UK Karting - Notice Board (Chat) : Re: Death by speeding

Notice Board (Chat)

Re: Death by speeding
Posted by 'ChrisAdams' on 12 Apr 2009 @ 17:52

| View Message Thread | Reply to this message |

ChrisAdamsJoined: August 2001
Total Posts: 1
[ View User Profile ]

Dan,

I have quibbles with some of the arguments with regars the cause of accidents, but shall come to that later on!

My focus was on the amazing statements that some people were making that speed does not kill! Rather than just turn around and say 'well I think speed DOES infact kill', I decided to put some physics theory to it to prove the point!

Applying my theory to your three facts:

1: The girl (victim) was in the middle of the road, where cars are meant to be;

This is not really a question that theory can be applied to, well, not unless you know where she was standing in the road, how wide that road was, what her reaction times are, how fast she can move and further information with regards to when she would have come into sight of the policeman driving the car.

I see your point however, ideally she should not have been there! However kids run out in the road, cats, dogs, teenagers that are listening to their ipods, people under the influence of alcohol, people that are late for an appointment or work... etc... these things DO happen!

I can remember in my stages of learning to drive this little thing called 'Hazzard Perception'! This included looking out for people that COULD venture into my path whilst driving! This I HAD to pass before I was given a licence! As a driver you should always expect the unexpected.

Yes ideally she should not have been standing where she was at the time, however there is NOT a law (unless I am very much mistaken) to say that she (or anyone else come to that) was NOT allowed to cross the road. Therefore drivers have to take into account in order to PASS their DRIVING TEST! Let alone being qualified to drive 'quickly but safely'.

2: The speed limit IS already 30Mph and the vehicle was travelling at (as you say) over three times the limit;

Right, point taken - as you mention - I stated it! Not quite sure where you are going with this as I have already applied my theory to it! I will re-itterate what I have already said:

"F=ma or E=1/2m.c^2, the higher the deceleration (stopping from a high velocity to zero in a short amount of time), the higher the force applied to the 'body' that is decelerating the object (car, bike, boat, plane, whatever!); and the energy to be absorbed by the human body is proportional to the square of the velocity! Human bodies dont take too kindly to large forces being applied to them, or having to absorb huge amounts of energy come to that"

The FASTER a vehicle is travelling, when that moving body comes into contact with another body (be it a human body, wall, tree, fence, another car...), the MORE energy is abosorbed by a body, and the larger the forces applied to the body. Thus one reason the speed limit is set at 30 mph, not 90 mph because the injuries that a body is going to sustain IF it is hit at 30 mph are LESS severe than at a higher speed.

This is not even taking into acound reaction times of A) The driver, and B) the body (should the body be a human body, driver of another car or indeed any body that is able to react to a vehicle heading towards it at speed), a point that I will come to with your next question!

3: The car was driven by a person employed and trained to regularly drive over the posted speed limits in the pursuit of his job?

Your right! He was trained to make an assessment with regards how fast he was able to drive over the posted limit. However he got this one HORRIBLY wrong! Any 30mph speed limit is set for a reason, I can understand that the authorities have to exceed posted limits at times, however he was a human being and whether it was as simple as an error of judgement, or whether it was complete neglect for the speed limits and those around him, only he can truelly tell us!

His traning should have included facts (as were talking about them!) that whilst travelling at 90mph in a 30mph limit he will be travelling ~27 metres FURTHER in one second than he would have been if he had been travelling at the posted speed limit. Taking into accound human reactions, that do NOT increase with the velocity of the car! He will travel further while having to react (as would the victim in this case).Then taking into accound the stopping distances the car is capable of; the faster the car is going, the further it is going to take the car to stop (or slow down sufficiently enough to avoid the hazzard!). This reduces the time avaliable the A) the driver can avoid the hazzard, and B) the hazzard can remove themselfs from the line of fire!

With regards the following:

"What some of us here are doing is attempt to shift the focus of attention from what reduces the outcome of the accident to WHAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE"

Your right! The problem is that there will be SEVERAL contributing factors to an accident. To name but a few: speed, hazzards, weather conditions, state of mind of the driver, state of mind (in this case) of the victim, condition of the cars breaks, condition of the cars tyres, visability..... etc! It is neigh on IMPOSSIBLE to nail down one area and say 'that was the reason for the accident' (although I would say that in this situation speed WAS one of the major contributing factors). Everyone will have their own interpretation of the events that occured and blame will be placed incorrectly.

On the other hand I CAN turn around and say the REASON that the victim died was because of the SPEED she was hit at! If she had been hit at 15mph (if travelling at the speed limit this is a reasonable number to assume after breaking) then she would have had a FAR greater chance of surviving.

"We would rather that we reduce the number of accidents (and that of the victims with it)than simply deal with their unwanted outcomes.
Wouldn't you agree that to be a better alternative?"

I agree TOTALLY! On paper that sounds like the ideal solution! Blimy why did I not think about trying to eliminate accidents? What a plonker I am!

The problem with this solution I see is HOW exactly to achieve it? As long as there are cars on the road accidents are GOING to occur! Therefore the best solution would be nobody drive anywhere! Problem solved! However this is unrealistic as we are never going to get people to stop people driving from A to B, people depend upon it, businesses depend upon it, the whole world (in reality) revolves around transportation in one way, shape or form.

If we could instead get the severity of the accidents down to say scuffs and dents to the cars (a little optimistic I admit) then how the accients occur, or how frequently they occur would not matter quite so much! By FAR the most effective, practical and enforable method would be reducing the speed of the cars to a sensible level! That includes drivers trained or untrained motoring at three times the posted speed limit.

I would rather 100, 1000, 1000000 cases of (for example) broken arms or legs (less servere injuries anyhow) due to an accident than any one single death. Wouldn't you?

Does this answer your questions?

Regards

Chris Adams

Message Thread:

Death by speeding by 'itpro' (08 Apr 2009 @ 19:50)

Re: Death by speeding by 'QuickOldTimer' (08 Apr 2009 @ 20:32)

Re: Death by speeding by 'QuickOldTimer' (08 Apr 2009 @ 21:05)

Re: Death by speeding by 'Stig' (08 Apr 2009 @ 22:30)

Re: Death by speeding by 'itpro' (09 Apr 2009 @ 0:39)

Re: Death by speeding by 'QuickOldTimer' (09 Apr 2009 @ 7:17)

Re: Death by speeding by 'itpro' (09 Apr 2009 @ 11:10)

Re: Death by speeding by 'QuickOldTimer' (09 Apr 2009 @ 12:33)

Re: Death by speeding by 'alanrr' (09 Apr 2009 @ 15:16)

Re: Death by speeding by 'ChrisAdams' (11 Apr 2009 @ 2:35)

Re: Death by speeding by 'ChrisAdams' (11 Apr 2009 @ 2:40)

Re: Death by speeding by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (12 Apr 2009 @ 9:00)

Re: Death by speeding by 'ChrisAdams' << You are here!

Re: Death by speeding by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (12 Apr 2009 @ 21:10)

Re: Death by speeding by 'ChrisAdams' (12 Apr 2009 @ 23:48)

Re: Death by speeding by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (13 Apr 2009 @ 8:43)

Re: Death by speeding by 'ChrisAdams' (13 Apr 2009 @ 13:03)

Re: Death by speeding by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (08 Apr 2009 @ 22:32)

No, Dan by 'itpro' (09 Apr 2009 @ 0:53)

The Video by 'itpro' (09 Apr 2009 @ 1:27)

Re: The Video by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (09 Apr 2009 @ 7:35)

Re: The Video by 'MattScott' (09 Apr 2009 @ 8:49)

Matt by 'itpro' (09 Apr 2009 @ 12:25)

Re: Matt by 'itpro' (09 Apr 2009 @ 12:30)

Re: Matt by 'JRed' (09 Apr 2009 @ 12:51)

Re: Matt by 'DanTheK1RaceGearMan' (09 Apr 2009 @ 13:06)

Ian is right.. by 'vic' (09 Apr 2009 @ 8:57)

I don't normally get involved in this subject by 'alanrr' (09 Apr 2009 @ 13:45)

Re: I don't normally get involved in this subject by 'JRed' (09 Apr 2009 @ 14:14)

Re:This is totally irrelevant to the subject by 'JohnClucas' (09 Apr 2009 @ 16:46)

someones daughter,someones sister,someones.... by 'Avago' (09 Apr 2009 @ 17:21)

Re: someones daughter,someones sister,someones.... by 'JohnClucas' (09 Apr 2009 @ 19:18)

Re: someones daughter,someones sister,someones.... by 'Avago' (09 Apr 2009 @ 21:53)

Re: Avago.... by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 7:27)

Re: Avago.... by 'Avago' (10 Apr 2009 @ 18:16)

Re: Avago.... by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 19:34)

Re: Avago.... by 'Avago' (10 Apr 2009 @ 20:04)

Re: for goodness sake Avago by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 20:53)

Re: someones daughter,someones sister,someones.... by 'TanglerTKM' (09 Apr 2009 @ 23:07)

Re: someones daughter,someones sister,someones.... by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 7:19)

Re: someones daughter,someones sister,someones.... by 'TanglerTKM' (10 Apr 2009 @ 21:35)

Re:just answer the question by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 22:05)

Re:just answer the question by 'TanglerTKM' (11 Apr 2009 @ 0:30)

Re:So here are the (impallable) facts, by 'JohnClucas' (11 Apr 2009 @ 19:19)

Re:Or as I meant to say unpalatable, now you know by 'JohnClucas' (11 Apr 2009 @ 20:42)

Re:Or as I meant to say unpalatable, now you know by 'TanglerTKM' (11 Apr 2009 @ 23:04)

Another interesting Statistic... by 'QuickOldTimer' (11 Apr 2009 @ 23:47)

Re: Another interesting Statistic... by 'JohnClucas' (13 Apr 2009 @ 9:07)

Re:Nothing sketchy by 'JohnClucas' (12 Apr 2009 @ 12:32)

Re: Ian is right.. by '89cc' (09 Apr 2009 @ 18:00)

Re: Ian is right... in what way? by 'JohnClucas' (09 Apr 2009 @ 19:14)

Re: Ian is right... in what way? by '89cc' (09 Apr 2009 @ 20:07)

Re: So are you saying? by 'JohnClucas' (09 Apr 2009 @ 20:14)

Re: So are you saying? by '89cc' (09 Apr 2009 @ 20:51)

Re: So are you saying? by 'JohnClucas' (09 Apr 2009 @ 21:11)

Re: So are you saying? by '89cc' (09 Apr 2009 @ 21:33)

Re: So are you saying? by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 11:14)

Re: Ian is right... in what way? by 'Farrang' (10 Apr 2009 @ 20:21)

Re: Ian is right... in what way? by '89cc' (10 Apr 2009 @ 20:33)

Re: I think we are all agreed on that 89cc by 'JohnClucas' (10 Apr 2009 @ 20:44)

Post a Reply:

You may post a direct reply to this message which will appear in this thread.
To post a new or unrelated message use This Form. Top of Page
Notice Board Index

[ UK Karting Main Index ]


News	Karts & Karting	Notice Board	Market Place	Companies Directory	Tracks Directory	Events Calendar	Race Results	Photo Gallery	Links