4kmh tolerance for Waitangi Weekend until 29 February?

[Zedder]

Interesting to see the contrasting views on here, and how it's morphed into various topics. It's good that we can disagree, and have a laugh at some of the humorous responses.

Still, just to drag reality back. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity(squared).

So, a 1000kg vehicle (e.g. a Hardley Rideable or a Honda Civic) going at 100 km/h produces this

Mass (1000) x (100x100), or 1000 x 10000 somethings. That's 10,000,000 somethings.

Probably kilojoules, but that's about weight loss, I think. I'll check with Mrs Cat.

Increase the speed of the Civic (really difficult to do that on a Hardley) to 110 km/h, and here's how it looks.

1000 x (110x110), or 12,100,000 somethings.

So, increase the speed by 10%, and the kinetic energy of the vehicle increases by 21%.

That's why there is some attempt at limiting the shit that happens at speed. I think it's make more sense to limit the amount of kinetic energy a motorist is allowed to impart, but the only real world way to do that is via a speed limit. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as thin people, but that's another campaign.

Now, I'm not suggesting that speed causes all those nasty, tewwible cwashes that Mrs Wose talks about, but even I can see the sense in everyone imparting less kinetic energy when the crashes that happen for any reason, happen.

So, I'm all for having no speed limit, and everyone making their own judgement on how fast to travel at. Once, that is, every fecking numpty learns to drive. Every one, not just the really shit hot ace riders on here.

Ho hum, back to the garden. Really loving the garden. Not.

It's interesting indeed Rtc. I'd just got back from a ride prior to posting and had a great time all while observing the laws. No crashes, no tickets, great company and brilliant weather. Life's damn good!

[rastuscat]

The kinetic energy thing creates some interesting outcomes.

Lets say we have two identical vehicles both doing 100 km/hr and they have a head on crash.

They have identical mass and velocity, identical energy and will both decelerate to zero in the same amount of time. Equal energy absorbed by both vehicles, so similar survival outcomes for the occupants, as they all experience exactly the same deceleration, and its the deceleration that kills you.

But then imaging one vehicle is speeding, or its much heavier. Its got more kinetic energy.

When they collide, the crash involves this extra energy.

But what happens is, the crash is no longer equal.

The vehicle with the least energy will stop, and possibly even be pushed backwards by the other vehicle. The vehicle with the higher energy will have much more deceleration time, and thus will have a better chance of being survivable.

Thats why I always speed.

One thing I have learned from my Serious Crash Unit colleagues is that bigger vehicles always come off better than smaller vehicles. Now, One way to deal with that is to buy a Hummer. The other is to drive defensively in whatever vehicle you choose, in case you come across some dickhead in his Hummer.

I reflect on how I view Volvos. They were regarded as the safest car in the world.Thing is, if the owner is a knob, he'll factor that in, and drive it less safely, knowing that he'll be better off when he crashes coz the car compensates for his dickhead driving.

A natural extension of that is that we should make vehicles less safe, and that'd cause people to be more careful. A few more would die, but that'd be the price paid for everyone to have more freedom.

I can see many sides to this discussion, but at the end of the day, what we have is what we have. It'll change sooner or later, probably later. Yes, I can see a day that crashing at 100 km/h won't be too big a problem. It's just not here yet. Look how far cars have come since Model T Fords, then imagine how far ahead they'll be in 2100.

One thing that won't have changed is that kinetic energy will still be a product of mass and velocity(squared). Ain't no exemption or tolerance on that fact.

[FJRider]

Interesting to see the contrasting views on here, and how it's morphed into various topics. It's good that we can disagree, and have a laugh at some of the humorous responses.

Still, just to drag reality back. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity(squared).

This is KB. With the amount of time you've spent on site ... it must have occured to you ... reality with some ... is sporadic at best. In some quarters, unknown.

[Zedder]

The kinetic energy thing creates some interesting outcomes.

Lets say we have two identical vehicles both doing 100 km/hr and they have a head on crash.

They have identical mass and velocity, identical energy and will both decelerate to zero in the same amount of time. Equal energy absorbed by both vehicles, so similar survival outcomes for the occupants, as they all experience exactly the same deceleration, and its the deceleration that kills you.

But then imaging one vehicle is speeding, or its much heavier. Its got more kinetic energy.

When they collide, the crash involves this extra energy.

But what happens is, the crash is no longer equal.

The vehicle with the least energy will stop, and possibly even be pushed backwards by the other vehicle. The vehicle with the higher energy will have much more deceleration time, and thus will have a better chance of being survivable.

Thats why I always speed.

Sure, I can see your argument when applied to two 4 wheeled vehicles but when it's motorbike versus 4 wheeled vehicle the bike is going to come off second best. Always.

[FJRider]

when it's motorbike versus 4 wheeled vehicle the bike is going to come off second best. Always.

The rider may come off ... and actually be airborne.

2nd best is an understatement.

Perhaps we need seatbelts on bikes ...

[Zedder]

The rider may come off ... and actually be airborne.

2nd best is an understatement.

Perhaps we need seatbelts on bikes ...

Now now FJR ,you know what I'm getting at.

[FJRider]

Now now FJR ,you know what I'm getting at.

I DO ... and for those that aren't aware of it ... or never experienced it ... 2nd best bloody hurts.

You can even die of it.

[Zedder]

I DO ... and for those that aren't aware of it ... or never experienced it ... 2nd best bloody hurts.

You can even die of it.

Gottcha, sorry, I thought you were taking the piss.

[FJRider]

Gottcha, sorry, I thought you were taking the piss.

only on the seatbelt bit ...

[martybabe]

One thing I have learned from my Serious Crash Unit colleagues is that bigger vehicles always come off better than smaller vehicles. Now, One way to deal with that is to buy a Hummer. The other is to drive defensively in whatever vehicle you choose, in case you come across some dickhead in his Hummer.

I reflect on how I view Volvos. They were regarded as the safest car in the world.Thing is, if the owner is a knob, he'll factor that in, and drive it less safely, knowing that he'll be better off when he crashes coz the car compensates for his dickhead driving.

A natural extension of that is that we should make vehicles less safe, and that'd cause people to be more careful. A few more would die, but that'd be the price paid for everyone to have more freedom.

I can see many sides to this discussion, but at the end of the day, what we have is what we have. It'll change sooner or later, probably later. Yes, I can see a day that crashing at 100 km/h won't be too big a problem. It's just not here yet. Look how far cars have come since Model T Fords, then imagine how far ahead they'll be in 2100.

One thing that won't have changed is that kinetic energy will still be a product of mass and velocity(squared). Ain't no exemption or tolerance on that fact.

In my time servicing the largest busiest motorway network in Europe we had a rule of thumb, mass rules, i.e. .truck vs car= truck wins, car vs tree= tree wins, Bike vs car=car wins. There are exceptions but if you seek out the occupants of the less dense vehicle or object you will usually find your most injured victims and see to them first obviously. Pretty useful in a multi vehicle pile up in freezing fog.

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.

[FJRider]

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.

Less dense ... mmmmmmmm

[martybabe]

Less dense ... mmmmmmmm

You have a keen eye sir, clearly you are one of the less dense people

[FJRider]

In my time servicing the largest busiest motorway network in Europe we had a rule of thumb, mass rules, i.e. .truck vs car= truck wins, car vs tree= tree wins, Bike vs car=car wins. There are exceptions but if you seek out the occupants of the less dense vehicle or object you will usually find your most injured victims and see to them first obviously. Pretty useful in a multi vehicle pile up in freezing fog.

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.

I know of a few medic's that ignore the one's making the most noise. The one's that are silent can't tell you their issues. And usually have the bigger problems.

[martybabe]

I know of a few medic's that ignore the one's making the most noise. The one's that are silent can't tell you their issues. And usually have the bigger problems.

Agreed, although the silent ones could just be in shock, they could also be preparing to exit stage left. The vocal ones, though perhaps in considerable pain were still well enough to kick up a fuss so presumably had time on their side.

Again not a hard and fast rule but when you're faced with accident victims lying all over the shop you have to make a decision and quickly, so you could say speed was a factor in all road accidents eh

[FJRider]

Again not a hard and fast rule but when you're faced with accident victims lying all over the shop you have to make a decision and quickly, so you could say speed was a factor in all road accidents eh

True.

Get it right you're a hero ...

Get it wrong ... you're a stupid cunt.