Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[Dave-]

Yes, and this artificial horizon (in the photo you embedded) is at the intersection.

....and he can't stop within that distance. Right.

Q.E.D Speeding.

[bluninja]

....and he can't stop within that distance. Right.

Q.E.D Speeding.

You do realise this is a staged piece of fiction don't you? Thus there is no evidence of speeding, merely a series of cues to create a desired emotive or cognitive response.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

[Jantar]

At 4 seconds you can clearly see the artificial horizon caused by the dip in the road, section 5.9(1) clearly states that you must be able to stop within the visible lane. It absolutely does not matter that he can see the car waiting at the interection the entire time. The fact of the matter is he cannot see over the brow. At 99kmh^-1 he cannot stop in the visible lane ahead.

Hey, I like numbers as well. So at 4 secs at 99 kmh he is 110 m away from the brow of the rise. So what rate of decelleration is required to stop within 110 m from 27.5 m/s.
V^2 = 2fs where V = 27.5 and s =110
So f = 3.43 m/s/s. or only 0.35G
So ample distance for the car to stop.

Lets see what the minimum stopping distance would be assuming a flat road (this was uphill) at 0.9G or 8.8 m/s/s
Using the same formula we find that the minimum stopping distance (without reaction time) is 43 m. add on 1 second reaction time (pretty slow) and the stopping distance comes to 70.5 m. Still leaving almost 40 m, so his speed was legal.

[swbarnett]

....and he can't stop within that distance. Right.

Q.E.D Speeding.

Well, the idiot in the ad can't because he doesn't even have the brain to hit the brakes. Put any halfway decent driver in the same situation and it won't be so clear cut.

[Dave-]

You do realise this is a staged piece of fiction don't you? Thus there is no evidence of speeding, merely a series of cues to create a desired emotive or cognitive response.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

You mean, they didn't actually stop time?

Hey, I like numbers as well. So at 4 secs at 99 kmh he is 110 m away from the brow of the rise. So what rate of decelleration is required to stop within 110 m from 27.5 m/s.
V^2 = 2fs where V = 27.5 and s =110
So f = 3.43 m/s/s. or only 0.35G
So ample distance for the car to stop.

Lets see what the minimum stopping distance would be assuming a flat road (this was uphill) at 0.9G or 8.8 m/s/s
Using the same formula we find that the minimum stopping distance (without reaction time) is 43 m. add on 1 second reaction time (pretty slow) and the stopping distance comes to 70.5 m. Still leaving almost 40 m, so his speed was legal.

It's actually 3.4375 which rounds to 3.44, and the sign of the magnitude is negative as acceleration is a vector which has both magnitude and direction. Also deceleration of a car is non-linear.

Where'd you get 110m from? I think it's much closer, like 30 or 40m.

[Jantar]

....Where'd you get 110m from? I think it's much closer, like 30 or 40m.

I got that from you. 4 secs away at 27.5 m/s = 110 m.

[roogazza]

News break !!!!!!!!!
I see we're keeping up the road death average with another two dead last night !
Two trucks and a car near Sanson.

[chasio]

News break !!!!!!!!!
I see we're keeping up the road death average with another two dead last night !
Two trucks and a car near Sanson.

Yes, there are always more.

I see the overall toll last year was the lowest on record, or somesuch. No doubt that will be disingenuously linked to the 4km/h tolerance despite it being in place for about 6 weeks of the 52 and people dying in unhealthy numbers whilst it applied.

Lube up, peeps: there's a politician with a boner to pick with you.

[Dave-]

I got that from you. 4 secs away at 27.5 m/s = 110 m.

Ohh no, 4 seconds into the film is where you can see the artificial horizon. I have no idea how much time elapses between then and the collision because they pluck the heart strings for a bit. But I would say it looks about 30 or 40m? Maybe less even. Either way it's too shorter distance to haul up an average car in.

Sent from cellular device*

[SNF]

Too much focus on speed. Yeah it can contribute, but its made out to be the one and only cause of all accidents when its not. People drive as if they have had a vodka or two before they drive, why is it? People get into cars and suddenly become brainless. Crossing center lines, following too close. Going fast and slow. Oh and my fave, the intersection ad. See a car. Go "hurrr duuhhrrrr....." and then pull out. Very. Fucking. Slowly. Come on if your gonna do that then at least redline the bitch!

That speed/intersection ad is utter crap. Even if the guy going down the hill had been going 80 km/h they still would hit. Stop using the kid as an excuse to your shitty hazard perception skills. Why not use a brain and LOOK. I actually yelled that when I first saw the ad.

Addressing speed isn't doing much. Addressing the shitty driving will. Give them a choice. A $200 fine with 28 days like any other or a mandatory learn how the fuck to drive - maintain ONE speed, keep a car in a lane, safe lane changing (Indicating, headchecks, blindspots - the works.) Safe following distances, hazard perception, where and when to pull out, how to merge, even how to park properly.

You know the very basic, basic stuff which seems like most aren't taught. The fine gets halved. Fail = again until either the person is deemed too stupid to handle any vehicle - which I doubt but it is possible or they pass. Win win. Government get their quota. Roads get somewhat safer (I hope). Its a good idea. Won't happen though. Cops are probably too busy speed hunting.

[scumdog]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.

It's only a fart-skin, a poofteenth, a mere skerrick of the whole picture relating to life and death on the roads...

Still, if that's what takes your fancy who am I to stop you??

[Mo NZ]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.

:

What a pity the add being discussed did not reflect that eh Scumdog.

[Mo NZ]

Uh no.

It did focus on the over speed thingi
What with a picture of the speed and " im going too fast"

its a crock.

[bluninja]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.

It's only a fart-skin, a poofteenth, a mere skerrick of the whole picture relating to life and death on the roads...

Still, if that's what takes your fancy who am I to stop you??

Aren't you the one to stop us when we don't focus on the freaking 4kph thing and go to 5kph over (or more)?

[swbarnett]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.

It's only a fart-skin, a poofteenth, a mere skerrick of the whole picture relating to life and death on the roads...

Still, if that's what takes your fancy who am I to stop you??

I totally agree. So why the hell do TPTB care about it?




BTW: The only reason it affects me personally is because it does seem to have slowed the traffic down at times. Probably causing more accidents through increased congestion and impatience.