Speeding facts vs fiction

**swbarnett** · 7th July 2014, 17:04

Originally Posted by awayatc

the police is supposed to enforce what the politicians legislate............

we vote for the politicians...

thus we should be able to dictate, or at least influence legislation.......

unfortunately for us, in NZ we have a them"know better "vs us "do as you are told" culture...

definitely not the best way of pretending to be democratic

and also definitely not the only way democracies function.

Agreed. What we need is a system whereby we don't only vote for the government as a whole but also vote on anything that's not just day to day running. In Switzerland you even get a vote on whether the proposed budget is acceptable.

**awayatc** · 7th July 2014, 17:27

in the Neterlands drivers were asked what they thought the most annoying thing was....

Tailgaiting came out tops, hence gets very heavily fined.......

Speeding was considered a non event, hence very little speed policing...(only extreme speeding)

And yes their Road toll is lower then ours.....

**Robbo** · 7th July 2014, 17:50

Originally Posted by awayatc

in the Neterlands drivers were asked what they thought the most annoying thing was....

Tailgaiting came out tops, hence gets very heavily fined.......

Speeding was considered a non event, hence very little speed policing...(only extreme speeding)

And yes their Road toll is lower then ours.....

Yep, Tailgating would be one of my biggest complaints also.

**oneofsix** · 7th July 2014, 18:14

Originally Posted by Robbo

Yep, Tailgating would be one of my biggest complaints also.

Heck yeah. I really hate it when the vehicle in front is hogging the lane and all you can do is tailgate them.

**R650R** · 10th July 2014, 17:15

Originally Posted by awayatc

in the Neterlands drivers were asked what they thought the most annoying thing was....

And yes their Road toll is lower then ours.....

They are a more intelligent nation overall though, many of them speak several languages etc.
Prob credit the Vikings too for weeding out those with slow reactions and bad attitudes lol...

At the 6min mark, proof speed causes crashes, either that or too many donuts in the boot of this patrol car. Classic mid corner sledge and ditch roll.

**swbarnett** · 10th July 2014, 17:45

Originally Posted by R650R

At the 6min mark, proof speed causes crashes,

Bullshit. That's like saying that having a knife in your hand causes stabbing.

Yes, speed inappropriate for the conditions is ill-advised. However, in this case the speed had nothing to do with the cause. I could likely have taken that corner at that speed under the same circumstances and not crashed. The real problem was that the entry line was atrocious. If they'd been on the far left side of the road before the corner they'd have been sweet. Given the visibility around that corner there was no excuse for staying in their own lane.

**haydes55** · 10th July 2014, 18:36

Originally Posted by swbarnett

Bullshit. That's like saying that having a knife in your hand causes stabbing.

Yes, speed inappropriate for the conditions is ill-advised. However, in this case the speed had nothing to do with the cause. I could likely have taken that corner at that speed under the same circumstances and not crashed. The real problem was that the entry line was atrocious. If they'd been on the far left side of the road before the corner they'd have been sweet. Given the visibility around that corner there was no excuse for staying in their own lane.

Adding to that, he was going too fast for that corner with the line he took. He did not crash because he was above a speed limit, he crashed because he was faster than his capabilities. Even if the speed limit was 150mph I wouldn't have crashed there, because I would have assessed the corner and slowed to an appropriate speed. The speed limit, nor lack of adherence to, played no part in that crash at all.

"you're riding unsafe at illegal speeds"..... Funny that the motorbike didn't try take any risks, was no way near full throttle or anyway near knee down at all, perfectly safe, as proven by not crashing where a "trained" cop crashed.

**R650R** · 10th July 2014, 21:11

Oh bugger, I always though 'speeding' included driving/riding too fast for type of road, above or below the limit...

**oneofsix** · 10th July 2014, 21:40

Originally Posted by R650R

Oh bugger, I always though 'speeding' included driving/riding too fast for type of road, above or below the limit...

in a perverse way that sums up the problem, too many retards listen to the propaganda and think that if they stay below the arbitrary limit they will be safe.

**swbarnett** · 10th July 2014, 23:12

Originally Posted by R650R

Oh bugger, I always though 'speeding' included driving/riding too fast for type of road, above or below the limit...

That's really part of the problem. "Speeding" has two meanings and is often used out of context. It's a word that has been so abused that it really can't be used anymore without ambiguity.

As to the cop that rolled. The speed wasn't too fast for the conditions. They just didn't have a clue how to use it.

The state of having "speed" cannot cause an accident by itself. There must be other factors involved. If this were not the case we wouldn't be able to get satellites into orbit.

**Akzle** · 11th July 2014, 06:10

Originally Posted by oneofsix

that sums up the problem: too many retards

fixed for you.

**gjm** · 11th July 2014, 07:56

The whole 'speed is a factor' thing is another misleading phrase. Of course it's a factor - if someone involved in an accident was travelling an average of 5km/h slower (or 5km/h faster) then they wouldn't have been at the location where the accident happened. This is a fact. Perhaps they would have had an accident somewhere else, but then we're getting into philosophy and causality.

There certainly are accidents where the inability of one party to stop due to excessive speed for the conditions is a major contributory factor.

Does anyone have information relating to the percentage of accidents caused by one vehicle pulling out, or across, in front of oncoming traffic?

**Scuba_Steve** · 11th July 2014, 10:58

OK so speed alone won't kill, it's "speed" + crash that kills & to prove that here's Hammonds crash in 2006

Aaannnddd here he is in 2014

Wait!? he crashed at 464km/h in 2006 yet there he is driving a car on Top Gear in 2014, 8yrs later... Someone's gonna need to explain this; maybee RC & his Newton's law?
Everything was there
Vehicle - Check
Speed - Check
Crash - Check
Newton's Law - Check
Death - Negative

So either Hammond's a Ghost/Zombie, it's the speed signs that kill (as there was none present on the airfield to inform of the death speed), or FACT! speed does not kill or cause death (at-least at the speeds humans are capable of at current) & FICTION the speed scam is for "safety"

**Dave-** · 11th July 2014, 20:23

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

Wait!? he crashed at 464km/h in 2006 yet there he is driving a car on Top Gear in 2014, 8yrs later... Someone's gonna need to explain this; maybee RC & his Newton's law?

Before I bother explaining, I need to gauge an idea of your understanding of physics, and in particular rotating masses.

Thus I need you to explain in your own words what the term 'moment of inertia' means and explain to me the key difference between centrifugal and centripetal force and why one is considered an incorrect observation.

You should reference yours reliable sources.