Speeding tickets. Why the angst?

[BoristheBiter]

NO!!! you are less likely to be involved in a crash if you are travelling at a safe comfortable speed watching the road instead of an insignificant needle on an insignificant dial. Driving to the conditions rather than a made-up number.

*If you do crash I only said being the faster one is safer in the same way that being in the SUV is safer, you'll come out better off as you have the greater kinetic energy I'm not saying you should go faster for this reason (just like I wouldn't advise getting a SUV for this reason) just saying "faster you go the bigger the mess" doesn't work as physics has a different view on occasions, vehicle vs brick wall yes it can work there but I wouldn't advise driving into them either & your less likely to if your driving to the condition than driving to an artificial made-up limit.


*equivalent vehicles

So now you say if we drive at a comfortable speed we are less likely to have a crash and if you are the faster of the two vehicles you will not get injured.

So what you are saying is you shouldn't drive fast unless you are about to crash into another vehicle then you should speed up to make sure you are going faster?

[Usarka]

Just about 12 or so years back the de-facto speed limit WAS 120kph.

The road deaths were also higher then.

FYI

Many other things have changed (cost of petrol for a start!).

There was an example a few years back (in the states I think) where raising the speed limit showed a direct and attributable reduction in crashes/deaths. I tried to google it but ADHD kicked in hey look what's that out side.

[Scuba_Steve]

So now you say if we drive at a comfortable speed we are less likely to have a crash and if you are the faster of the two vehicles you will not get injured.

So what you are saying is you shouldn't drive fast unless you are about to crash into another vehicle then you should speed up to make sure you are going faster?

Yep now I'm sure

[Jantar]

So now you say if we drive at a comfortable speed we are less likely to have a crash

Yes, that is what he said, and the available data from those places that raised their speed limits bears witness to this fact.

and if you are the faster of the two vehicles you will not get injured. .... So what you are saying is you shouldn't drive fast unless you are about to crash into another vehicle then you should speed up to make sure you are going faster?

No, that is not what he said, but its not too far away. The energy transferred is equal to change of kinectic energy. In any collision, unless the collision is completely inelastic and both coliding bodies are the same mass and velocity, then one body will experience a greater change in energy than the other. The change in velocity of either body is proportional to the mass of that body and the nett change in momentum. The damage to the human body is proprtional to the accelleration. Take all these factors into consideration and if the two colliding bodies are the same mass then the faster body will suffer less acceleration and hence less damage to the human involved.

Of course if one body has a greater mass then its change in velocity will be lower, so NO, Don't going banging your moving head against a stationary brick wall or you will be hurt.

[scumdog]

Yes, that is what he said, and the available data from those places that raised their speed limits bears witness to this fact.
.

Of course that is in countries with a better roading system than ours.

And probably better drivers.(Shouldn't be TOO hard to be that!)

[caspernz]

The disparate points of view are quite amusing....to me anyway. Not only are lots of folks resistant to enforcement, they also shun education, oh well.

I think back to a change that has taken place at my employer over a number of years. Go back ten or so years, trucks limited to 105, then 100, 95, 90, to now being clipped at 88 km/h, this being 2 clicks below the limit for trucks. At each reduction in speed, the drivers moaned and groaned, saying it would be impossible to do the same work with these slow trucks....in reality there was little change in trip times, but running costs dropped markedly. The amusing thing is that running at legal limits is actually quite comfy and devoid of stress, not to mention quite a bit safer than pushing on at some higher self imposed limit beyond the legal one, although my wife tends to get quite stressed when I set the cars' cruise at 102....

Putting loads of energy into moaning about speed limits is about as effective as crying about the weather, in my view anyhow. Makes for entertaining reading though, so by all means ramble on fellas.....

[BoristheBiter]

Yes, that is what he said, and the available data from those places that raised their speed limits bears witness to this fact.



No, that is not what he said, but its not too far away. The energy transferred is equal to change of kinectic energy. In any collision, unless the collision is completely inelastic and both coliding bodies are the same mass and velocity, then one body will experience a greater change in energy than the other. The change in velocity of either body is proportional to the mass of that body and the nett change in momentum. The damage to the human body is proprtional to the accelleration. Take all these factors into consideration and if the two colliding bodies are the same mass then the faster body will suffer less acceleration and hence less damage to the human involved.

Of course if one body has a greater mass then its change in velocity will be lower, so NO, Don't going banging your moving head against a stationary brick wall or you will be hurt.

And at 120Km the human brain can't take the sudden stop and at 140km the brain will become a mushy thing inside your skull.
You can ponce around with your fancy physics talk all you want, it was one of my top subjects, but the end result remains the same the human body is more likely to be injured the higher the speed.

[FJRider]

Of course that is in countries with a better roading system than ours.

And probably better drivers.(Shouldn't be TOO hard to be that!)

I spent a fair bit of time touring Aisa (amongst other places)... on a motorcycle. I found (then) NZ has quite good roads.

Those worried about the standard of the roading system ... should get a duel-purpose bike.

But then (I guess) the roads wont be bad enough ...

[avgas]

And at 120Km the human brain can't take the sudden stop and at 140km the brain will become a mushy thing inside your skull.
You can ponce around with your fancy physics talk all you want, it was one of my top subjects, but the end result remains the same the human body is more likely to be injured the higher the speed.

Actually your brain is mush much lower than that.
Be thankful the we don't have to drive at 25kph..........because that is apparently the "magic" number.

[SPman]

And at 120Km the human brain can't take the sudden stop and at 140km the brain will become a mushy thing inside your skull.
You can ponce around with your fancy physics talk all you want, it was one of my top subjects, but the end result remains the same the human body is more likely to be injured the higher the speed.

Has anyone really disputed that? In a sudden stop against a solid object, of course this is what will happen. Reducing things to limits, humans shouldn't go faster than the 6-8km/hr we have evolved to physically cope with!....

[McJim]

Has anyone really Reducing things to limits, humans shouldn't go faster than the 6-8km/hr we have evolved to physically cope with!....

Slow git. I can do at least 20kph on foot and 65kph without an engine on the flat. :P

[swbarnett]

How about you test that theory by heat butting a wall. I'm sure the wall will be a lot worse off than you if your theory is correct.

His theory relies on the fact that the masses of the two colliding objects are at least within the same ball park.

Take a piano on wheels and role another one of the same or similar mass into it. The frist piano will move. Repeat the experiment with a piano hit by a ping-pong ball at the same speed and it won't move to any measurable level.

[BoristheBiter]

His theory relies on the fact that the masses of the two colliding objects are at least within the same ball park.

Take a piano on wheels and role another one of the same or similar mass into it. The frist piano will move. Repeat the experiment with a piano hit by a ping-pong ball at the same speed and it won't move to any measurable level.

So now to be safer you must be in the faster vehicle or the biggest?

Well we're fucked on our little two wheeler's or maybe we should just go even faster to adjust for our lower mass.

If you think, this is aimed at all not just you swb, that to be safer you must go faster then by all means go right ahead. If you get a ticket for it I don't care, if you crash I don't care, But if you crash into me or mine then you will have a problem.

[swbarnett]

So now to be safer you must be in the faster vehicle or the biggest?

Let's think about this....

Truck versus motorcycle - pretty much guarenteed the motorcyclist comes off second best no matter the speed of the truck. This is kind of like the brick wall example.

However, in a collision between like vehicles it does seem that the faster one will suffer relatively less damage.

This, of course, will only apply to a small fraction of real world motorcycle accidents (motorcycle vs motorcycle is not that common).

Well we're fucked on our little two wheeler's

Well, duh! Being the smallest motorised thing on the road does mean we will always come off second best. There's nothing magic about 100k that keeps us safe. Far better to prevent accidents in the first place.

or maybe we should just go even faster to adjust for our lower mass.

I don't think there's a bike on the road that could go fast enough to mitigate the mass of a large truck (or a tree for that matter). Besides, we're not saying that the faster vehicle gets off scott free. Just that the relatively higher speed*mass relationship MAY mitigate SOME of the affects of the collision (certainly not a theory I would rely on).

If you think, this is aimed at all not just you swb, that to be safer you must go faster then by all means go right ahead. If you get a ticket for it I don't care, if you crash I don't care, But if you crash into me or mine then you will have a problem.

We're not trying to say that faster is safer - given that a collision is inevitable - just that the physics is not as cut and dried as one might think.

[BoristheBiter]

Let's think about this....

--------------.

Either way this thread is about why people have a big fat cry like a little girl when they get a speeding ticket.
If's, but's, maybe's don't mean shit when you get pulled over for speeding.
You get off with a warning or you might get a ticket but either way you should just man up and get over it.
We have a tolerance that most other country's don't, we know what the speed limits are.