Rebuttal - was: OT: Non Scirocco, but car related

[julie at menloparkrandd.com (julie@menloparkrandd.com)]

Spoil sport....

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Daun Yeagley [mailto:vwdaun@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 05:32 PM
>To: julie@menloparkrandd.com, 'Org, Scirocco'
>Subject: Rebuttal - was: OT: Non Scirocco, but car related
>
>
>
>--- julie@menloparkrandd.com wrote:
>
>> A MAN WHO KNOWS HIS MATH
>> He writes:
>> I was riding to work yesterday when I observed a female
>> driver, who cut right in front of a pickup truck, causing
>> the driver to drive onto the shoulder to avoid hitting
>> her.
>
><Major snippage>
>
>This little forward sounded really familiar to me... so I
>went digging in my inbox. Sure enough, TMB (The Mad
>Bastard, or Jason Brunberg for those who've never met him)
>sent this around back in 2001. Our old buddy Jason Cammisa
>wrote a rebuttal of said story, which I thought was far
>funnier than the original post, which is why I saved it. 
>Sorry it's a little hard decipher:
>
>
>At 03:00 PM 8/9/2001 , Jason Brunberg wrote:
>
>Remember arithmetic classes in elementary school? How about
>math in high
>school then? Do you recall learning about statistics and
>how to apply them?
>What about plain ole common sense? Well, here's a fella
>who, contrary to the
>nature of man, does remember and has applied the necessary
>thought processes
>to "figger it out".....
>
>I remember enough of my math classes to figure out a
>mistake in the logic in this calculation as well as some
>math errors:
>
>
>
>I drive 48 miles each way every day to work, that's 96
>miles each day. Of
>these, 16 miles each way is bumper-to-bumper. Most of the
>bumper-to-bumper
>is on an 8 lane highway so if you just look at the 7 lanes
>I am not in,
>that means I pass something like a new car every 40 feet
>per lane. That's 7
>cars every 40 feet for 32 miles. That works out to be 982
>cars every mile,
>or 31,424 cars.
>
>Let's think about this a second:
>
>One car every 40 feet.
>One mile is 5280 feet.
>
>Math Mistake #1:
>That means there are (5280/40) 132 cars per mile in each
>lane, times 7 is = 924, *not* 982.
>In 7 lanes for 32 miles assuming the above, 29,568 cars,
>not 31,424.
>
>Logic Mistake: Based on 40 feet/car and all that other
>crap, we now have just under 30,000 cars. What makes this
>guy think that he's actually going to pass every one of
>those cars?! The only way that his calculation would be
>correct was if everyone was at a complete standstill for
>the entire time it took him to *pass* the 32 miles of
>stopped-dead cars. 
>
>And if it were the case that the cars were standing still,
>why would there be 40 feet between each car. Let's take
>the average length of a car ay 187 inches. That
>corresponds to 15' 7". Assuming each person left 4 feet 5
>inches between them and the car in front of them, that
>would give us an even 20 feet per car. That would double
>the number of cars the guy passed to almost 60,000. But I
>still want to know why his lane was moving and nobody
>else's is.
>
>Of course, let's assume that 4 lanes are travelling in his
>direction and 4 are travelling in the other direction...
>there aren't too many 16-total-lane highways out there. 
>And let's assume that all 4 lanes on his side of the road
>are going at about the same speed, as they generally do in
>stop-and-go traffic when measured over a long portion of
>roadway. That means he winds up passing a net of just
>about 0 cars over the 32 miles that are on his side of the
>road. Of course, in reality, he'll pass a few and then
>they'll pass him, etc.
>
>So I think it's safe to say that he'll come in visual
>contact with about 50 other cars travelling in his
>direction. The cars travelling on the other side of the
>road aren't important, since there's usually a median
>there. In fact, most stop-and-go traffic will average
>around 20mph -- so that means that the traffic on the other
>side of the road would be moving past him at like 40mph. 
>Add to that that morning and evening rush-hour traffic is
>usually not bi-directionally symmetrical, meaning that the
>traffic on the other side is probably moving more quickly
>than he is. So let's say his side averages 20mph and the
>other side averages 40mph. Do you really think he'd come
>into "contact" with another motorist potentially 7 lanes
>away from him (i.e. more than 120 feet) and travelling at a
>closing speed of 60mph!? It's doubtful that any woman on
>the other side of the road would notice him flipping the
>"eagle". 
>
>
>
>Even though the rest of the 32 miles is not bumper to
>bumper, I figure I
>pass at least another 4000 cars.
>
>
>What? Now I know that even Jason Brunberg doesnt' drive
>*that* fast! Let's assume that there is 40 feet from the
>front of each car to the front of the next car for the
>remaining 16 miles which is a one-way road with 2 lanes,
>and assume that traffic is moving at 40mph on average. The
>driver of the story would have to pass 80,000 feet of cars
>(4000 cars * 40 feet / 2 lanes) over 16 miles. That means
>that he would have to drive 80,000 feet in addition to the
>84,480 feet (=16 miles) that the other cars are doing, and
>do it all in the same time (24 minutes @ 40mph) that
>everyone else did it.
>
>That means he would have to travel 77.9mph on the MEDIAN
>the whole time to be able to pass that many cars.
>
>Even if you assume that the road was one lane in each
>direction and that he didn't pass a single car going the
>same direction as he did, the cars on the other side of the
>road (assuming they were travelling at the same speed he
>was) would be 1 foot 1.44 inches away from one another. 
>I'm from New York and even *we* don't tailgate that badly.
>
>So let's assume it's a 2-lane road and he's not passing
>anyone in his lane. Given 40 feet per car over 16 miles,
>he'll pass 2,112 cars if everyone is going the same speed.
>
>
>
>That brings the number to something like 36,000 cars I pass
>every day.
>
>Well, we know that's wrong. We calculated it as 50 + 2112
>= 2162.
>
>
>
>Statistically, half of these are driven by females, that's
>18,000. 
>
>Bullshit. In rush hour traffic, the number of women is
>typically far less than 40% because the proportion of men
>working is considerably higher. To be nice, let's say 40%.
> So the real number is 2162 x 0.4 = 864.8
>
>
>
>In any
>given group of females 1 in 28 are having the worst day of
>their
>period. That's 642.
>
>864.8 / 28 = 30.88 women.
>
>
>
> According to Cosmopolitan, 70% describe their love life
>as dissatisfying or rewarding. That's 449.
>
>Logic error #2. Rewarding? Why would they be annoyed
>then? If they find their love life rewarding, it wouldn't
>matter that they're having their period, so we can discount
>this. Let's change it to 35% that find it "dissatisfying".
> That makes 30.88 * .35 = 10.81 women.
>
>
>
> According to the National
>Institute of Health, 22% of all females have seriously
>considered suicide or
>homicide. 
>
>Yikes, what a nutty bunch the NIH questioned! But okay 11
>* .22 = 2.37 women.
>
>
>
>That's 98. And 34% describe men as their biggest problem.
>That's
>33.
>
>That's 0.80 women.
>
>
>
>
> According to the National Rifle Association 5% of all
>females carry
>weapons and this number is increasing.
>
>
>That's 0.04029 women.
>
>
>
>That means that EVERY SINGLE DAY, I drive past at least one
>female that has
>a lousy love life, thinks men are her biggest problem, has
>seriously
>considered suicide or homicide, is having the worst day of
>her period, AND
>is armed.
>
>Um yeah. The story is quite different.
>
>Out of 2162 women he passed, only 0.04029 meets that
>criterion. That means there is an 0.0019 chance that a
>women meets this criterion. Out of the approximately 140
>million women in this country, that makes less than 2609 at
>any given time.
>
>I'll take my chances. 
>
>"HEY BITCH! WATCH WHERE YOU'RE GOING!"
><me flipping the Eagle>
>
>:)
>Jay
>
>
>
>Daun Yeagley - Wilmington Ohio
>'80 Scirocco '81 Scirocco S 16v to be?
>'86 Scirocco 8v '88 Scirocco 16v 
>'88 Scirocco Slegato (Gino!) '96 Passat GLX Wagon
>'56 Cessna 172
>The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts - Ehrlich's Law.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>