PE>>>>>> Doubling the speed limit will increase the number of 
PE>>>>>> deaths, assuming everything else is held constant.  It's 
PE>>>>>> as basic as that.

DD>>> Educating the drivers would halve the number of deaths.  
DD>>> It's as basic as that.

PE>> You don't have any evidence of that, and even if you did, it 
PE>> doesn't alter my statement.

DD> If drivers were better educated, logic would dictate that a percentage of 
DD> them would become better drivers.

And more confident, thus more willing to take risks.  According to Rod,
this is precisely what happens.  Logic says that it is possible to happen. 
I would need to see some proof either way.

DD>>> Was I any more likely to have an accident because the sign 
DD>>> said 80 than if it said 100?

PE>> No, but the chances of an accident on that road were 
PE>> different, because of ALL the people driving on that road, 
PE>> instead of just you, the average speed they would have 
PE>> travelled at would have been lower because of the speed 
PE>> sign. 

BTW, I meant to say "fatal accident" above.

DD> The stretch of road I spoke of has NOT ssen a rise in the number of road 
DD> deaths since the speed limit (and according to you, the average speed of 
DD> motorists) was raised by 20%

Well, all other factors being equal (e.g. they haven't built a
super-highway right next to it, so no-one travels that beaten track
anymore, etc etc), then the risk of a death on that road has increased.  It
may have increased from 1 chance in 3 million, to 1 chance in 2 million. 
With odds like that, you can't measure it in the short term.  Easier to
measure it on a whole-state basis.  

Are you really saying that if we drop the speed limit from 100 to 1, you
wouldn't see a drop in the number of fatalities?  It really is that basic.
Just say "the number of fatalities will not decrease if the speed
limit is dropped from 100 to 1, and all other factors were held
constant", and I'll assume that you're completely brain dead and leave
it at that.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---