[vacri]

"every statistic"?

The Earth is 12,700 km in diameter. I'm not sure how that statistic disagrees with me.

What statistics did you mean? Quote some relevant statistics, because just making an empty appeal to some vague authority - that you assure me is on your side - is a terrible way to argue.

Seems like breaking traffic laws would alert the criminal as much as running sirens.

Can you hear someone doing a u-turn like you can with sirens? Can you tell that its the police doing so? The whole point of sirens is to attract attention. They are specifically designed to pull your attention.

[quinnchr]

The earth being 12,700km in diameter isn't a statistic, it's an observable, measurable, and testable fact.

As for relevant statistics, since you mentioned u-turns: http://books.google.com/books?id=hct23LM0Y68C&pg=PA65&lpg=PA...

There you have it u-turns cause accidents, which I would think is fairly obvious...

Also, that's some amazingly judicious quoting you did there. You'll note I said "every statistic on the matter." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a native english speaker, so for future reference this is how antecedents work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antecedent_(grammar)

Also, believe or not, criminals (like most humans) are blessed with more senses than just hearing, it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.

[vacri]

True, you did say "on the matter", and I did overreach, but my point is still strong: You provided none, and just made the assumption that they 'all', 'them' being an implied multitude, agree with you.

As for your prime (and only) example of u-turn accidents, right there in the text it says that u-turn accidents are so rare, they had to add in left-turns in order for it to be analysable.

In addition to that, you've provided a statistic on 'making u-turns', not 'breaking traffic laws', which was your original complaint. The segment you've bookmarked doesn't talk about how legal the turns taken were.

it is quite possible to notice illegal traffic maneuvers with your eyes.

Your argument counters itself. On the one hand you say you can't see illegal manoeuvres, so they're always downright dangerous if not deadly, and on the other hand you say that any such manoeuvre is visible and obvious.

[quinnchr]

You're right I provided none, this stuff is covered in pretty much every drivers manual in every state in the United States, you are right I shouldn't have assumed you were a licensed driver.

But that makes it pretty easy to disprove me, all you have to do is provide one statistic to the contrary. And no, just because something is rare doesn't mean it doesn't count, it still increases the risk of an accident. So If you'd like to provide a counterexample, you might have an actual argument.

That's not the argument I made, that's a complete strawman. My point was that other drivers on the road are not necessarily going to notice someone breaking traffic laws. A criminal breaking the law and paying attention to any nearby police will.

[vacri]

I don't have to provide a statistic to disprove you, because I wasn't the one rabbitting on about how 'every' statistic 'agrees with me'. If you make the claim, you have to provide the evidence. So far you're presented one statistic, and it doesn't reflect what you've had to say so far. And again you resort to an 'everyone knows' argument ('in all the books!') which again is bad argument style - if it is that easy to source, then source it! Don't deliver it with an underhanded ad hominem, because it's not my responsibility to support your argument.

A criminal breaking the law and paying attention to any nearby police will. Contrary to popular belief, criminals are humans too, and frequently let their guard down or are just plain stupid. You really are assuming we're dealing with an idealised Hollywood world, where everyone is an over-the-top stereotype. This comes back to the point I made about not commenting on police procedure if you're that unaware of what the work entails.

[quinnchr]

My statement is unprovable but easily disproved, so I'm not sure what you want me to do here. If you don't want to go through the effort of finding one counterexample I don't know what to tell you...

Also the one statistic I provided absolutely agrees with me, are you arguing a small increase in risk doesn't count as an increase in risk? At what percent increase in risk will you deem it a legitimate increase in risk, since apparently we are going by how you personally feel and not what the numbers actually say.

Stop throwing up strawmen arguments and provide a counterexample, and yes it literally is in all the books, have you red your states drivers's manual?