Annual road toll up 44

[unstuck]

If only my surgeon would let me!!!

What a lame excuse.

[BlackSheepLogic]

Each to their own. Posting up that fuel graph and a fatalities list then calling it fact is a pretty poor way to roll though, given the overall absurdity of saying you can blame a car crash on fuel prices.. I'll remember this if I have an accident. 'If it wasn't for the low petrol price this month he wouldn't have even been in my lane!'

Your wasting your time on this one Tazz, it is another 5th form economics example. Last week it was a simplified 5th form physics model being used to explain road fatalities.

[TheDemonLord]

Your wasting your time on this one Tazz, it is another 5th form economics example. Last week it was a simplified 5th form physics model being used to explain road fatalities.

- Asked why a 10% increase in speed could result in a crash not being survivable
- Got shown the formula that shows that when calculating the energy of a moving object, speed is squared, so a small increase in speed results in a bigger change in energy
- Doesn't like the answer so complains about it, even though the physics is both well known and well established on this.

And for your reference - complimentary products and the effects they have on each other is actually 4th form Economics....

[bogan]

- Asked why a 10% increase in speed could result in a crash not being survivable

Technically, that should read impact speed. Road speed prior to incident will have a far weaker correlation.

[TheDemonLord]

Technically, that should read impact speed. Road speed prior to incident will have a far weaker correlation.

Indeed - you are quite right!

[BlackSheepLogic]

Technically, that should read impact speed. Road speed prior to incident will have a far weaker correlation.

Also assumed engry. transferred in an single instance of time. If you have ever walked away and examined the aftermath you will find that that the total energy was absorbed by multiple impacts, tumbling, sliding, friction etc. The angle of impact makes a huge difference in the initial impact.

The 5th form model assumes both object collide and stop. Real world don't work that way. The rider survivability is NOT determined by speed alone, speed is a minor factor.

[TheDemonLord]

Also assumed engry. transferred in an single instance of time. If you have ever walked away and examined the aftermath you will find that that the total energy was absorbed by multiple impacts, tumbling, sliding, friction etc. The angle of impact makes a huge difference in the initial impact.

The 5th form model assumes both object collide and stop. Real world don't work that way. The rider survivability is NOT determined by speed alone, speed is a minor factor.

Okay.

All other factors being equal - a crash at higher speed results in significantly more energy - an impact speed difference of 10% can result in a total energy difference of 20% - this is because the relationship between speed and energy is that speed is Squared in the equation to calculate energy.

So this is to say if you had 2 cars that collided - everything was the same (the multiple impacts, the Tumbling, the sliding, angle of impact etc. was all the same) and the ONLY variable that was different was the impact speed, we find that a small increase in speed (10 kph more for example) results in a significant change in the amount of energy needing to be dissipated.

As a side note - in any collision (where it can be assumed that all objects come to complete stop) the total energy at the moment of impact needs to be dissipated - how it is dissipated can change drastically, but it still needs to be dissipated - doesn't matter if it is a full head on collision or just a paint trade.

Of course in the real world things are different - but what you appear to be arguing is all the what-ifs:

you may as well ask:

What if in the middle of the crash, one of the cars was abducted by Aliens - your calculation doesn't factor that in

[BlackSheepLogic]

So this is to say if you had 2 cars that collided - everything was the same (the multiple impacts, the Tumbling, the sliding, angle of impact etc. was all the same) and the ONLY variable that was different was the impact speed, we find that a small increase in speed (10 kph more for example) results in a significant change in the amount of energy needing to be dissipated.

Firstly we not dealing with cars, we dealing with a bike (i.e. a rider). Do you think my an extra 10ft slide would make any difference to my leathers? Did you know riders are killed sitting on their stationary bikes which fall?

There would be possible a small increase in death rate at a higher speed but it is not 10%, would not even be 1%, those killed at 110km/h on initial impact would almost certainly have been killed at 100km/h on initial impact - the rest begin a short trip down the road... Do you know what the dangers are to a rider who is separated from a bike on a busy highway? Think about a race track that should give you some clues.

Of course in the real world things are different - but what you appear to be arguing is all the what-ifs:

WTF, are we back to your 5th form physics book again?

[TheDemonLord]

Firstly we not dealing with cars, we dealing with a bike (i.e. a rider). Do you think my an extra 10ft slide would make any difference to my leathers? Did you know riders are killed sitting on their stationary bikes which fall?

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

An extra 10ft slide could easily make a difference, depending on the factors and environment

There would be possible a small increase in death rate at a higher speed but it is not 10%, would not even be 1%, those killed at 110km/h on initial impact would almost certainly have been killed at 100km/h on initial impact - the rest begin a short trip down the road... Do you know what the dangers are to a rider who is separated from a bike on a busy highway? Think about a race track that should give you some clues.

But as you attested earlier - its not just speed - Right? it depends on the angle of impact etc. etc. - you keep missing the wood for the trees that small changes in speed result in a bigger change in energy - energy which has to go somewhere - whether it is a slide down the road with little to no injuries, or straight into a brick wall for a fatal accident - All other factors being equal a higher speed means more energy

WTF, are we back to your 5th form physics book again?

We'll keep going back to it until you can grasp the principles of speed and energy, how they are related and how they play a part in impacts, once done we can move onto 6th form Physics to start working out impulse and momentum (which also have a key part to play in accidents)

[Tazz]

No, I think you are missing the point - Cars and Petrol are complimentary goods - you use one when you use the other, so it stands to reason that a change in one will have an effect on the other. To ram this point home - imagine that there is no petrol/diesal/LPG/electricity anywhere in NZ tomorrow (so none in anyones tank either) No one can drive - the road toll would be 0 for car and motorbike related fatalities. Changes to petrol (either the price, or supply) has a direct flow on effect to cars - this is not bullshit stats or statistics. Unless you are implying that the actual data sets are bullshit (however these were sourced from reputable sources)

Now to progress the discussion - do you concede that Petrol and how we drive have direct consequences on one another? or do you believe that in the thought experiment above, somehow people would still be able to drive?

If you concede that Petrol and driving are directly related - then we can confer that the correlation we see in the 2 datasets may be one of the many factors that increase/decrease the road toll. I will grant you at this point however that yes, more study would be needed to definitively prove an absolute causal link - to the point where further discussion would be needed as to whether it needs to be controlled to reduce the road toll - however I for one would not be in favour if this, even if a direct causal link was verified and peer-reviewed.

Cats on Herion and anything to do with cars are not complimentary, they are in no way related - I get the point you are attempting to make, but since the products are not related in anyway - I may dismiss your comparisson.

However I think your last sentance gives away your hand and spirited resistance - I am not in anyway advocating or suggesting that we should change fuel prices - only stating that it is a factor that based on the data above appears to have greater impact than the police speed tolerance.

The amount of traffic on the road does not cause accidents. People fucking up causes accidents whether it is an empty road, a nose to tail main highway or your spa pool after an aggressive curry. Period.
If there are more people on the road then yes there is more of a chance of an accident but not because there is more people per se, it is because there are just more fuckups.

Since it is thrown around so much lets take a quick nose at Sweden:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo...st-explains-16

I don't see high petrol prices mentioned there. Why? My guess is because their not dense or desperate enough to blame a myriad of other reasons for fuckups on the price of gas.

[p.dath]

Zero speed tolerance at its best.....

44 more roadkills then year before.....

whats next .?

Only people I like to see included in roadtoll is chief popo's...

mind you being braindead, almost same thing...
Happy new year....!

While it would be nice and comfortable to jump to the conclusion that the zero tolerance had such an impact on the road toll (because lets face it - its not a popular move) it may not be the actual cause. Someone really needs to take a look at each death and determine if it was related to driver concentration/fatigue, or some other issue (like alcohol).

[TheDemonLord]

If there are more people on the road then yes there is more of a chance of an accident but not because there is more people per se, it is because there are just more fuckups.

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

[Tazz]

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

Yeah, that people cause accidents, not the price of gas, and that there are many different factors that cause accidents. Hit the back button, I said that to start with along with how statistics are used to spread bullshit.

Example of bullshit?

Low petrol prices cause deaths.....

[BlackSheepLogic]

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

Unfortunately bikes are different to cars, they don't have cages around the riders to absorb impact.

A fuck up at 80km/h, 100km/h or 110km/h it's extremely serious, when your dealing with accident at those speeds the risk of death is very high and you would be hard pressed to show a meaningful real world example of where you walk away from one and would not have walked away from the other. In some cases the higher speed may have changed the dynamics and become survivable.

Unlike cars, a riders ability to absorb impact is very limited, the 100km/h vrs 110km/h has no real world influence on that. If you end up sliding down the road your survival is not dependent on 100km/h vrs 110km/h. It's the interaction of you and the road surface and how that energy is distributed. I'm much more concerned about being run over or my bike catching up with me that an extra 10ft slide.

The problem with text books is that the real world is full of dynamics yet to be introduced into your 5th form physics class. You need to construct real world scenarios where a rider would have survived had they been traveling at 100km/h vrs 110km/h. For each one of those scenarios your could construct a scenario where had they been traveling at the higher 110km/h they would have survived - not been run over or hit the road at a different angle, or missed an object etc.

My original point was that for a rider 100km/h vrs 110km/hwould make little difference to a riders outcome. Unfortunately once you are traveling at speed survivability for a rider depends on factors that have a much greater influence than the speed does.

The golden rule of speed on a motorcycle is "Can you stop in the distance you see to be clear". Traveling at 100km/h on a bike carries the same risk as traveling 110km/h on a bike in terms of rider outcome. Once your dead your dead.

If this is too much to take in so be it.

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah, that people cause accidents, not the price of gas, and that there are many different factors that cause accidents. Hit the back button, I said that to start with along with how statistics are used to spread bullshit.

And more people means more accidents and Cheaper fuel means more people on the road to cause more accidents - its a flow on effect, the inverse is also true restricted availibility of fuel means less people on the road, less people means less accidents.