. In the same thread Shanek also explains how the fact that nobody knows every single detail of how a pencil is made, proves that the free market will magically solve any problem it's faced with. Truly few other sceptics on this board or elsewhere can produce such astonishing revelations as he.

Interesting, his argument there defeats itself. In the absence of government interference those cartels and other illegal business would be quite legal... and quite capable of operating as they pleased. Why should they change their coercive and anti-competitive activity just because the rest of us don't like it? Heck, most of us don't like it anyway and they've got the government enforcement agencies after them to boot and they still persist... isn't that strange?

 

[Kerberos]

Interesting, his argument there defeats itself. In the absence of government interference those cartels and other illegal business would be quite legal... and quite capable of operating as they pleased. Why should they change their coercive and anti-competitive activity just because the rest of us don't like it? Heck, most of us don't like it anyway and they've got the government enforcement agencies after them to boot and they still persist... isn't that strange?

No you don't understand, you see it's impossible to maintain a cartel in a free market, so the cartel was maintained only by coercion from the Danish Mafia. Shanek is OK with government intervention against the mafia, but unfortunately the state is so chronically inefficient that they haven't even discovered that the mafia exists in Denmark yet. Of course if the state was financed by voluntary donations then the people who paid would demand greater efficiency, the mafia would be crushed, and we'd all live in a paradise where the grass was always green, the sky was always blue, the lamps where always frolicking and where there were no cartels, but only perfect competition as far as the eye could see.