[82350] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: London incidents
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Jul 12 22:49:05 2005
In-Reply-To: <42D44DA4.9070704@globalstar.com>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:32 -0400
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 12, 2005, at 7:09 PM, Crist Clark wrote:
> As for the "inattentive-risky driver" and "agitated driver"
> theories, the
> researchers took (tried to take) this into acount by using a case-
> crossover
> design whereby individual drivers are their own control.
The drivers are "their own control" by looking at their driving the
one, three, and seven days before. Not exactly a good control if the
drivers did not get an "agitating call" on those days.
But whether it is the call, the phone, the headset, the drivers,
etc., JC's point of "accidents are not increasing in general" sounds
pretty strong to me.
And MOST importantly, none of this is even slightly on topic. :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
