Police traffic enforcement inconsistency?

[rastuscat]

good, we're gaining traxion (dont worry, i'll get rid of it by the end of the corner).

Now sir oinksalot, how you gonna stop niggers driving into me, hm? Way i see, an oz for not wearing my seatbelt aint making shit safer for no mother fukka, y'a'mean?

You make the assumption that I would actually want to stop someone driving into you..............

Back in the real world, we are trying to get them to stop being pissed and driving, as there is less chance they'll nail you in the first place.

I can't rule out that some Mufti might have issued a fatwa against you, but we are trying to get people to slow down, so that when they hit you, they don't hit you so hard. Wouldn't you rather they hit you at a lower speed?

[Akzle]

You make the assumption that I would actually want to stop someone driving into you..............

Back in the real world, we are trying to get them to stop being pissed and driving, as there is less chance they'll nail you in the first place.

I can't rule out that some Mufti might have issued a fatwa against you, but we are trying to get people to slow down, so that when they hit you, they don't hit you so hard. Wouldn't you rather they hit you at a lower speed?

no, and i'll be driving drunk tonight, thankee. i expect to see two cars on the roads, neither police.

what i would rather, is that they had the skills/ability/will to determine when they shouldn't be doing shit that'll endanger others, and 'sequently, not do it.

see, the cunt that drives into me, iffen i have my chilln in te waka, is going to die at the scene, i will not be doing a breath test, nor checking the status of their seatbelt.


srsly, how many pissed people crash v how many sober? and how many pissed people wear seatbelts?
you're working in entirely teh wrong direction.

[scumdog]

know a better idea?
Stop cunts driving into other cunts.

then, seatbelts become irrelevant.

Yes, because ALL crashes always involve at least two vehicles colliding....

[scumdog]

But for both sides cop and non cop it boils down again to lifes not fair, deal with it.
There's a cop up this way who apparently never writes up less than $600 worth of fines every time he pulls someone. Apparently even the other cops wont share their donuts with him at smoko time...

.

'Apparently' this and 'apparently' that - you sound like a news-paper, no need for facts....

But the rest of your post ain't too bad.

[Akzle]

Yes, because ALL crashes always involve at least two vehicles colliding....

yea!
but i give not a fuck when cunts end themselves.

[swbarnett]

but we are trying to get people to slow down, so that when they hit you, they don't hit you so hard. Wouldn't you rather they hit you at a lower speed?

This is where it gets harder for those on the front line to understand.

First, I'd rather not be hit at all. This is something that is largely under my control.

On a population basis, however, it's better to have fewer collisions rather than slower ones (assuming that we're still talking about a speed high enough to do at least moderate damage - say 100kph).

It has been shown time and again that a higher speed limit results in fewer collisions. It follows therefore that by slowing down the driving public you are actually increasing the number of collisions. You are actually increasing the amount of carnage overall. QED

[R650R]

'Apparently' this and 'apparently' that - you sound like a news-paper, no need for facts....

But the rest of your post ain't too bad.

I only come here to hone my skills at presenting hearsay evidence ;p

[rastuscat]

This is where it gets harder for those on the front line to understand.

First, I'd rather not be hit at all. This is something that is largely under my control.

On a population basis, however, it's better to have fewer collisions rather than slower ones (assuming that we're still talking about a speed high enough to do at least moderate damage - say 100kph).

It has been shown time and again that a higher speed limit results in fewer collisions. It follows therefore that by slowing down the driving public you are actually increasing the number of collisions. You are actually increasing the amount of carnage overall. QED

I guess that's the underlying assumption of the Safe System approach. Humans will make human mistakes. Better to have them at lower speeds.

Crashes are going to happen. Two points here. It's good to reduce the incidence of crashes, and also to decrease the impact of the crashes that happen.

Seat belts don't stop crashes from happening but sure reduce the injuries arising therefrom. Speed causes some crashes (not many) but it's a major determinant of the outcome of crashes which happen for whatever reason.

It's why we do it.

[FJRider]

Yes, because ALL crashes always involve at least two vehicles colliding....

Not all crashes .. I've managed pretty well on my own a few times ...

[swbarnett]

I guess that's the underlying assumption of the Safe System approach. Humans will make human mistakes. Better to have them at lower speeds.

I think you'll find that the population wide stats will look better with fewer crashes at higher speeds (or at least with a higher speed limit).

Politicians love measuring what happens to the population. They don't give two shits about individuals. Just look at WRBs.

Crashes are going to happen. Two points here. It's good to reduce the incidence of crashes, and also to decrease the impact of the crashes that happen.

If you don't crash (or are crashed into) it matters not what speed you were doing (ask the astronauts).

Seat belts don't stop crashes from happening but sure reduce the injuries arising therefrom.

Indeed. Even airbags can be lethal without them.

Speed causes some crashes (not many)

Physics says otherwise. Yes, some crashes wouldn't have happened at a lower speed (or higher) due to timing. That does not make speed a causative factor. Just a necessary condition.

but it's a major determinant of the outcome of crashes which happen for whatever reason.

This is also debatable. Yes, given the EXACT same set of circumstances at the point of impact except the vehicle speed the damage will be less. However, ALL other factors are far more determinant of the level of damage than the speed. First of all, what really matters in a collision is the momentum, not the speed. Then there's the crumple zones, airbags, seat belts and other systems to consider. The same impact at the same speed will be a lot worse in a '50s car than one made recently.

It's why we do it.

You keep telling yourself that. We all need ways to justify what we do for a crust so we can sleep at night.

[rastuscat]

First of all, what really matters in a collision is the momentum, not the speed.

Is momentum not directly proportional to speed?

Momentum = Mass x Velocity, does it not?

[R650R]

Either or really, but he fails to mention its the momentum or speed of BOTH vehicles that matters as the sum total determines how sticky the final result is.

He's trying to be fancy and some how saw that a lightweight sportsbike is justified in speeding cause he thinks it stops and turns better than a car in same situation.
But the whole significant thing about a crash is that both vehicles never come to a stop before hand, therefore its not about momentum/speed whatever, but how much space and time you have to attempt an alternative trajectory.
There's plenty of people testifying on here how shit other peoples driving is and then state they should be allowed to approach said shit drivers at what ever speed they like...

I like going fast sometimes but there's no argument for saying its safe or safer ever...

[awayatc]

You keep telling yourself that. We all need ways to justify what we do for a crust so we can sleep at night.

Sums it all up......

a lot harder to do if you have a cunt of a job

or are a cunt

or both

[swbarnett]

Is momentum not directly proportional to speed?

Momentum = Mass x Velocity, does it not?

Proportional, yes but not equivalent. Momentum has a directional component (velocity contains both speed and direction). The direction of impact is at least as important than the speed.

On the subject of momentum (assuming the same direction):
A 10 tonne truck travelling at 10kph has the same momentum as a 1 tonne car travelling at 100kph. The car would have to travel at 900kph to have the same momentum as the truck at it's open road speed limit (90kph). I would have to ride at 2500kph to match that momentum.

If you're really trying to lower the damage should an impact occur then why is the truck legally allowed to travel with 9 times the momentum of the car (at their respective open road limits)? Or, 25 times the momentum of me and my bike?

It is pretty clear to me that speed is a pretty poor predictor of crash damage over a population.

[swbarnett]

Either or really, but he fails to mention its the momentum or speed of BOTH vehicles that matters as the sum total determines how sticky the final result is.

Yes, that was left out. It's not relevant really in the general discussion on speed as it's bloody obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the combined impact velocity is important in a multi-vehicle crash. Note "velocity" not speed.

He's trying to be fancy and some how saw that a lightweight sportsbike is justified in speeding cause he thinks it stops and turns better than a car in same situation.

Not at all. Just trying to show that a "lightweight sportsbike" will cause far less damage to anything it hits than, say, a truck at the same impact velocity.

But the whole significant thing about a crash is that both vehicles never come to a stop before hand, therefore its not about momentum/speed whatever, but how much space and time you have to attempt an alternative trajectory.

Agreed. The approach velocity of both vehicles is definitely important. Slowing down the general populace is counter-productive to this, however. An alert driver at a higher speed is far safer than a distracted driver at a lower speed. This is one reason why higher speed limits reduce the number of crashes.

There's plenty of people testifying on here how shit other peoples driving is and then state they should be allowed to approach said shit drivers at what ever speed they like...

I'm not one of them. I advocate travelling at whatever speed an individual driver/rider feels capable of handling under the circumstances present at the time. I would never advocate 200kph lane-splitting past stationary traffic for example.

I like going fast sometimes but there's no argument for saying its safe or safer ever...

This is the fundamental disagreement. Early on in my riding career I had a near miss that would definitely have been a collision if I'd been travelling slightly slower. I braked for a red light and slid on oil. My two choices were to go down and slide through the intersection or open the throttle and go through upright. Because I chose the latter and had enough speed on I managed to get through before the car that had the right of way.