Comment 77228

By jonathan (registered) | Posted May 24, 2012 at 01:17:24 in reply to Comment 77224

...I wouldn't exactly call it 'objective'. More a counter-point to the article above, except that it references actual, real world statistics, vs 'potential points of conflict'. The problem with the latter is that it in no way factors in a person's ability to take note of the world around them, and adjust accordingly. Perhaps the Symposium paper is correct, and the peer-reviewed** Journal paper is not. Perhaps there are indeed more potential points of conflict in a one-way intersection than in a two-way. But perhaps people's ability to recognize these is sufficient in both, and the end result is, the accident rates are the same.

**I gag on those words every time I read them. Does peer-reviewed mean anything when you've never heard of the Journal before? And does it mean anything more than that the math was correct? There have certainly been incidents where peer-reviewed articles have been later proven to be completely and utterly wrong (a certain Korean? Japanese? geneticist comes to mind).

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools