Originally Posted by
R_Strowe
I did read what you wrote. And I stand by my assessment.
By it’s very nature, if you reduce speeds relative to other traffic (and that includes pedestrians), then reaction time improves and accidents are less likely to occur.
On the other hand, if everything is moving together at a relatively consistent speed, then reaction time also improves because closure rates are relative.
Any aircraft below 400’ is generally going to be flying at about 100kts give or take. Unless on exactly opposite courses, the effect of any impact begins to reduce. Physics 101. Which is why I stated it was a bad analogy.
R_Strowe
Stand by your asessment all you want, doesn't make it any more accurate or correct. I asked you to read the words.
I will quote Speedy's initial statement one more time....
Originally Posted by speedracerntrixie
There is no data that supports that flying below 400' is going to prevent any collision
My statement was:
Originally Posted by astrohog
There is no data to support that driving 20 MPH in a school zone is going to prevent any collision
They are absolutely IDENTICAL and valid parallel analogies to one another, regardless how you feel. Words have meaning. If you one cannot use correct vernacular, they should think twice about engaging in adult debate.
It does not say a word about REDUCING the chances of accidents. Key word is PREVENT. That word is ABSOLUTE, it means ZERO chance of collision. Pretty easy to slip that into your narrative to make it sound more palatable. It's another logical fallacy employed by those who have little or no defense to their side of a debate.
Astro