OT: Speeding yobs!

[Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)]

But how many have you seen? :-)

[Pete C]

Hmm, wonder what Huge is like behind the wheel...

cheers, Pete.

[Jerry.]

As the saying goes, "I've been driving for 'n' number of years and have never had an accident, but I've seen many in my rear view mirror".....

[Huge]

[29 lines snipped]

Sorry, wrong again. You are confusing mean free speed with impact speed.

[Mary Fisher]

You have to consider the closing speed of at least two vehicles - and the effect on their contents (people).

Mary

>

[Huge]

Indeed. But you'll find that drivers generally do not drive into one another without braking.

"Speed Kills" is simplistic tosh, jammed down the throats of the public by politicians with ulterior motives.

[usenet]

You also have to consider how likely they are to hit each other.

My point earlier was that if one is (say) ten times less likely to have an accident at 90mph than at 30mph because one concentrates much harder at 90mph than at 30mph, then if injuries are ten times less at

30mph than 90mph, speed *doesn't* kill.

I know there are *lots* of assumptions there, I'm not arguing the detail, just the principle that increasing speed *may* not be a bad thing at certain places and times.

[Bob]

I don't recall specifying mentioning either of those terms, so how could I have confused them?

In any case the two are closely related - impact speed is likely to be higher if you were driving faster (duh!)

And in my experience, the landscape is usually stationary, so if you hit that, your speed will be a major factor is how mangled everything ends up.

Bob

[Bob]

The major assumption being that you are less likely to have an accident at a higher speed - which is wrong.

You are less likely to have a crash on a motorway, but it's not because you are going faster, but because of the layout of the road - ie no cross or oncoming traffic.

Bob

[IMM]

Speed kills in inappropriate conditions. That is very simple.

[Huge]

[29 lines snipped]

Sorry, but moving goalposts are not a valid means of transportation. Or argument.

[Mary Fisher]

That's an interesting concept.

Which politicians and what are their ulterior motives?

Mary

>

[usenet]

No it isn't, at least I don't think so (I'm open to arguments about this). I argued this earlier, most people will concentrate more when driving faster and thus they *are* less likely to have an accident at high speed than when dawdling along at a low speed.

[usenet]

A bit like you really.

[Huge]

All of them, and they vary. "Safety Camera" (an outright lie if there ever was, they are no such thing) Partnerships are interested in making sure that they have continued employment and getting as much money as possible. Of course, more important politicos are interested in the money too, but many of them want us out of our cars. The Greens because they want to "return" to some imaginary bucolic paradise of the past (did you know more people were killed on the roads *before* cars were invented?). Politicians of the Left seem to be mostly anti-car; I'm not entirely sure, but I suspect it's partly because of their desire for everyone to be dependent on the State for everything, including transport. After all, Ghod forbid that people should be able to go wherever and whenever they like. In many cases, they believe their own propoganda, and there's always the standard politicians fall-back; "Something must be done, this is something, therefore we will do it."

Anyhow, have a look at;

[Bob]

You are less likely to be able to avoid someone else doing something stupid, because you won't have as long to avoid them - that's just physics.

Bob

[Bob]

I did't move anything. The motorway comment is related to an earlier post where he related his own accident history, and suggested that the fact he'd had none on a motorway (despite driving as much on those as on other roads) was an idication that driving fast is better.

Bob

[Peter Twydell]

In article , IMM writes

Even simpler is that inattention, carelessness and general ineptitude kill in any circumstances.

[Bob]

I still maintain that higher speeds are more dangerous than lower ones. But that doesn't mean I think that a higher speed limit would be unjustified in certain places (e.g on motorways) - it's just a matter of what level constitutes an acceptable risk.

Bob

[Huge]

[42 lines snipped]

Ta-da. Give this man a cee-gar.