> It seems to me that the proponents of the law should have the burden of conclusive proof, not the opponents.
Why? It seems like the norm is speed limits, I thought that the burden of proof rested with those contesting the norm.
Why? It seems like the norm is speed limits, I thought that the burden of proof rested with those contesting the norm.
Similarly if the tables were turned, the proponents of removing the speed limits should have the burden of proof placed on them as well.
Anyway, this generalization
> The lower–than–US fatality rates on the German Autobahn (where flow management is the primary safety strategy), and now Montana's experience, would indicate that using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake.
is totally out of line in an article that doesn't even address the technical question of statistical significance or deal with potential biases Montana's or Germany's automotive demographics put on the data.