Good money maker today
Discussion
WinstonWolf said:
You must have got it wrong then too. If you change the speed of the vehicle and not the pedestrian they will be at different points in time and the collision will not occur.
Which simply brings the car into contact with the other pedestrian, the one it would have missed if it had been going at 30mphsinglecoil said:
WinstonWolf said:
You must have got it wrong then too. If you change the speed of the vehicle and not the pedestrian they will be at different points in time and the collision will not occur.
Which simply brings the car into contact with the other pedestrian, the one it would have missed if it had been going at 30mphWinstonWolf said:
You must have got it wrong then too. If you change the speed of the vehicle and not the pedestrian they will be at different points in time and the collision will not occur.
You are not understanding the point.I could equally say that had I dropped my keys on the way to the car and had to pause to pick them up i'd also not be at that point. Or if my alarm clock hadn't gone off and i'd slept in etc.
You are talking about the randomness of accidents. Any number of random, independent variables have to fall into line for an two people to come together at the same time on the same stretch of road.
The point is that the faster you are driving the higher the probability that you will hit someone or something.
You can't predict individual events because they are essentially random, but you can determine the probability of an event and hence the number of such events that will occur in a large data set.
WinstonWolf said:
It is, because if you travel at a different speed the two objects will never meet. Should you hit a different child at this other point in time then yes, the forces of the additional 2.2M/s would be different.
Can you try submitting your posts a few seconds later? That way we'll presumably miss them completely.Devil2575 said:
WinstonWolf said:
You must have got it wrong then too. If you change the speed of the vehicle and not the pedestrian they will be at different points in time and the collision will not occur.
You are not understanding the point.I could equally say that had I dropped my keys on the way to the car and had to pause to pick them up i'd also not be at that point. Or if my alarm clock hadn't gone off and i'd slept in etc.
You are talking about the randomness of accidents. Any number of random, independent variables have to fall into line for an two people to come together at the same time on the same stretch of road.
The point is that the faster you are driving the higher the probability that you will hit someone or something.
You can't predict individual events because they are essentially random, but you can determine the probability of an event and hence the number of such events that will occur in a large data set.
WinstonWolf said:
Should you hit a different child at this other point in time then yes, the forces of the additional 2.2M/s would be different.
Which is the point. It's about what happens when the event occurs. In what world is it a counter-argument to discuss the nature of collisions at certain speeds using one scenario, and where the car may be relative to one point in time?
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Should you hit a different child at this other point in time then yes, the forces of the additional 2.2M/s would be different.
Which is the point. It's about what happens when the event occurs. In what world is it a counter-argument to discuss the nature of collisions at certain speeds using one scenario and where the car may be relative to one point in time?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Point missed....again!
We are talking about the same incident. If the child runs out when you are doing 30, and you brake hard and miss the kid by a millimetre, you would have hit the child at 18mph had you been doing 35. Same incident, same car, same everything, just a different initial speed.
It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.....for most.
I'm afraid it's too simple for me as it seems to presume no attempt to match speed to conditions and vision. Yes, of course if you barrel along as a 35mph bowling ball then you will hit all of the children that you would have just missed at 30. But how helpful is that to the challenge of driving a car without hitting children? After all, the solution to 35mph bowling balls is not to turn them into to 30mph bowling balls. 30mph bowling balls will hit children too.We are talking about the same incident. If the child runs out when you are doing 30, and you brake hard and miss the kid by a millimetre, you would have hit the child at 18mph had you been doing 35. Same incident, same car, same everything, just a different initial speed.
It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.....for most.
WinstonWolf said:
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Should you hit a different child at this other point in time then yes, the forces of the additional 2.2M/s would be different.
Which is the point. It's about what happens when the event occurs. In what world is it a counter-argument to discuss the nature of collisions at certain speeds using one scenario and where the car may be relative to one point in time?
It's not based around one scenario in time where different speeds mean the vehicle is at difference places relative to the child at one point in time.
What use would that have in discussing road safety and assessing collision speeds / harm?
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Should you hit a different child at this other point in time then yes, the forces of the additional 2.2M/s would be different.
Which is the point. It's about what happens when the event occurs. In what world is it a counter-argument to discuss the nature of collisions at certain speeds using one scenario and where the car may be relative to one point in time?
It's not based around one scenario in time where different speeds mean the vehicle is at difference places relative to the child at one point in time.
What use would that have in discussing road safety and assessing collision speeds / harm?
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Are you saying you can measure safety in MPH? It it better to avoid a collision than to have one at a safe speed...
I'm saying nothing beyond you missing the point and being deliberately obtuse. WinstonWolf said:
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Are you saying you can measure safety in MPH? It it better to avoid a collision than to have one at a safe speed...
I'm saying nothing beyond you missing the point and being deliberately obtuse. LoonR1 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Have you seen the pathetic arguing over 1MPH earlier in the thread???
That has nothing to do with the safety argument. It is about the prosecution threshold. That should be obvious to even the most stubborn of people. SK425 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Point missed....again!
We are talking about the same incident. If the child runs out when you are doing 30, and you brake hard and miss the kid by a millimetre, you would have hit the child at 18mph had you been doing 35. Same incident, same car, same everything, just a different initial speed.
It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.....for most.
I'm afraid it's too simple for me as it seems to presume no attempt to match speed to conditions and vision. Yes, of course if you barrel along as a 35mph bowling ball then you will hit all of the children that you would have just missed at 30. But how helpful is that to the challenge of driving a car without hitting children? After all, the solution to 35mph bowling balls is not to turn them into to 30mph bowling balls. 30mph bowling balls will hit children too.We are talking about the same incident. If the child runs out when you are doing 30, and you brake hard and miss the kid by a millimetre, you would have hit the child at 18mph had you been doing 35. Same incident, same car, same everything, just a different initial speed.
It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.....for most.
Most people are unaware that an increase in the initial speed from 30 to 35 results in you doing 18mph at the point in the road you would have stopped had you been doing 30. And that I think is worth pointing out.
That is all. Nothing more than that. If you don't think it's helpful, then try your hardest to forget you know it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff