Speeding article

[Zedder]

NZ Herald on latest speeding statistics:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=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:


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/mmed...ntum/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.

[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.

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.