Speeding article

[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.

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.

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 fuck that'd be a first

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...