Annual road toll up 44

[veldthui]

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

Maybe/Maybe not.

If there was an accident going to happen at a certain spot and time in space at 100km/hr then doing 110km/hr means that it will not happen at all because the circumstances have changed. Same for the other way around.

It all if, butts and maybes.

[swbarnett]

Oh I agree, but impact is generally as a result of things going wrong... and impact is only one possible outcome of distraction. You can still suffer injury while surviving near misses (eg from seatbelt for example, banging your head against the side window while your mate struggles but eventually rights the car during a slide etc.)

All I meant was that the risk of injury is much lower if you pay attention. This is a far greater determinant of the outcome than the initial speed.

I was something that stated that an attentive driver at 80kph (in a 50 zone) was 100 times safer^* than a distracted one at 50.


^*i.e. had that many fewer accidents and when an accident did occur the impact speed was lower.


And in reply to your rep comment, yes, the same study did show a massive increase in carnage for the distracted driver at 80.

[dangerous]

hey heres something... if two oncoming cars each traveling at 200kph stay on there side of the road they do so with out crashing...
If the same to cars travel at 2kph but one crosses the line to the other side of the road... they will and do crash

As pointed out within the story, the majority of crashes were within the speed limit so you are barking up the same old worn out tree.

and there we have it... but ofcourse the crash showen on the news tonight was speed related... I find that odd

[Edbear]

Congratulations on having the courage to admit that, now we can work on correcting your condition.... actually the mitsi page was interesting after a google search, but still no mention of battery cost.
Covered by warranty if needed.... but what happens to the poor sap who buys the wagon three years later. bet like many oem parts they will be model specific and costly....
Seems counter intuitive you use the aircon to cool the battery down if it gets too hot....

Just went from 2.5L v6 to a 3.5L v6 by same engine maker, very little difference in fuel economy if driven properly

The only attraction for me was the probable $500 per month fuel saving based on my normal tripping, (!), around. That the Outlander was also comfortable and nice to drive was a pleasant bonus.

It uses LiFePO4 batteries, too...

My considerations on it were purely selfish as I would be unlikely to keep it long enough to need to replace the battery pack. Meantime while I continue to ponder, the Kizashi keeps proving I made the right choice when I bought it.

[Katman]

I had the misfortune to have to follow a distinguished middle-aged driver in a Bentley GT and he was hopeless at all driving skills like keeping in lane, consistent speed, etc. He wasn't even talking on the phone.

But did he crash Ed?

If not, it may well indicate that he's somewhat more capable than you are.

[Edbear]

But did he crash Ed?

If not, it may well indicate that he's somewhat more capable than you are.

Typical of your bias and selective memory to so conveniently forget that the Serious Crash Unit said neither I nor my van was to blame and that I was complimented on being able to avoid other traffic in the conditions. I could have taken out at least a couple of other cars were it not for my reactions.

So, yeah, I guess he must be a really good driver after all.

[MisterD]

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.

Yes yes yes, Sweden have found a bunch of ways to reduce the number of accidents on their roads, which include being much better drivers than Kiwis on average.

The point is that if we make an assumption (and I think a relatively fair one) that we have a reasonably constant number of fatals per car.kilometer, then if we have more cars on the road because of lower fuel prices, we get a proportional increase in the number of fatals.

That's probably simplistic because over the Xmas period people are likely to be tired because they're driving further than they're used to, more likely to be alcohol impaired...etc etc...which would likely magnify the effect, but the fact remains that more cars travelling more kilometers must inevitably mean more accidents and if you don't think that lower fuel prices leads to more cars on the road travelling more k's then, um...

[p.dath]

Okay so you want examples:

a Rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a combination of cracking 3 ribs, shattered wrist and sliding along the road
Same scenario run at 110 kph, all other factors about the fall are the same, except now the 20% increase in energy causes a punctured lung, 4 cracked ribs, a shattered wrist and ruptured Ulnar artery and sliding along the road - the Rider bleeds to death before the ambulance could arrive.

A rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a slide of 50 m (from the ADAC leather slide test), Rider gets up, dusts himself off and walks away
A rider falls off at 110 kph - all other factors are the same, but the 20% increase in energy means he slides for an extra 10 meters - into the oncoming lane and underneath a truck - Dead.

I could keep going - but the stark reality is - at the start of the crash, Energy has to go somewhere, and an increase initially energy means more has to be done to dissipate it and all other factors being equal, that 20% increase in energy could be the difference between life and death.

Your examples make it sound black and white and applying simple school yard e=(1/2)mv^2 does not take into account the complex dynamics of an accident. You are assuming that all of the extra energy is being dissipated into the rider. I don't know about you, but of the combined bike+rider weight, I make up the much smaller proportion, and if my body separates from the bike during the accident then the bike is able to dissipate a much larger chunk of the energy due to its weight.

Also a lot of energy will be dissipated through friction, both through the bike sliding itself, and through my safety gear scraping on the road surface.

It is also likely some energy will be dissipated through rotation ( e=(1/2)mv^2 is really only suitable for straight line motions).

Then there is the impact (if there even is one). When the rider comes to a sudden stop against something solid. The whole point of safety gear like helmets is to spread the energy around the helmet and into the protective inner material - and not to transmit it directly into the riders head. Ditto with boots, back protectors, etc.

Lets take the extreme case of the rider dieing at 100km/h. An increase in speed at the start of the accident is not going to make the outcome any less worse.

Just as you claim that an increase in speed could cause a rider to slide into the path of an oncoming truck the same argument could be made about it allowing the rider to slide out of the path of an oncoming truck.


The impact of greater speed to a rider during an accident depends a lot on the type of accident the rider has, and it would be an error to assume that an increase of 10Km/h in the riders speed at the start of the impact would have any difference in the outcome of the severity of any injuries.

[TheDemonLord]

Your examples make it sound black and white and applying simple school yard e=(1/2)mv^2 does not take into account the complex dynamics of an accident. You are assuming that all of the extra energy is being dissipated into the rider. I don't know about you, but of the combined bike+rider weight, I make up the much smaller proportion, and if my body separates from the bike during the accident then the bike is able to dissipate a much larger chunk of the energy due to its weight.

Also a lot of energy will be dissipated through friction, both through the bike sliding itself, and through my safety gear scraping on the road surface.

It is also likely some energy will be dissipated through rotation ( e=(1/2)mv^2 is really only suitable for straight line motions).

Then there is the impact (if there even is one). When the rider comes to a sudden stop against something solid. The whole point of safety gear like helmets is to spread the energy around the helmet and into the protective inner material - and not to transmit it directly into the riders head. Ditto with boots, back protectors, etc.

Lets take the extreme case of the rider dieing at 100km/h. An increase in speed at the start of the accident is not going to make the outcome any less worse.

Just as you claim that an increase in speed could cause a rider to slide into the path of an oncoming truck the same argument could be made about it allowing the rider to slide out of the path of an oncoming truck.


The impact of greater speed to a rider during an accident depends a lot on the type of accident the rider has, and it would be an error to assume that an increase of 10Km/h in the riders speed at the start of the impact would have any difference in the outcome of the severity of any injuries.

Hence why I used the Caveat of all other factors being equal - the point I was demonstrating was that a small increase in speed could be the difference between surviving an accident and not - of course I have had to use some gross simplifications (it is impossible to have 2 crashes exactly the same)

[bogan]

Typical of your bias and selective memory to so conveniently forget that the Serious Crash Unit said neither I nor my van was to blame and that I was complimented on being able to avoid other traffic in the conditions. I could have taken out at least a couple of other cars were it not for my reactions.

So, yeah, I guess he must be a really good driver after all.

So it was an act of God then?

He must not like you very much...

[unstuck]

So it was an act of God then?

Everything is an act of God.

[dangerous]

Everything is an act of God.

God has a lot to answer for then... why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

[unstuck]

why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

Tis a myth, plenty of good old buggers around.

[Moi]

Tis a myth, plenty of good old buggers around.

There's at least one in Gorrrrrrrrrrre...

[Edbear]

God has a lot to answer for then... why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

Life is uncertain at best and it's obvious that if He prevented one tragedy He would have to prevent them all and everyone knows what that would mean. It's a case of hands on or hands off. What would everyone prefer?

Off topic here though.