nanog mailing list archives
Re: London incidents
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:45:32 -0400
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- crossoverdesign 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
Current thread:
- Re: London incidents, (continued)
- Re: London incidents sthaug (Jul 12)
- RE: London incidents Neil J. McRae (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Chris A. Epler (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Brad Knowles (Jul 12)
- Message not available
- Re: London incidents Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Mark Foster (Jul 12)
- Message not available
- Re: London incidents Jay R. Ashworth (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents JC Dill (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Valdis . Kletnieks (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Crist Clark (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Steven M. Bellovin (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Bill Stewart (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Joseph S D Yao (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidentsn David Lesher (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Jim Popovitch (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Patrick W. Gilmore (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Jim Popovitch (Jul 12)
- Re: London incidents Michael . Dillon (Jul 13)
- Re: London incidents Adam Rothschild (Jul 12)