Latest anti-speed ad

[Bass]

Cause like the difference between 100 and 110 is like gliding to a stop or smashing into a brick wall!

-Indy

Actually, unfortunately, there is some truth to this.
Kinetic energy (a fair measure of how much you smash yourself up when you hit) = half M times V squared.
i.e. it's proportional to the square of your speed.
Brakes tyres etc are closer to linear when it comes to disposing of Kinetic energy. What this means is that you have to ditch quite a bit more energy to lose 10 kph at 100 kph than you do to lose 10 kph at 50 kph, but your brakes can't allow for the difference.
To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40 (a lot more actually).
It also explains why your brakes appear to be more effective at lower speeds.
So it's sad but true that an extra 10 kph can make a disproportionate difference to how hard you hit.

[Dave Lobster]

As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

This all sounds too reasonable to ever happen.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the speed message is about money, not saving lives, or increasing driver ability.
It's too hard to prosecute people for bad driving/correct use of medians/et al. But it's easy to catch someone for speeding. It's easy to 'prove' to a judge/magistrate/etc.
There's money in speeding.

[MSTRS:Me]

It's about time "they" stopped preaching unbelievable propaganda at us and used our hard-earned tax for proper educational campaigns. The drink-driving ones are OK, as are those about taking breaks and taking care at intersections, but they're not addressing the basic problem, which is that we as a nation have an attitude problem - a laissez-faire attitude to driving, which means we don't treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

Exactly. Dropping speed may be effective, but it's only part of the problem. And a small part at that.

[Skyryder]

Hahahaha...'focus on the road and oncoming hazards'...hahahha...most road users struggle to stay focussed on a good nose-picking let alone anything else..

I think KB needs a nose picking 'icon' so we can practise staying focused on the real road problem. Speed camera's

Skyryder

[Mikkel]

Speed is bad, m'kay! Heroine on the other hand...

Raise the age at which you can get a license.
Instituate some basic drivers training.
Encourage people to think for themselves, only punish those who fail to do so.

How fucking hard can it be?

[oldrider]

If all drivers were as incompetent as their add program, we probably "would" all be dead. John.

[MSTRS:Me]

I think KB needs a nose picking 'icon' so we can practise staying focused on the real road problem. Speed camera's

Skyryder

But that's a Key part of (final) solution....

[scumdog]

The drink-driving ones are OK, as are those about taking breaks and taking care at intersections, but they're not addressing the basic problem, which is that we as a nation have an attitude problem - a laissez-faire attitude to driving, which means we don't treat it with the seriousness it deserves.
As others have said - if "they" are going to waffle on about speed, then it needs to be about appropriate speed. There are other things they could address: courtesy, following distances, hazard recognition, roundabouts, stopping (at stop signs, red AND orange lights), correct use of flush medians, speed in school zones and passing buses, speed while towing, avoiding distractions, what to do when your car skids, etc etc etc.

Dead right Mr V.man, New Zealand drivers are pathetic when it comes to their ability (inability?), mostly it's all about 'me' and feck the rest of youz.

And when pulled over and brought to task on their slack-arsed driving they tend to go "Whaaat? I wasn't doing any harm, nobody got hurt, I 'coulda' stopped/got back to my own side of the road (Unsert favourite bit of brainless driving here)"

Suggesting somebody can't drive well in NZ is like suggesting their sexual ability is dodgy, most don't take it well.

When dealing with such drivers and giving them $150 ticket for not staying on their side of the road (in various guises) their attitude at best is "Ah, it's only $150, that's fuck all, dunno why you stopped me" - funnily enough a few of those types are on 80 demerits or so (and the 20 more that go with the ticket that they didn't know about will for most will be just be enough........)

$150 vs the risk of a head-on, hardly a fair penalty eh??

[Indiana_Jones]

Actually, unfortunately, there is some truth to this.
Kinetic energy (a fair measure of how much you smash yourself up when you hit) = half M times V squared.
i.e. it's proportional to the square of your speed.
Brakes tyres etc are closer to linear when it comes to disposing of Kinetic energy. What this means is that you have to ditch quite a bit more energy to lose 10 kph at 100 kph than you do to lose 10 kph at 50 kph, but your brakes can't allow for the difference.
To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40 (a lot more actually).
It also explains why your brakes appear to be more effective at lower speeds.
So it's sad but true that an extra 10 kph can make a disproportionate difference to how hard you hit.

No agruement about the phyics of the situation, I just hate the ads saying 'If you go over 100 you WILL die'

-Indy

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

It was in the Pak'n'Sav carpark.....ain't that where EVERYBODY speeds??

I nearly got bold over in the Warehouse carpark the other day... which was lucky cause it would have caused a lot of hurt... it was due to speed and I had the right of way... but I had to stop because I could see that the twat hadn't seen me (or didn't want to see me) and the speed he was going wouldnt be able to stop if he wanted to anyway...

I friggin hate carparks

110kph? No reference to sort of road.
WHAT A CROCK OF SHIT!!!

same mess can be found if you are only doing 100kph to 109kph

[MaxB]

The LTNZ really has missed the point. Someone involved with the 'Falcon round a corner covered in land mines' ad told me that the road they filmed that was a 100km/h limit. At either end of the road were 2 hairpins where there had been accidents but they chose to film where a car could get above the speed limit (but where there had been no recorded accients).

There was a complaint to the ASA about that advert

203.152.114.11/decisions/07/07505.doc

A faceless moron from the LTSA quotes 120 speed deaths per year. What he forgets to mention is that these are in the 'wrong speed for the conditions' category not speeding over a limit which is more like 6% of fatalities.

Once again thay blur the difference between driving like a fuckwit (at any speed) and exceeding a speed limit, to suit their own purposes.

[Max Preload]

To put this another way, slowing from 100 to 90 requires the loss of more energy than slowing from 50 to 40.

Certainly, Ek=½mv². However, using that to attempt to claim that you cannot decelerate from 100km/h to 90km/h just as fast as 50km/h to 40km/h escapes me.

Last time I checked F=ma. Since mass (m) doesn't change and nor does (appreciably) the limit of grip available from the tyre and braking effort (F) which by your own admission is largely linear, acceleration can't vary within the context of Newton's Second Law.

There is someone on KB with a physics degree. Perhaps he can explain.

[MsKABC]

It was in the Pak'n'Sav carpark.....ain't that where EVERYBODY speeds??

Yeah, I know a woman who routinely drives at 80-90 kph on the open road and does about 40kph in carparks etc. She is a true menace - has backed into people's cars in carparks more than once, and even backed over a young sapling tree one day - she hit it and panicked so she planted her foot and ran right over the top of it

I suppose they have to use speeds like 110kph because technically that is speeding and they want to stop it. A speed like 130 would be more credible because it would be perceived to be "dangerous" by more people.

[Hitcher]

I just hate the ads saying 'If you go over 100 you WILL die'

I hate the ones that imply that if you're travelling in excess of 100kmh then you're a killer.

[johan]

It sounds like half the population back home should be wiped out by now. Max speed limit is 120kph and 4-5 months of driving in snow.