Also, how do you test and remain even vaguely ethical?

I was going to say, based on my watching of Animal Cops, I bet there is enough anecdotal evidence to provide at least a reasonable conjecture.

Assuming a one-speed transmission, the engine is already turning pretty fast,

But... aren't cars not actually one-speed? You ride around in a car, you get used to hearing the engine change pitch as it accelerates. (Even an automatic like mine!). I think that using a one-speed bike would be a less confusing/more intuitive explanation.

I'm not willing to get up at the buttcrack of dawn for an office. I have skewed priorities.

that is a super tough one for me. Depends on how much time, I guess.

But... aren't cars not actually one-speed? You ride around in a car, you get used to hearing the engine change pitch as it accelerates. (Even an automatic like mine!). I think that using a one-speed bike would be a less confusing/more intuitive explanation.

Yeah, that's true. Considering a multi-speed transmission makes it more complicated, which makes the intuition more difficult to chase about.

The short answer is that having the transmission shifting during the acceleration makes no difference (assuming the engine is equally efficient at different RPMs, which actually is not the case). A transmission picking a different gear ratio is just a sort of tool (in the classical physics sense). If you use a lever to increase the amount of motion of the one end of a fulcrum as you push the other end, you're not actually using less energy to move an object further, as you would need to use more force as you push down. A tool (in the classical physics sense) doesn't give you more energy, it just trades force for distance to give you an advantage in moving something. Like, if you use a lever to move something with less force, you'll have to push your end of the lever further, so the total energy to move the object is the same. The same principal applies to different gear ratios in a transmission.

Bah. I am trying to make the explanation short, but I think I should be more detailed. But I really should do some work today too....

It isn't just getting the feet under them, it's the time it takes their bodies to relax to absorb the shock of landing.

My itunes just played On the road again and now I have to leave for work.

I think the earworm is going to be massive and unavoidable.

Goin' places where I've never, ever been
And I can't wait to get on the road again...

Hec, don't look!

But you can look at this.

Lunch report: I chose Chipotle. Vegetarian burrito, sour cream, guac, mild salsa, for those wondering.

I wish there were a Chipotle convenient to me.

My intuitive answers on the physics questions:

(1) Chrysanthemum.

(2) Harold Lloyd.

I guess you're not of the school of thought that has the fall (and not the attempted landing) as being the first fatal bit, huh? Is that supposed to be true, or debunked? Also, how do you test and remain even vaguely ethical?

I read an article recently (and I wish I could remember where I saw it, but here's a similar article) about that very subject. They went to various animal hospitals and asked for info on their patients.

Oddly enough, maximum fatality seems to occur from falls in the 7 story range.

I don't think the "mild" salsa is very mild.

Burning lips! Burning lips!