Speeding article

[Zedder]

NZ Herald on latest speeding statistics:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10859433

[Akzle]

s0 75% of crashes are not caused by speed, but the budget is still being justified for the "war on speed"

"It's speed that determines whether you walk away from a crash, no matter what the cause is,"
BULLSHIT. - vehicle safety features do - traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones, etc.
these features are actually THE ONLY thing that has bought the "road toll" down.

i'd be interested to hear his opinon on what is "unsafe speeds" 101km/h?

and what about the fact that, still, 80+% of serious injury and fatal crashes happen below the speed limit.


government bullshit irks me.

[bogan]

Here's trouble:

Research had found that on the open road, the number of road deaths fell by about 4 per cent for every 1km/h reduction in mean speed.

Bet that research does nothing to remove any other factors causing the improvement. Seems a bit like a self serving bureaucracy now, that they must punish speed for the sake of punishing speed and towing the line, rather than investigating other factors like inattention and how speed affects them as well.

I'm a bit surprised the rate of speeding in urban areas is so much higher than open road limits though.

[Banditbandit]

s0 75% of crashes are not caused by speed, but the budget is still being justified for the "war on speed"

"It's speed that determines whether you walk away from a crash, no matter what the cause is,"
BULLSHIT. - vehicle safety features do - traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones, etc.
these features are actually THE ONLY thing that has bought the "road toll" down.

i'd be interested to hear his opinon on what is "unsafe speeds" 101km/h?

and what about the fact that, still, 80+% of serious injury and fatal crashes happen below the speed limit.





Yeah maybe ... Crash testing in this part of the world is done at 64kph ... (run a car into a wall at 64kph and see what happens-type test) ... so a car with all those features which you say help save people from death and injury, and a five star rating, only has to pass a test at 64kph .. now if you are doing 64pkh and hit a car coming the other way at 64kph then it's the same as a 128kph crash test (which has not been carried out) ... because it is generally considered that it is most unlikely that anyone will survive running a car into a brick wall at 100kph ... and to build a car that will let people suirvive will cost way too much and people won't buy the car ... so imagine doing 100kph and htting a car coming the other way at 100 kph ... the same as hitting a brick wall at 200kph ... basically unsurvivable

Yes, people do survive those crashes ... it's a fluke ..

And crashes below the speed limit? You are doing 45kph and hit a car doing 45 kph - same as hitting a wall at 90kph ... a higher speed than the car has been crash tested and given a five star rating ... so just how good are the "safety devices"?

Speed has a huge impact on how well people survive a crash ... more than the safety of the car does at higher speds ...

[bogan]

Yeah maybe ... Crash testing in this part of the world is done at 64kph ... (run a car into a wall at 64kph and see what happens-type test) ... so a car with all those features which you say help save people from death and injury, and a five star rating, only has to pass a test at 64kph .. now if you are doing 64pkh and hit a car coming the other way then it's the same as a 128kph crash test (which has not been carried out) ... because it is generally considered that it is most unlikely that anyone will survive running a car into a brick wall at 100kph ... and to build a car that will let people suirvive will cost way too much and people won't buy the car ... so imagine doing 100kph and htting a car coming the other way at 100 kph ... the same as hitting a brick wall at 200kph ... basically unsurvivable

Yes, people do survive those crashes ... it's a fluke ..

Speed has a huge impact on how well people survive a crash ... more than the safety of the car does at higher speds ...

Common misconception showing a basic misunderstanding of physics. Hitting a wall the car slows from 64 to 0 nearly instantly, hitting another car of equal mass it does the same thing (though it may be a bit harder as the wall might move back a bit, whereas the other cars momentum will ensure it dos not). However, hitting a loaded B-train doing 64 and it would be nearly the same as hitting a brick wall at 128.

[clonak]

I'm a bit surprised the rate of speeding in urban areas is so much higher than open road limits though.

Im not really, its a wee bit harder to keep some vehicles at 50, constantly, itll have a tendency to creep over if you are not paying attention(which most drivers dont). especially down hill or dont take your foot off after coming up hill. But 100 generaly you have to push it some what to get it over. Not quite so for all vehicles/drivers, but 100 is much easier to keep to then 50 I find. Plus I think people tend to think of speed traps more on open roads, and just speed cameras on urban streets.

[Banditbandit]

Common misconception showing a basic misunderstanding of physics. Hitting a wall the car slows from 64 to 0 nearly instantly, hitting another car of equal mass it does the same thing (though it may be a bit harder as the wall might move back a bit, whereas the other cars momentum will ensure it dos not).

Ok . yeah I get that ... never thougth of it that way before ... And so two cars impacting at 100 kph each has the individual impact of hitting a brick wall at 100kph .. still a speed at which the car has not been crash tested ... and therefore there is no evidence of the safety of the various devices at that impact speed ...


However, hitting a loaded B-train doing 64 and it would be nearly the same as hitting a brick wall at 128.

But I don't get this ... surely it would be the same ? Or does the mass of the B-train so much bigger than the car that it is less affected by the impact and pushes the car backwards?

[bogan]

Or does the mass of the B-train so much bigger than the car that it is less affected by the impact and pushes the car backwards?

Indeed, still, could be worse:
<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VpGUzd2_ByM?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VpGUzd2_ByM?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

It might be crash testing isn't done at 100kmhr impact (except by the good folks at mythbusters obviously), cos unless the driver a complete muppet, brakes will be applied? I dunno.

[Zedder]

It's about momentum and energy: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/momentum/cthoi.cfm

[James Deuce]

It's about momentum and energy conservation.

[Edbear]

It's actually about the fact that many here simply want the freedom to travel at whatever speed they like based upon their own judgement and have no-one telling them what to do. :Police:

[Zedder]

It's actually about the fact that many here simply want the freedom to travel at whatever speed they like based upon their own judgement and have no-one telling them what to do. :Police:

Maybe so Ed. However, there's nothing wrong with knowing the how and why of things, it's healthy for the mind.

Interestingly enough, Oz has had a major rethink on the open road speed limit in their Northern Territory.

[Zedder]

It's about momentum and energy conservation.

Read the entire article before stupidly commenting. The last line states energy is not conserved.

[Old Steve]

So, a 4% reduction in deaths for every 1 km/hr below the speed limit? So if I do 25 km/hr below the speed limit then I'm absolutely safe? Don't think so. Anyway, it's not the speed that kills you. It's the sudden stop - but I think that's been covered by the physics discussions.

I've taken a job here in Queensland and the urban speed limit is 60 km/hr. In NZ in a 50 km/hr area I usually do 60, it's just the natural speed for the car and me. Here in QLD I do 60 km/hr - not because it's the posted speed limit but because it's just the natural speed for the car and me. I suppose I'm more focussed on the road as I don't have to keep looking at the speedo to check if I'm in the fine payment range.

[rastuscat]

"It's speed that determines whether you walk away from a crash, no matter what the cause is,"
BULLSHIT. - vehicle safety features do - traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones, etc.
these features are actually THE ONLY thing that has bought the "road toll" down.

Loving your logic.

So two vehicles with traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones etc hit poles. One is doing 100 kmh, and one is doing 110 kmh.

Which one will generate the greater energy from the crash? Which one will have the greater damage?

Both will be industrially munted, but which one is worse? By your logic, they will both be the same.

Go on, answer that.

[Jantar]

Here's trouble:


Research had found that on the open road, the number of road deaths fell by about 4 per cent for every 1km/h reduction in mean speed.

....

So if we lower the speed limit from 100 to 80 km/h then the number of road deaths will decrease by 80%? If they have that right then why were there almost double the number of road deaths when the speed limit was 80 km/h? :confused:

[Edbear]

Maybe so Ed. However, there's nothing wrong with knowing the how and why of things, it's healthy for the mind.

Interestingly enough, Oz has had a major rethink on the open road speed limit in their Northern Territory.

True of course. However there is little point in getting wound up about things and jumping on our high horses and attacking TPTB. We live in a society, much like our exended family with the same dynamics. There are those we like and love and naturally get along with and those that chalenge our forebearance and patience, and some we simply don't like at all.

As long as we remain in the society we have to accept the good with the bad if we can't effect change. So we compromise for the common good and eccept a couple of things we disagree with and appreciate the benefits. As with family, if you don't like living in it, you can lobby for change or leave and go somewhere you can have things more your way.

Bottom line is, tolerant and outgoing, generous people will always be happier than intolerant selfish people, who demand to have their own way.

That little old man/lady who is travelling too slow for you.. have a think about what their life is like and what it may have been. How do they feel about losing their independence and diminishing health? If they are NOT driving dangerously have a bit of patience as you will be them one day and sooner than you want.

Certainly enjoy your youth and vigour, but realise that short of living on your own island, you have to accept others in your life and your society. Each has their own strengths and weakenesess as do you, and you'll be much happier if you display patience and circumspection and choose your time and place for stretching the rules.

[bogan]

So if we lower the speed limit from 100 to 80 km/h then the number of road deaths will decrease by 80%? If they have that right then why were there almost double the number of road deaths when the speed limit was 80 km/h? :confused:

Just highlights the way the stats are being used instead of listened to. More fuel for the machine, full (only figuratively of course) speed ahead.

[Jantar]

Loving your logic.

So two vehicles with traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones etc hit poles. One is doing 100 kmh, and one is doing 110 kmh.

Which one will generate the greater energy from the crash? Which one will have the greater damage?

Both will be industrially munted, but which one is worse? By your logic, they will both be the same.

Go on, answer that.

If both vehicles are the same weight then the logic is correct and damage will be similar to both vehicles. In fact the one travelling at the faster speed will possibly result in slight less injury to its occupants than the one travelling at the slower speed.

There are two principles in play here: conservation of momentum; and conservation of energy. If the collision is completely inelastic then the 2 vehicles will effectively meld together with a resultant speed of 5 km/h in the direction of the faster vehicle (conservation of momentum). The energy released is identical in both vehicles as they have both experienced a change in velocity at impact of 105 km/h.

However it is extremely unlikely that in this scenario that the impact would be completely inelastic, and there is likely to be some rebound. A vector analyisis of the crash would be required to calculate the exact effects, but it is likely that the slower vehicle would rebound at closer to 180 degrees while the faster one would have a greater deviation. Thus more energy would be impacted in the slower vehicle rather than the faster one.

[slofox]

Hey! I know! Why don't we limit speed to 4miles per hour and get a man to walk in front with a red flag...oh...hang on...

[Akzle]

So two vehicles with traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones etc hit poles. One is doing 100 kmh, and one is doing 110 kmh.

Which one will generate the greater energy from the crash? Which one will have the greater damage?

Both will be industrially munted, but which one is worse? By your logic, they will both be the same.

Go on, answer that.

i would expect the one doing 110 to better, on account of it has more energy to transfer into les powerpole, resulting in less remaining in the car. something to do with exponential something or other.
even if i'm wrong, surely i have a right to drive into a powerpole at whatever speed i want?

also, it's almost irrelevant. two identical vehicles with identical safety features et al will do the same in a crash: crumple around the box.
done by crumpling front and rear, transferring energy around the cage and dispersing it, this is why we have A pillars in front and torque boxes in back. (talking uni-bodys here, not SUVs with rigid chassis') hit the pole at 160 for all i care, the energy will still be directed away from the occupants. (unfortunately.)( i think cagers should heave to wear neck belts, so they're actually going to wear the consequences of their tomfuckery)


...We live in a society, much like our exended family with the same dynamics. There are those we like and love and naturally get along with and those that chalenge our forebearance and patience, and some we simply don't like at all.

guess which group you're in.

[Zedder]

So, a 4% reduction in deaths for every 1 km/hr below the speed limit? So if I do 25 km/hr below the speed limit then I'm absolutely safe? Don't think so. Anyway, it's not the speed that kills you. It's the sudden stop - but I think that's been covered by the physics discussions.

I've taken a job here in Queensland and the urban speed limit is 60 km/hr. In NZ in a 50 km/hr area I usually do 60, it's just the natural speed for the car and me. Here in QLD I do 60 km/hr - not because it's the posted speed limit but because it's just the natural speed for the car and me. I suppose I'm more focussed on the road as I don't have to keep looking at the speedo to check if I'm in the fine payment range.

The having-to-focus-on-the-speedo-for-fear-of-fines syndrome was one of the main aggravations that came up in the Northern Territory speed limit issue.

I just got back from there recently and things are uneasy due to the "speed" drama. I don't have to be back 'til May so do some biking for me.

[Banditbandit]

So if we lower the speed limit from 100 to 80 km/h then the number of road deaths will decrease by 80%? If they have that right then why were there almost double the number of road deaths when the speed limit was 80 km/h? :confused:

No, sorry . it's the same as cummulative interest - only in reverse ..

so 100 to 99 = 1% drop or 1

99 to 98 = 1% drop or 0.99

etc etc ... I'm crap at actual arithmatic .. so one of the brighter ones can work it out ...

[Scuba_Steve]

So are we putting bets on whether they're rolling out their "oh so successful" :rolleyes: 4km/h tolerance permanently this year?

I noticed yesterday a couple PIGs hiding themselves right at the start of the passing lane, made for a long line of traffic I had to push past 140 to pass

[Banditbandit]

It might be crash testing isn't done at 100kmhr impact (except by the good folks at mythbusters obviously), cos unless the driver a complete muppet, brakes will be applied? I dunno.

Yeah .. brakes will be applied - but not always and not always in enough time ... so there is normally a speed reduction ... but if there is not, then the question remains .. how good is the safety equipment at real open road speds? ???

[Jantar]

No, sorry . it's the same as cummulative interest - only in reverse ..

so 100 to 99 = 1% drop or 1

99 to 98 = 1% drop or 0.99

etc etc ... I'm crap at actual arithmatic .. so one of the brighter ones can work it out ...

They neither state, nor imply, that the effect is geometric rather than arithmetic. However if that is the case then reducing the average speed to 80 km/h would result in only 44.2% of the road deaths that occur at 100 km/h. Again that is the opposite of what we experienced here in NZ when the speed limit was reduced to 80 km/h.

Statistics show that there is a decrease in the road toll as speed limits increase.

[Zedder]

Here's an article from the UK about being able to do 86mph (yep mph) and not get a fine etc: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375049/New-speed-camera-guidelines-allow-drivers-86mph-escape-fines.html

[Akzle]

how good is the safety equipment at real open road speds? ???
quite.
. .

[Akzle]

Here's an article from the UK about being able to do 86mph (yep mph) and not get a fine etc: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375049/New-speed-camera-guidelines-allow-drivers-86mph-escape-fines.html

and why wouldn't you trust this guy?:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/09/article-1375049-0C625827000005DC-471_235x314.jpg

[p.dath]

I like the bit that says "speed" was a factor, and then they infer that "speeding" is the cause.

Of course any vehicle involved in an accident that is not stationary will have "speed" as a factor. This does not mean that the vehicle was exceeding the posted speed limit.

[Edbear]

[guess which group you're in.[/COLOR]

Hey, if you don't like me it's a relief! I'm in the right group! :bleh:

[Banditbandit]

They neither state, nor imply, that the effect is geometric rather than arithmetic. However if that is the case then reducing the average speed to 80 km/h would result in only 44.2% of the road deaths that occur at 100 km/h. Again that is the opposite of what we experienced here in NZ when the speed limit was reduced to 80 km/h.

Statistics show that there is a decrease in the road toll as speed limits increase.

Statistics also show (as has been previosuly said here) that 6 out of 7 dwarves are not happy

[Banditbandit]

guess which group you're in.



let me let me let me guess .... Huh .. NOT the very small group you belong to ...

[Akzle]

let me let me let me guess .... Huh .. NOT the very small group you belong to ...

that's right. population me and my right hand. (and, actually, a bunch of other guys who are awake to the government BS)

although, if you use your left it feels like someone else is doing it.

just sayin....

[Edbear]

that's right. population me and my right hand. (and, actually, a bunch of other guys who are awake to the government BS)

although, if you use your left it feels like someone else is doing it.

just sayin....

So you're saying you're a bunch of.... <_<

[Akzle]

So you're saying you're a bunch of.... <_<

guys who are awake to the government BS, yes ed, that's exactly what i said.

[Edbear]

guys who are awake to the government BS, yes ed, that's exactly what i said.

Nice try, but that comment was in parenthesis and incidental to your main point.

[Dave-]

lol at kiwibiker trying to justify breaking the law by modeling a hideously complex and random system with highschool physics.

[cheshirecat]

Most of the accidents I've seen in the news share common denominators of excessive speed whilst under the influence, under the influence and not taking a corner and vehicles on the wrong side of the road. Certainly in my experience I'm almost disappointed in not meeting oncoming vehicles on my side of the road. Surely this is where accident rates should be focussed - oh silly me that's in the too hard basket.

[Zedder]

lol at kiwibiker trying to justify breaking the law by modeling a hideously complex and random system with highschool physics.

Lol at Dave trying to understand wtf is going on.

[mashman]

The outcome of an accident is all down to chance i.e. 50/50. That's living to tell the tale/face the consequences, or dying and floating around in hells basement on a looped video sim of your crash for the uninitiated. I've yet to see figures for the number of survivors who crash and have been exceeding the speed limit... I wonder why (note, it's not coz they all die :niceone:). Til then, peeps will continue to drive as they have done until they have their accident. Tis only the grumpy bastards who are concerned about the speed limit. I say remove the fuckers and let's have some real life/death examples, thin the gene pool out a bit and keep an open eye for dangerous driving, which just so happens to be not driving to the conditions/circumstances i.e. plenty of "speeding" where noone elses life is put in danger. I have a sneaky suspicion that some people exceed the speed limit on a very regular basis and still live.

[Dave-]

Lol at Dave trying to understand wtf is going on.

That's not something you should be laughing about, considering it's you who I am "trying" to understand?

[Zedder]

That's not something you should be laughing about, considering it's you who I am "trying" to understand?

What? Nobody allowed to try working things out when you're around?

[Dave-]

What? Nobody allowed to try working things out when you're around?

No, cause people have a tendency to believe in things like ghosts, deities, and centrifugal forces when they try working things out on their own.

[haydes55]

What I want to know is, if a vehicle travels along a straight road at 150km/h with no side roads and no traffic. How the fuck can they crash? Seriously, barring people with serious mental deficiencies, how can you possibly crash. It would be safer to travel at 150km/h in a van in the rain on a straight bit of motorway than going 45km/h in a 100km/h twisty area. If a car is going stupidly slow (Hi grandma!) in a twisty road, and someone behind is going a safe speed like 70km/h or so, comes around a bend then shit! Hit the brakes to avoid the slug in front of you. Yes you should easily avoid the nana/bitch, but still that is more likely to result in a crash. There are a shitload of roads in NZ that have 100km/h limits, that it is impossible (in 99% of road legal vehicles) to safely travel at 100km/h, in these cases it's obvious the driver/rider has to judge the corner, adjust their speed and control the vehicle themselves, without being told what speed to go. If someone misjudges the corner, goes too fast and crashes, how will enforcing speed limits reduce similar crashes occurring? It wont.

I've had friends (who I now think a lot less of) who have crashed for various reasons like:
1) swerving in a front wheel drive, back slides out, they take their foot off the throttle and brake, back steps out worse and in the ditch. (That was a 20 year old man with his full)
2) "I didn't want to turn any sharper, in case my car skidded and I crashed so I didn't turn sharp enough and went into the ditch" (18 year old girl with her full licence)
3)"I've made it around that corner at higher speeds before, I didn't think the rain would of made it that slippery" ("boy racer" kind of guy on his restricted for a few years <_< forced progression please!)
4) And my favourite "That's a poorly designed intersection, I couldn't see him before I pulled out" (what do you expect when you go through a giveway sign at 30km/h in a 50km/h urban area with a fenced property on the corner. It's not rocket science to slow to a speed where you can stop if need be.... Like the law says).

Every one of those crashes should be avoidable by anyone who has enough skill to get a restricted licence. If you think you wouldn't of been able to avoid any of those crashes then I would suggest you give your licence to the rubbish bin.

The speed isn't the issue (I don't know anyone who has crashed because they were over the speed limit). It's easy to see that idiots are the reason for crashes. The licencing system is still far too easy. Let a moron drive, expect a moron to crash. You need to hope that moron doesn't kill someone. (Am I the only person who is happy reading articles about people complaining that they failed their driving test?).

Rant over :bleh:

[Zedder]

No, cause people have a tendency to believe in things like ghosts, deities, and centrifugal forces when they try working things out on their own.

Wait! Don't tell me, you're an expert.

[scumdog]

[COLOR="#139922"]
guess which group you're in.

Hey Akzle, put in a fair bit of effort and you could almost climb up to the level of his group...<_<

[scumdog]

let me let me let me guess .... Huh .. NOT the very small group you belong to ...

Huh,, to be a group there has to be more than one member...

[rastuscat]

i would expect the one doing 110 to better, on account of it has more energy to transfer into les powerpole, resulting in less remaining in the car. something to do with exponential something or other.
even if i'm wrong, surely i have a right to drive into a powerpole at whatever speed i want?

also, it's almost irrelevant. two identical vehicles with identical safety features et al will do the same in a crash: crumple around the box.
done by crumpling front and rear, transferring energy around the cage and dispersing it, this is why we have A pillars in front and torque boxes in back. (talking uni-bodys here, not SUVs with rigid chassis') hit the pole at 160 for all i care, the energy will still be directed away from the occupants. (unfortunately.)( i think cagers should heave to wear neck belts, so they're actually going to wear the consequences of their tomfuckery)

guess which group you're in.

nicely avoiding the physics.

Answer this then, it seems I have to be extreme to make a point.

Vehicle A hits Object A at 30 kmh.

Vehicle B hits Object B at 100 kmh.

Both objects are identical. Both vehicles are identical. the only variable is the speed of impact.

Which vehicle suffers greater damage?

[davereid]

nicely avoiding the physics.

Answer this then, it seems I have to be extreme to make a point.

Vehicle A hits Object A at 30 kmh.

Vehicle B hits Object B at 100 kmh.

Both objects are identical. Both vehicles are identical. the only variable is the speed of impact.

Which vehicle suffers greater damage?

Doesnt alway work in the favour of the slower driver though.

If vehicle A hits vehicle B, vehicle B has so much inertia, it will be able to stop vehicle A, and push it backward. So the occupants of the speeding vehicle increase their chances of survival as the have more deceleration time. On the other hand, the slow vehicle is bought to a halt, then accelerated away in the other direction.

Which is why, the drunken speeding arsehole often walks away after killing the innocent non speeding motorist.

[arcane12]

First thing - are they saying only 25% of people do more than 100 (eg. 105, 110) in a 100 zone? That sounds like BS to me. If I drive at 50 around town, the cop behind me usually gets upset.

And, not pointing fingers at individual members of our fine policing force, but if *'the police' want to enforce a 4km/h tollerance short or long term then I think they really need to get their own ship in order. Not that I am speaking my support for the current limits, or tollerances, just saying there might be a little hypocrisy here.

note:
* 'the police' refers to the policy makers rather than the individuals who are tasked to carry those policies out.

[Asher]

I have always felt that the police speeding to catch a speeder is just dripping in some twisted hypocritical logic, kinda like shooting people to catch a murderer.

[GrayWolf]

Loving your logic.

So two vehicles with traction seatbelts, 20 fucken airbags, crumple zones etc hit poles. One is doing 100 kmh, and one is doing 110 kmh.

Which one will generate the greater energy from the crash? Which one will have the greater damage?

Both will be industrially munted, but which one is worse? By your logic, they will both be the same.

Go on, answer that.

Rastus, how DARE you bring a sensible argument to the thread... This is KIWIBIKER goddammit!!!!! :nono::nono:

[GrayWolf]

even if i'm wrong, surely i have a right to drive into a powerpole at whatever speed i want?


Using that premise, agreed ONLY if the rest of us taxpayers have the right to refuse to pay for your Medical expenses in the result of any injury/trauma/damage you receive or cause

Fair enough?

[p.dath]

What I want to know is, if a vehicle travels along a straight road at 150km/h with no side roads and no traffic. How the fuck can they crash?

One of the most common occurrences I can think of that people have said has happened to them here is an animal running out in front of them.

Diesel or other spills on the road is also another common occurrence.

You get the odd person also talking about bird attack, or a bird flying across their path which they strike.

Then there is the obvious mechanical failure.

[Zedder]

I'm surprised this thread is still going.

Dave- made it quite clear KBers were trying to justify breaking the law and we're way out of our depth with the physics.

Interesting though, no explanation of it at all from him and, if he does know something (specialist cop or physics teacher?) perhaps he could take a leaf out of Rastuscat's book regarding approach etc. Knob!

[caspernz]

nicely avoiding the physics.

Answer this then, it seems I have to be extreme to make a point.

Vehicle A hits Object A at 30 kmh.

Vehicle B hits Object B at 100 kmh.

Both objects are identical. Both vehicles are identical. the only variable is the speed of impact.

Which vehicle suffers greater damage?

How dare you introduce logic into this??

But I'll share one funny story to put speed and mass into a similar context. Back some years, in a fridge semi trailer unit loaded to around 35 tonne all up, I'm sitting in a right hand turn bay and just as I rolled to a stop I felt a little bump...similar to a small pothole. As I turn right, I glance in the mirror to see a car oozing all its liquids onto the deck, bonnet crumpled into an A and drivers' face imprinted with a steering wheel...well, under all the blood anyway. My speed at impact would have been 2-5 kmh, Police later estimated his at around 65-70 (in a 50 zone). Damage to truck was only a few paint scratches on the docking bar, car was written off.

The contributing factor in this case was a couple of lovely looking young ladies in skimpy summer attire on the right hand side of the road...so maybe speed isn't the problem at all, it's all down to managing the distractions, while keeping ones' focus on the task at hand.

[bogan]

I'm surprised this thread is still going.

Dave- made it quite clear KBers were trying to justify breaking the law and we're way out of our depth with the physics.

Interesting though, no explanation of it at all from him and, if he does know something (specialist cop or physics teacher?) perhaps he could take a leaf out of Rastuscat's book regarding approach etc. Knob!

Don't be silly, he's a Uni student I think, all they know is how little everyone else knows :bleh:

[Zedder]

Don't be silly, he's a Uni student I think, all they know is how little everyone else knows :bleh:

What!! I could have been dealing with an undergrad! Ffs!!!!!

[bogan]

What!! I could have been dealing with an undergrad! Ffs!!!!!

And he might not even be an Engineering undergrad, he could be an arts major... shudders...

[Ocean1]

Read the entire article before stupidly commenting. The last line states energy is not conserved.

Read the entire article before stupidly commenting. The last line states nothing of the sort.

[Scuba_Steve]

Using that premise, agreed ONLY if the rest of us taxpayers have the right to refuse to pay for your Medical expenses in the result of any injury/trauma/damage you receive or cause

Fair enough?

You'll gladly accept that argument when they move to ban bikes then I assume



nicely avoiding the physics.

Answer this then, it seems I have to be extreme to make a point.

Vehicle A hits Object A at 30 kmh.

Vehicle B hits Object B at 100 kmh.

Both objects are identical. Both vehicles are identical. the only variable is the speed of impact.

Which vehicle suffers greater damage?

Another "extreme to make a point"

Vehicle A hits logging truck at 100km/h

Vehicle B hits logging truck at 130km/h

Vehicle C hits logging truck at 80km/h

All logging trucks are fully loaded, stationary & identical. All vehicles are identical & hit at the same point. the only variable is the speed of impact.

All drivers are fucked!

[Zedder]

Read the entire article before stupidly commenting. The last line states nothing of the sort.

What article were you reading?!? It does.

[Ocean1]

nicely avoiding the physics.

Answer this then, it seems I have to be extreme to make a point.

Vehicle A hits Object A at 30 kmh.

Vehicle B hits Object B at 100 kmh.

Both objects are identical. Both vehicles are identical. the only variable is the speed of impact.

Which vehicle suffers greater damage?

Nicely avoiding actual historic data.

How does physics explain Jantar's observation that almost without exception accidents increase when speed restrictions are introduced or lowered, and reduce when the local limits are lifted.

[Zedder]

And he might not even be an Engineering undergrad, he could be an arts major... shudders...

I take it science is ok?

[Ocean1]

What article were you reading?!? It does.

This one: "A collision in which total system kinetic energy is not conserved is known as an inelastic collision."

[bogan]

I take it science is ok?

Hmmm, after a few years out of uni they'll be fine, but their undergrads are even less grounded than the engineers, but likely more so than the arts'.

[Zedder]

This one: "A collision in which total system kinetic energy is not conserved is known as an inelastic collision."

The title of the article is inelastic collision, the last line confirms the title.

[Zedder]

Hmmm, after a few years out of uni they'll be fine, but their undergrads are even less grounded than the engineers, but likely more so than the arts'.

Good to hear. That's what my intensive research has found as well.

[Ocean1]

The title of the article is inelastic collision, the last line confirms the title.

Let's stick to facts, eh?

This post is a statement of fact:


It's about momentum and energy conservation.

Whereas these are not:


Read the entire article before stupidly commenting. The last line states energy is not conserved.


What article were you reading?!? It does.

All clear?

[Zedder]

Let's stick to facts, eh?

This post is a statement of fact:



Whereas these are not:





All clear?

Get a grip, he obviously posted it after reading the article incorrectly and has been making wank comments for a while.

[rastuscat]

Nicely avoiding actual historic data.

How does physics explain Jantar's observation that almost without exception accidents increase when speed restrictions are introduced or lowered, and reduce when the local limits are lifted.

Dude, we are talking about two different points.

I'm trying to get Akzle to understand that the faster you are going, the harder you hit something. I know it's a struggle, but I'm asking very basic questions in the hope that he'll actually answer with the obvious answer.

I'm not discussing the occurrence of crashes, I'm discussing the severity of those that actually occur. The faster you go the bigger the mess In the event of a crash.

[rastuscat]

Let's stick to facts, eh?r?

Why break old habits? This IS KB after all.

[rastuscat]

Doesnt alway work in the favour of the slower driver though.

If vehicle A hits vehicle B, vehicle B has so much inertia, it will be able to stop vehicle A, and push it backward. So the occupants of the speeding vehicle increase their chances of survival as the have more deceleration time. On the other hand, the slow vehicle is bought to a halt, then accelerated away in the other direction.

Which is why, the drunken speeding arsehole often walks away after killing the innocent non speeding motorist.

Yeah. Increase your own safety by going faster, and fuck everyone else :doh:

[Zedder]

Why break old habits? This IS KB after all.

Some people have facts to back up their posts, some don't Rtc.

[Ocean1]

Get a grip, he obviously posted it after reading the article incorrectly and has been making wank comments for a while.

He may not have read the article at all. Whether he did or not his comment was entirely correct and was in fact the form more usually quoted in text books.

Indeed, the article in question itself, in the second line says "When a collision occurs in an isolated system, the total momentum of the system of objects is conserved".

Again, entirely correct. When it comes to quoting facts you seem to be the odd one out, here.

And on a purely non-scientific basis I'd say that when it comes to making wank comments you could show him a thing or two, possibly the one discipline in which you might stand a chance.

[oneofsix]

Dude, we are talking about two different points.

I'm trying to get Akzle to understand that the faster you are going, the harder you hit something. I know it's a struggle, but I'm asking very basic questions in the hope that he'll actually answer with the obvious answer.

I'm not discussing the occurrence of crashes, I'm discussing the severity of those that actually occur. The faster you go the bigger the mess In the event of a crash.

Yeah, good luck with that. I think you have it slightly wrong too because actually because the faster you go doesn't mean you are likely to hit anything as implied by your post and the "faster you go the bigger the mess" propagation line. True, the higher the speed at the point of impact if hitting something then the more energy that has to be absorbed.

[Zedder]

He may not have read the article at all. Whether he did or not his comment was entirely correct and was in fact the form more usually quoted in text books.

Indeed, the article in question itself, in the second line says "When a collision occurs in an isolated system, the total momentum of the system of objects is conserved".

Again, entirely correct. When it comes to quoting facts you seem to be the odd one out, here.

And on a purely non-scientific basis I'd say that when it comes to making wank comments you could show him a thing or two, possibly the one discipline in which you might stand a chance.

Bored at work today? Go and play with your tools.

[Ocean1]

Dude, we are talking about two different points.

I'm trying to get Akzle to understand that the faster you are going, the harder you hit something. I know it's a struggle, but I'm asking very basic questions in the hope that he'll actually answer with the obvious answer.

I'm not discussing the occurrence of crashes, I'm discussing the severity of those that actually occur. The faster you go the bigger the mess In the event of a crash.

Yeah, I know. I tend to think he probably does understand. Maybe, like me he gets slightly frustrated at the continual barrage of over-spun data coming from HQ, though. It does nothing to advance the cause.

Also, are you aware of the effect whereby individuals within a profession tend to adopt and foster the opinions of the group as a whole? And that those opinions are no more likely to be "correct" than those of an individual? It's a factor that worries those who are concerned with the performance of medical professionals, it's an effect that's killed a lot of people over the years.

[bogan]

Yeah, good luck with that. I think you have it slightly wrong too because actually because the faster you go doesn't mean you are likely to hit anything as implied by your post and the "faster you go the bigger the mess" propagation line. True, the higher the speed at the point of impact if hitting something then the more energy that has to be absorbed.

And there are cases when a few more km would reduce the severity of impact. Like hitting a bick wall and breaking it, vs hitting a brick wall and not quite breaking it; or a more common example is paintball, the ones that don't burst leave the biggest bruises.

Wasn't there a conspiracy theory around that the speed kills message is applied specifically because it does nothing to address the frequency of accidents, and subsequent profitability of a few select industries... Does raise the question though, why is so much more effort put in to reducing speed than it is reducing accidents?

[Fast Eddie]

The faster you go the bigger the mess..

The quick and the dead..

[arcane12]

Yeah, good luck with that. I think you have it slightly wrong too because actually because the faster you go doesn't mean you are likely to hit anything as implied by your post and the "faster you go the bigger the mess" propagation line. True, the higher the speed at the point of impact if hitting something then the more energy that has to be absorbed.

Wait what? I thought (by what was written in the posts) that we were trying to discuss the physics of crashes rather than the possibility of a crash? And I think the 'Faster you go...' line had already be modified with a more correct '...in the event of a crash'. I think you might be refering to the adds in the media which have been mangled to make a better catchphrase. :brick:

My pet peeve 'if condiction change reduce you speed'. What if conditions improve? I should go slower? what? but saying 'If conditions change modify your speed' doesn't have the same ring...

[oneofsix]

And there are cases when a few more km would reduce the severity of impact. Like hitting a bick wall and breaking it, vs hitting a brick wall and not quite breaking it; or a more common example is paintball, the ones that don't burst leave the biggest bruises.

Wasn't there a conspiracy theory around that the speed kills message is applied specifically because it does nothing to address the frequency of accidents, and subsequent profitability of a few select industries... Does raise the question though, why is so much more effort put in to reducing speed than it is reducing accidents?

Wished it were that simple a conspiracy but it will be a mix of profit driven especially in the radar and speed camera industries, (few good articles from the States on camera especially red light), political easy votes, catchy meaningless slogans etc etc.

Sad the number of people that want to believe the simplistic speed kills message. Same as those that want to believe in lowering the alcohol limit when the drunk drivers that have the crashes are 2 to 3 times the limit, so lets fix the problem by lowering the limit that is already below the problem level. Reality doesn't stand a change against simple propaganda messages repeated in high powered media.

[Zedder]

Yeah, I know. I tend to think he probably does understand. Maybe, like me he gets slightly frustrated at the continual barrage of over-spun data coming from HQ, though. It does nothing to advance the cause.

Also, are you aware of the effect whereby individuals within a profession tend adopt and foster the opinions of the group as a whole? And that those opinions are no more likely to be "correct" than those of an individual? It's a factor that worries those who are concerned with the performance of medical professionals, it's an effect that's killed a lot of people over the years.

Coming from someone who believes the world is just a construct in his mind that's all a bit "real" don't ya think? Bizzare.

[oneofsix]

Wait what? I thought (by what was written in the posts) that we were trying to discuss the physics of crashes rather than the possibility of a crash? And I think the 'Faster you go...' line had already be modified with a more correct '...in the event of a crash'. I think you might be refering to the adds in the media which have been mangled to make a better catchphrase. :brick:

My pet peeve 'if condiction change reduce you speed'. What if conditions improve? I should go slower? what? but saying 'If conditions change modify your speed' doesn't have the same ring...

I have hated that conditions slogan since first heard, which happened to coincide with the rain stopping. Drive to the conditions has a better ring and is truer.

[Dave-]

I'm surprised this thread is still going.

Dave- made it quite clear KBers were trying to justify breaking the law and we're way out of our depth with the physics.

Interesting though, no explanation of it at all from him and, if he does know something (specialist cop or physics teacher?) perhaps he could take a leaf out of Rastuscat's book regarding approach etc. Knob!

I am posting a reply to your bait.

Hope you got off on this.

[Jantar]

I am posting a reply to your bait.

Hope you got off on this.

Now this is the best scientific argument I have seen in the whole thread. [/sarc]

[Zedder]

I am posting a reply to your bait.

Hope you got off on this.

Nah, Bogan gave me the relevant info though.

[Zedder]

Now this is the best scientific argument I have seen in the whole thread. [/sarc]

You were doing quite well in the scientific stakes.

[bogan]

Nah, Bogan gave me the relevant info though.

Who me :shifty: fuck that'd be a first :first: :rolleyes:

To be fair though, he might just be off doing research, books or otherwise, though with the topic at hand I can only hope he doesn't get too carried away with the practical aspects...

[Zedder]

Who me :shifty: fuck that'd be a first :first: :rolleyes:

To be fair though, he might just be off doing research, books or otherwise, though with the topic at hand I can only hope he doesn't get too carried away with the practical aspects...

Who said I believed it though you systems engineering type person you.

Well, I was expecting some info from him to enlighten us.

[bogan]

Who said I believed it though you systems engineering type person you.

Well, I was expecting some info from him to enlighten us.

Haha, a little doubt is often a wise thing. And today I'm a software engineer, so even less worth listening to than when I was a systems engineer :weird:

[Zedder]

Haha, a little doubt is often a wise thing. And today I'm a software engineer, so even less worth listening to than when I was a systems engineer :weird:

No problem, just give us all a heads up when you're who you need to be on any given day so we can listen/read/take on board appropriately.

[veldthui]

You'll gladly accept that argument when they move to ban bikes then I assume




Another "extreme to make a point"

Vehicle A hits logging truck at 100km/h

Vehicle B hits logging truck at 130km/h

Vehicle C hits logging truck at 80km/h

All logging trucks are fully loaded, stationary & identical. All vehicles are identical & hit at the same point. the only variable is the speed of impact.

All drivers are fucked!

Certainly not. I hit a fully loaded cattle trailer parked on the road in rain at night. It was not lighted at all. I hit it at 100km/h (probably a little less as i did brake but it was well raining). Myself and my passenger walked away with bruising from the set belts and minor cuts from the broken glass. Certainly hurt like hell after but certainly not fucked.

[Swoop]

the faster you are going, the harder you hit something.

The simple fact is that speed has nothing to do with anything. Instantly becoming stationary is the problem.

[Akzle]

Lol at Dave trying to understand wtf is going on.
it's alright, he still owes us a thesis on why paying police makes the road safer, i don't think he's going to do any better on this one...

Hey Akzle, put in a fair bit of effort and you could almost climb up to the level of his group...<_<
i'm still not up to yours, yet, let alone the jewhoover.
but thanks for believing in me, it means a lot, really. :dry:

Huh,, to be a group there has to be more than one member...
dunno, man, my member is pretty big

nicely avoiding the physics.

Answer this then, it seems I have to be extreme to make a point.

Vehicle A hits Object A at 30 kmh.

Vehicle B hits Object B at 100 kmh.

Both objects are identical. Both vehicles are identical. the only variable is the speed of impact.

Which vehicle suffers greater damage?
Object A.
:p

although why not say that both vehicle A and B hit Object(s) C, and make object(s) C something like a powerpole,

and that means sweet FA, they could both be insurance writeoffs, and the occupants could all walk out, because vehicles A, B have the aforementioned safety features.

i still reckon that a vehicle with more (kinetic?) potential energy (going faster) will transfer more of it's energy into whatever it hits. whereas going slower, more of the energy will remain in the vehicle. i can't think of an analogy for this. hit your kid with a tennis racket or cricket bat and see which one they prefer. or something.



note:
* 'the police' refers to the policy makers rather than the individuals who are tasked to carry those policies out.
nono. it is actually "the police" that decided on this. they've got this thing called discretion. it just happens to be national policy (via the police, not TPTB - they say 100 = 101 you get fined)


Using that premise, agreed ONLY if the rest of us taxpayers have the right to refuse to pay for your Medical expenses in the result of any injury/trauma/damage you receive or cause

Fair enough?
absolutely, you get it in writing from the government that they wont talk to me, send me letters, set their dogs (cops) on me, stop me travelling, take money from my work and will, generally or otherwise, leave me the fuck alone, and i will NEVER ask for anything from them.


I'm trying to get Akzle to understand that the faster you are going, the harder you hit something.

I'm discussing the severity of those that actually occur. The faster you go the bigger the mess In the event of a crash.

yeah i get it. i'm trying to get you to get that cars are designed to crash, and not kill people so much. ergo, you have to be fair trying to actually write yourself off.
look at the V8 crashes etc, treble rolls, upside down and on fire and the guy gets up an walks out. this technology (not all of it) goes into the vehicles on the road.

of course, i'm fucking perfect, and i advocate not crashing.


Yeah. Increase your own safety by going faster, and fuck everyone else
put that in writing, sign it with your badge number and post it to me.


The simple fact is that speed has nothing to do with anything. Instantly becoming stationary is the problem.

i think you're going to reconsider that, as "instant" is an invalid paramater for these physics guys...

[Ocean1]

Bored at work today? Go and play with your tools.

Ohh, cutting red rep eh?

And 5 hours after the "fact". :laugh:

And to answer your question: Yes indeed, but I doubt he'd consider you worth the trouble. Also, if you wanted it private you could have, y'know not posted drivel on a public forum.

[Zedder]

Ohh, cutting red rep eh?

And 5 hours after the "fact". :laugh:

And to answer your question: Yes indeed, but I doubt he'd consider you worth the trouble. Also, if you wanted it private you could have, y'know not posted drivel on a public forum.

So, I've been doing other things, is that a problem as well?

Get fucked publicly then!!

[Ocean1]

So, I've been doing other things, is that a problem as well?

Probably, if your performance here's anything to go by, but I really couldn't give a shit, dude.

Later.

[Zedder]

Probably, if your performance here's anything to go by, but I really couldn't give a shit, dude.

Later.

The great Ocean1 has spoken. Now, was that a real thing or a construct in your sad old mind? Keep taking the pills.

Later would be too soon dickhead.

[Dave-]

How the fuck have you managed to contribute so little to this thread all day Zedder? do you not have a job or are you some sort of limp wristed pissy little fuck who can't work cause he's got "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"?

In writing this post I went back and had a look at how often this guy was posting, turns out within minutes of anyone making a post he was on here replying to it, what are you getting fucking facebook status updates on this shit? a fuckin' text message? or do you just sit there refreshing the page leering like an idiot? is it all three? is it like a fuckin' singing christmas card in your basement/dungeon every time someone posts a reply and your email, phone, and facebook all simultaneously make an assortment of beeps? stretching your burger ring coated fingers and mashing away some inane message scripted in your mind, intended for your asshole but intercepted by your fingers and posted on here?

I see this is the first thread you've started that went multi page, honestly congratulations, you must be so proud of yourself, I hope this thread goes on longer so your boner over bogan can increase to its impressive 2.5 inches.

Anyway I'm going to go visit some friends, they're the type other people can see too, I know this cause I don't have to ask.

You sir have yourself an excellent evening, be careful with the hangmans boner later on, it once killed a famous singer.

[bogan]

How the fuck have you managed to contribute so little to this thread all day Zedder? do you not have a job or are you some sort of limp wristed pissy little fuck who can't work cause he's got "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"?

In writing this post I went back and had a look at how often this guy was posting, turns out within minutes of anyone making a post he was on here replying to it, what are you getting fucking facebook status updates on this shit? a fuckin' text message? or do you just sit there refreshing the page leering like an idiot? is it all three? is it like a fuckin' singing christmas card in your basement/dungeon every time someone posts a reply and your email, phone, and facebook all simultaneously make an assortment of beeps? stretching your burger ring coated fingers and mashing away some inane message scripted in your mind, intended for your asshole but intercepted by your fingers and posted on here?

I see this is the first thread you've started that went multi page, honestly congratulations, you must be so proud of yourself, I hope this thread goes on longer so your boner over bogan can increase to its impressive 2.5 inches.

Anyway I'm going to go visit some friends, they're the type other people can see too, I know this cause I don't have to ask.

You sir have yourself an excellent evening, be careful with the hangmans boner later on, it once killed a famous singer.

Hmmm, guess you haven't heard of the site's iSpy function then? :laugh: Perhaps less of the personal background checks, more reading the kb user manual :bleh:

[Zedder]

How the fuck have you managed to contribute so little to this thread all day Zedder? do you not have a job or are you some sort of limp wristed pissy little fuck who can't work cause he's got "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"?

In writing this post I went back and had a look at how often this guy was posting, turns out within minutes of anyone making a post he was on here replying to it, what are you getting fucking facebook status updates on this shit? a fuckin' text message? or do you just sit there refreshing the page leering like an idiot? is it all three? is it like a fuckin' singing christmas card in your basement/dungeon every time someone posts a reply and your email, phone, and facebook all simultaneously make an assortment of beeps? stretching your burger ring coated fingers and mashing away some inane message scripted in your mind, intended for your asshole but intercepted by your fingers and posted on here?

I see this is the first thread you've started that went multi page, honestly congratulations, you must be so proud of yourself, I hope this thread goes on longer so your boner over bogan can increase to its impressive 2.5 inches.

Anyway I'm going to go visit some friends, they're the type other people can see too, I know this cause I don't have to ask.

You sir have yourself an excellent evening, be careful with the hangmans boner later on, it once killed a famous singer.

Well, you've been waiting here for a while so nothing better to do?

Actually I only work 6 months of the year at the moment if you need to know. I'm currently writing up a geological and roading survey report for work I did in Aussie. I helps to have a break every now and then so I check things out on here and do some post as you know.

I don't have to go back to work til May, but I get paid quite well.

How about you? I heard you're at Uni. Doing anything worthwhile? Any news on the physics of road crashes for us?

[Dave-]

Nothing wrong with the physics in this thread by the way, I'm just not sure what relevance it has on speeding?

edit: Akzle what was the thing we were debating that I was going to look in to? I honestly hold no grudge against it, if my thesis on it is incorrect then I'll be as right as you are, was it number of officers on roads vs speeding? there was a bunch of data i was going to find right? or quality of officers or something, it was back a few pages in operation mataki right? before I enlightened the sewage with centripetal force right?

[Akzle]

Nothing wrong with the physics in this thread by the way, I'm just not sure what relevance it has on speeding?

edit: Akzle what was the thing we were debating that I was going to look in to? I honestly hold no grudge against it, if my thesis on it is incorrect then I'll be as right as you are, was it number of officers on roads vs speeding? there was a bunch of data i was going to find right? or quality of officers or something, it was back a few pages in operation mataki right? before I enlightened the sewage with centripetal force right?

something like that bud. you bascially argued that paying cops was not a waste of time. i argued that you may as well jack off for road safety, because the only thing that has bought road deaths down (not the number of crashes) is vehicle safety standards.

[scumdog]

something like that bud. you bascially argued that paying cops was not a waste of time. i argued that you may as well jack off for road safety, because the only thing that has bought road deaths down (not the number of crashes) is vehicle safety standards.

Wow, tptb should be clamouring around you door wanting other pearls of wisdom such as this, you obvously do considerable in-depth studies to come to conclusions as you have above...

[Grizzo]

Wow, tptb should be clamouring around you door wanting other pearls of wisdom such as this, you obvously do considerable in-depth studies to come to conclusions as you have above...

Ahhh, good old sarcasm, the last refuge of the imaginatively bankrupt.:rolleyes:

[bogan]

before I enlightened the sewage with centripetal force right?

Actually, if you're separating sewage, a centrifuge is one way to do it, doing it with a centripet just sounds like an old dog or something. Anyway, it is probably easier to spread if its not too enlightened...

[rastuscat]

something like that bud. you bascially argued that paying cops was not a waste of time. i argued that you may as well jack off for road safety, because the only thing that has bought road deaths down (not the number of crashes) is vehicle safety standards.

In 1989 a dude called Hei Hei was the last drunk idiot to cross the centreline on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and kill someone coming the other way. A short time later the central barrier arrived.

The central barrier has prevented who knows how many deaths. How does that fit in with your view that only thing that has bought road deaths down (not the number of crashes) is vehicle safety standards?

I'm fairly sure that a lot of road environment engineering interventions have played a large part too. Some have prevented crashes from happening, some have reduced the severity of those that happen.

What say you?

[unstuck]

Got pulled over yesterday doing between 110/115kmh. License, ok. wof, ok. Reg ok. Told me to keep my fucking speed down and have a nice day. Must of had enough doughnuts :devil2: And I had an ACAB shirt on too.:niceone:

[arcane12]

Object A.
:p

although why not say that both vehicle A and B hit Object(s) C, and make object(s) C something like a powerpole,

and that means sweet FA, they could both be insurance writeoffs, and the occupants could all walk out, because vehicles A, B have the aforementioned safety features.

i still reckon that a vehicle with more (kinetic?) potential energy (going faster) will transfer more of it's energy into whatever it hits. whereas going slower, more of the energy will remain in the vehicle. i can't think of an analogy for this. hit your kid with a tennis racket or cricket bat and see which one they prefer. or something.[/color]


nono. it is actually "the police" that decided on this. they've got this thing called discretion. it just happens to be national policy (via the police, not TPTB - they say 100 = 101 you get fined)





1) Tennis racket/cricket bat have vastly different masses so not the best example. A better example would be to offer to hit them with a cricket bat swung slowly or at your best speed and see which they prefer. We could look at the formulae that cover the situation, but why muddy a good arguement? :rolleyes:

2) I should have been more specific, I was trying to say the internal policy makers for the police such as "Superintendent Carey Griffiths, national road policing manager", or external policy makers such as the Transport Minister, rather than the government in general (TPTB), who make the laws. (law vs guidelines/'policy' as it were)

3) There is no three. Nothing to see here, please move on.

[Zedder]

Hmmm, guess you haven't heard of the site's iSpy function then? :laugh: Perhaps less of the personal background checks, more reading the kb user manual :bleh:

Well said Bogan, a bit of creepy antics from Dave- there. He doesn't obviously know about having multiple monitors on a PC. It works well for me and means I can manage large documents between both and monitor internet activity on one at the same time.

Anyway, let's see what today brings.

[bogan]

Well said Bogan, a bit of creepy antics from Dave- there. He doesn't obviously know about having multiple monitors on a PC. It works well for me and means I can manage large documents between both and monitor internet activity on one at the same time.

Yup, one for work, one for kb, or lolcats, and I'm not sure which channel has the more intelligent presenters sometimes.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Awf45u6zrP0?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Awf45u6zrP0?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


Anyway, let's see what today brings.

Same as yesterday probably...
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6977654272/hFD044A27/

[Zedder]

[QUOTE=bogan;1130467413]Yup, one for work, one for kb, or lolcats, and I'm not sure which channel has the more intelligent presenters sometimes.

Good one. I had 6 windows and 6 docs all going at once yesterday and got some great images of Western Australia off the satellite feed. Only approx 45 pages to go on this survey report.

[bogan]

Good one. I had 6 windows and 6 docs all going at once yesterday and got some great images of Western Australia off the satellite feed. Only approx 45 pages to go on this survey report.

I find Aquasnap good for tiling windows (gives 4 corners as options, or side/side top/bottom like windows default) and keeping one visible on top with transparency, didn't think I'd use the later function much but it comes in handy; all done with mouse gestures too which is nice. Worst thing for multi window I've found is MSword with big docs containing heaps of references, somehow it puts in about 5sec latency to any program calls using explorer; which is an absolute cunt if you need to use paint.net to change part of a figure.

[Zedder]

I find Aquasnap good for tiling windows (gives 4 corners as options, or side/side top/bottom like windows default) and keeping one visible on top with transparency, didn't think I'd use the later function much but it comes in handy; all done with mouse gestures too which is nice. Worst thing for multi window I've found is MSword with big docs containing heaps of references, somehow it puts in about 5sec latency to any program calls using explorer; which is an absolute cunt if you need to use paint.net to change part of a figure.

I've got Winsplit Revolution, the MS Word one lasted about 10 minutes with me.

[Zedder]

'Morning Officer.

[Akzle]

The central barrier has prevented who knows how many deaths. How does that fit in with your view that only thing that has bought road deaths down (not the number of crashes) is vehicle safety standards?

I'm fairly sure that a lot of road environment engineering interventions have played a large part too. Some have prevented crashes from happening, some have reduced the severity of those that happen.

What say you?
how many c*nts have driven into the thing?
there are DAILY occurrences of aucklanders driving into each other.

now, instead of crashing into someone else, they crash into concrete - still a crash, yeah one less vehicle involved but i didn't say the number of vehicles involved, did i?

-edit- sorry, a bit distracted and didn't answer the question, a) that cunt is going to kill himself by driving into the wall or something else. he will not be killing the family in the SUV coming the other way (unfortunately, why the fuck do you need an SUV in town?)
so okay, crashes that don't happen don't kill people, i would speculate that most (a majority of) people who die in crashes, it's their own fucking fault

I've got Winsplit Revolution, the MS Word one lasted about 10 minutes with me.
get linux. workspaces win.

'Morning Officer.
is that anything like morning wood?

[Edbear]

Got pulled over yesterday doing between 110/115kmh. License, ok. wof, ok. Reg ok. Told me to keep my fucking speed down and have a nice day. Must of had enough doughnuts :devil2: And I had an ACAB shirt on too.:niceone:

Hey, enough! You'll spoil the rep of the cops as seen by KB'rs! :nono:

[unstuck]

Hey, enough! You'll spoil the rep of the cops as seen by KB'rs! :nono:

Dont get me wrong, some coppers are absolute pricks. Most of the ones I have dealt with(and there have been a few) have been pretty fucking decent really. When I was a kid, I thought all coppers were bastards, but I have grown up(just a little mind you) since then. The one yesterday was a good bugger.:niceone:

[p.dath]

[COLOR="#139922"]
how many c*nts have driven into the thing?
there are DAILY occurrences of aucklanders driving into each other.


A likely glancing blow against a concrete barrier is going to end much better for the majority of motorists than a head on impact at 80km/h to 100km/h.