Good money maker today
Discussion
hora said:
Good money maker today
How is it making money?
If everyone is driving at 30 then its a drain on the local taxpayers.
If they 'catch' 6 people in that day- the costs of vehicle insurance, calibration, wages for the day, H&S costs etc will still mean a drain on the local taxpayers who pay to fund said safety cams.
The losers will be the taxpayers/resident of the area you sped through.
Good post. The people who drip and whinge about speed cameras just don't think these things through.How is it making money?
If everyone is driving at 30 then its a drain on the local taxpayers.
If they 'catch' 6 people in that day- the costs of vehicle insurance, calibration, wages for the day, H&S costs etc will still mean a drain on the local taxpayers who pay to fund said safety cams.
The losers will be the taxpayers/resident of the area you sped through.
Devil2575 said:
Still banging this drum I see.
You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
Well, are you going to prove me wrong then, or are you going to simply continue to shout me down?You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
I'm not forcing you to read my comments.
Phatboy317 said:
Devil2575 said:
Still banging this drum I see.
You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
Well, are you going to prove me wrong then, or are you going to simply continue to shout me down?You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
I'm not forcing you to read my comments.
The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
Devil2575 said:
Phatboy317 said:
Devil2575 said:
Still banging this drum I see.
You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
Well, are you going to prove me wrong then, or are you going to simply continue to shout me down?You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
I'm not forcing you to read my comments.
The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
WinstonWolf said:
Devil2575 said:
Phatboy317 said:
Devil2575 said:
Still banging this drum I see.
You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
Well, are you going to prove me wrong then, or are you going to simply continue to shout me down?You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
I'm not forcing you to read my comments.
The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
No, you probably wont.
This is the "lets all go faster because we'll be past the point where the accident occurs before the other car/pedestrian etc gets there" argument. It doesn't work.
I could equally argue that you'd collide with a child that you'd otherwise have missed if you'd been going slower and not reached that point by the time the child crossed.
Devil2575 said:
I'm not shouting.
The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
Maybe, maybe not.The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
If no braking takes place then yes, definitely.
If braking takes place then it depends on exactly how long you've had your foot on the brake.
There doesn't exist a monotonic relationship between travelling speed and impact speed.
Devil2575 said:
Oh god, another one...
No, you probably wont.
This is the "lets all go faster because we'll be past the point where the accident occurs before the other car/pedestrian etc gets there" argument. It doesn't work.
I could equally argue that you'd collide with a child that you'd otherwise have missed if you'd been going slower and not reached that point by the time the child crossed.
Any different speed, faster or slower, because where you are at any point in time depends on your speed up to that point.No, you probably wont.
This is the "lets all go faster because we'll be past the point where the accident occurs before the other car/pedestrian etc gets there" argument. It doesn't work.
I could equally argue that you'd collide with a child that you'd otherwise have missed if you'd been going slower and not reached that point by the time the child crossed.
But it's meaningless anyway, because you don't get to rewind time and try again at a different speed.
Devil2575 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Devil2575 said:
Phatboy317 said:
Devil2575 said:
Still banging this drum I see.
You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
Well, are you going to prove me wrong then, or are you going to simply continue to shout me down?You seem to have found yourself in disagreement with physics. Not a good place to be, unless you're pedalling psuedoscience that it.
I'm not forcing you to read my comments.
The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
No, you probably wont.
This is the "lets all go faster because we'll be past the point where the accident occurs before the other car/pedestrian etc gets there" argument. It doesn't work.
I could equally argue that you'd collide with a child that you'd otherwise have missed if you'd been going slower and not reached that point by the time the child crossed.
Phatboy317 said:
Any different speed, faster or slower, because where you are at any point in time depends on your speed up to that point.
But it's meaningless anyway, because you don't get to rewind time and try again at a different speed.
No but if you were travelling slower you'd stand a far better chance of either avoiding or minimising the impact.But it's meaningless anyway, because you don't get to rewind time and try again at a different speed.
You can argue that if I go twice as fast along a road then I will only come into contact with half the number of incidents because i'm on the road for half as long. However far more of those incidents are going to lead to KSIs than if you were travelling at half the speed.
Phatboy317 said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm not shouting.
The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
Maybe, maybe not.The point about speed and the relationship to kinetic energy and hence braking distance is valid. If you are travelling at 35 mph and a child runs out you will hit it at a higher speed than if you had been travelling at 30 mph.
If no braking takes place then yes, definitely.
If braking takes place then it depends on exactly how long you've had your foot on the brake.
There doesn't exist a monotonic relationship between travelling speed and impact speed.
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:
It's physics and it most definitely does work...
No it doesn't.I went through this at length with Phatboy a while back.
If you consider an object that randomly appears in the road then the relationship between speed and likelihood of impact is squared. However you can counter this by saying that you are on the road for less time and the time is inversely proportional to your speed. So combining the two factors you come out with a roughly linear relationship between speed travelled and likelihood of hitting an object that randomly appears in the road. However this infers no connection between you and where and when the object appears. Other cars and pedestrians are not objects that randomly appear and their behaviour is going to be in many cases influenced by yours. It also doesn't consider that the car travelling faster will on average be going faster when it strikes the object in the road, so do more damage.
So a car going 60 mph can hit an object at any speed up to 60 mph. A car doing 30 mph can hit an object at any speed up to 30 mph. If a pedestrian survives at speeds at or below 20 mph then you have a much smaller window in which you will kill someone you hit when going at the lower speed.
Devil2575 said:
WinstonWolf said:
It's physics and it most definitely does work...
No it doesn't.I went through this at length with Phatboy a while back.
If you consider an object that randomly appears in the road then the relationship between speed and likelihood of impact is squared. However you can counter this by saying that you are on the road for less time and the time is inversely proportional to your speed. So combining the two factors you come out with a roughly linear relationship between speed travelled and likelihood of hitting an object that randomly appears in the road. However this infers no connection between you and where and when the object appears. Other cars and pedestrians are not objects that randomly appear and their behaviour is going to be in many cases influenced by yours. It also doesn't consider that the car travelling faster will on average be going faster when it strikes the object in the road, so do more damage.
So a car going 60 mph can hit an object at any speed up to 60 mph. A car doing 30 mph can hit an object at any speed up to 30 mph. If a pedestrian survives at speeds at or below 20 mph then you have a much smaller window in which you will kill someone you hit when going at the lower speed.
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.
Is the point you're making that if you hit a kid doing 80mph in a 20 zone, had you been doing 100 you would have missed the kid because you would have passed him before he ran out!If so, it's an old gag and not meant to be a serious advice on road safety.
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.
The point isn't about one event in one time / place, it's about what happens when the event occurs at 35 MPH, and what the probable consequences are of the extra energy vs the event at 30 MPH. La Liga 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.
The point isn't about one event in one time / place, it's about what happens when the event occurs at 35 MPH, and what the probable consequences are of the extra energy vs the event at 30 MPH. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff