I’ve provided stats, backup, evidence of my arguments.
You have provided nothing but hearsay.
You saying I’m wrong does not make me wrong.
I provided common sense, which turned out counts for something.
1 Like
That’s not proof.
You made the sarcastic jab at me unprovoked. I backed my statement up once again.
You have not made a single argument backed up with any sort of evidence.
Well it turned out to be right, because the stats were worse than you stated. Let it go marco.
Where’s your evidence?
You made the sarcastic jab at me unprovoked. I wasn’t talking at the time. Let me remind you.
You seem rather mad I proved you wrong.
Secondly, don’t tell me what I should and should not do. It’s my right to make replies whenever I want. You don’t have to reply.
From the guy who makes unprovoked jabs at me tells me to let it go. lmfao. Comedy gold.
Back up your arguments with evidence and proof, not hearsay.
I already said, other posters provided the information. Read the thread. You are wrong and you need to let it go and stop ruining this thread. 
Gotta problem? Flag it.
That’s your opinion.
Where’s your evidence?
You need to rely on others to make your arguments for you? Other people provided their own arguments, where’s your evidence?
For me, if you want me to take your posts seriously, you need to provide evidence, rather than just show a news article of one incident and scream the sky is falling. I’m willing to listen but you have done none of that.
You’re entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. You can scream that I am ‘wrong’ all you want but I don’t feel you have provided any evidence to support your position. I would never support suppressing your opinion despite your attempt
to suppress mine. You think I am wrong? Great! More power to you. You want me to consider your position? No problems. I heard you loud and clear and I asked for evidence while I provided evidence that supported my position and explained why. I feel you have not done so.
Replies from you that I have received, I feel like, often had more subjective ‘feelings’ than hard evidence. Therefore I have to take them with a grain of salt. Often I have explained why. You can continue believing that you are right, have at it. I won’t lose sleep. I will not waive my position until presented with evidence of your opinion. This is clearly a very important issue to you and insistence that you’re right does not automatically make you right and you will not win me over by speaking condescendingly at me acting as if this is some universal truth. If you really want me to consider agreeing with you, show me your evidence.
I’m sorry. I don’t feel you have provided sufficient evidence and when you’re ready, I’ll be happy to listen and consider. Nothin against you like I have nothing against the other people I disagree with.
I think you are wrong, and, the stats also proved you to be wrong.
But u will keep writing essays?
I don’t need to take credit for others.
Ok, show me your evidence. Let’s see. It’s clear you want to win the argument. Ok. Show me your evidence.
That’s my choice. Doesn’t necessarily mean I will lose sleep. When I want to, I do it. When I don’t want to. I don’t. Simple. 
Ok. Whatever you say.
read the thread.
I did. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence.
Like I said, when you’re ready, feel free to let me know. Make your own posts.
I’ve already made many of my responses.
What do you want me to do? Spoonfeed your arguments for you too? Want me to feed you and clothe you as well?
You make it sound like I am gonna reread the thread and come to some magical epiphany. Lmfao. I already read it and responded to it accordingly. You want to debate me and convince me you’re right but don’t want to do any of the work. Lemme know when you’re ready to good-faith debate.
how so?
As mentioned many times. The posts I feel you have made rely solely on personal feeling. A few examples of collisions in the news were provided accompanied by language that implied this was a pressing issue.
One post sarcastically said
Suggesting that these happen every day.
I have mentioned that within a year, 1800 people die in collisions here, but, at the same time a similar number of people die in the UK, and numbers not far from that happen in other developed western countries.
Since all of these numbers are over 365. I could do at least several news articles on deaths on roads for any of these countries every single day and I could easily spin the narrative against not only Taiwan’s but all of these countries.
When pressed on what would be acceptable levels of road fatalities, you exclaimed you didn’t know while in another post, harping on a total of one little girl that was, unfortunately tragically killed, but not, in my opinion, indicative of a wider problem.
Do I agree with investigations and questioning and wondering how we can prevent this again? Sure! I don’t agree that this and other isolated incidents that don’t really have a pattern to them indicate a widespread problem that needs to be solved at great or even all costs.
You won this thread.
2 Likes
Based on A1 numbers. Which we have confirmed, are not the full picture. The real number is what? twice as high?
1 Like
Do you have evidence of those numbers?
Have you provided those numbers?
The UN reports could be used for the A2 number. I suspect they would be as high as 6,000 deaths.
Deaths are not the only problem. Serious injuries are also important to measure.
2 Likes
So what, are you questioning that taiwan uses 3 categories(A1,2,3) to classify traffic accidents? (the fact that they need 3 is already telling about the high number of accidents)
Even if A2 had 1 death more you would still be wrong, since you are basing your new zealand UK equivalent stats on A1 only. Which isn’t the full picture.
2 Likes
This is an opinion. Assuming someone’s reasoning is not evidence.
Ok. Where is the evidence backing up your position?
I’m not questioning it. Let’s look at the facts.
LOL is it really an opinion? There is a high number of traffic accidents so they need to break the job of dealing with it down to 3 categories. It’s just my opinion man!
A1 is for deaths within 24 hours of the accident. A2 longer than 24 hours. If A1 contained all the traffic deaths then why does A2 exist?