Good money maker today
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Loon, you're not calling me stubborn are you?
I was being polite. I know I'm stubborn too, but there are times when it's valid and times when it's not. Oh yeah, I forgot the classic phrase.
"this year 100s of men will die from being stubborn"
"No we won't"
True dat...This is PH, pedanticism matters. Besides, it passes an otherwise boring day.
WinstonWolf said:
That is precisely the point, as soon as you change any one factor the incident won't happen. Speed it up OR slow it down and the timeline is altered.
Yes, you are right that incident won't happen. You could say that if everyone sped up by 5 mph then they will avoid all the incidents that would have happened had they been travelling at 30 mph. The problem is that there will an even greater number of incidents at 35 mph instead.Incidents are going to happen no matter what and you can't predict them because they are affected by random stuff like whether I bumped into my neighbour and had a chat on my way to the car or whether it was raining so I ran to the car rather than walking. What you can do is influence your ability to prevent or minimise the effect of an incident when one occurs.
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...
The issue is that it's chance that you avoid an incident. Whether you set off 5 minutes earlier or later and so don't meet the other road user you would have come into conflict with is pourely the luck of the draw. You cannot influence it so you haven't avoided the collision, it simply didn't occur. The speed you are travelling and hence your ability to stop or take avoiding action is not chance, it is within your control. If a child runs into the road or a car turns across my path and I predict it so slow or brake in time and stop then I have avoided the collision. If I am 5 minutes further down the road because I drove quicker or set off sooner then I haven't done anything.TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
Is it equally worth pointing out (once you've worked out the value of x) that an increase in the initial speed from x to 30 results in you doing 18mph at the point in the road you would have stopped had you been doing x?
WinstonWolf said:
Have you seen the pathetic arguing over 1MPH earlier in the thread???
But as others have said, it's a very important 1 mph.Taking the speed below the generally accepted threshold for prosecution is an emotive subject for some and one that has long been predicted by doom mongers trying to drum up support for their crusade against speed cameras.
SK425 said:
Is it equally worth pointing out (once you've worked out the value of x) that an increase in the initial speed from x to 30 results in you doing 18mph at the point in the road you would have stopped had you been doing x?
Not really. It's understood that risk increases with speed, but it's also understood that society chooses how much risk to take against the benefit of being able to go from one place to another at a reasonable speed. Where it is decided that the amount of risk that comes with a maximium speed of 30mph is acceptable, then clearly the amount of risk that comes with a speed of 35mph is not acceptable. That unacceptability is expressed in penalties incurred by those who are caught.Devil2575 said:
WinstonWolf said:
That is precisely the point, as soon as you change any one factor the incident won't happen. Speed it up OR slow it down and the timeline is altered.
Yes, you are right that incident won't happen. You could say that if everyone sped up by 5 mph then they will avoid all the incidents that would have happened had they been travelling at 30 mph. The problem is that there will an even greater number of incidents at 35 mph instead.RobinOakapple said:
SK425 said:
Is it equally worth pointing out (once you've worked out the value of x) that an increase in the initial speed from x to 30 results in you doing 18mph at the point in the road you would have stopped had you been doing x?
Not really. It's understood that risk increases with speed, but it's also understood that society chooses how much risk to take against the benefit of being able to go from one place to another at a reasonable speed. Where it is decided that the amount of risk that comes with a maximium speed of 30mph is acceptable, then clearly the amount of risk that comes with a speed of 35mph is not acceptable. That unacceptability is expressed in penalties incurred by those who are caught.SK425 said:
A 30mph speed limit is not permission to drive as fast as 30mph. Is it less important for someone doing 30 in conditions that dictate 25 to slow down than it is for someone doing 35 in conditions that dictate 30 to slow down?
You've moved on to a different topic. We are talking about the difference between 30 and 35.SK425 said:
A 30mph speed limit is not permission to drive as fast as 30mph. Is it less important for someone doing 30 in conditions that dictate 25 to slow down than it is for someone doing 35 in conditions that dictate 30 to slow down?
How many tangents can this thread go off on? And how many smug "look at me for my thorough and indepth knowledge of driving" comments can be on here as well?RobinOakapple said:
SK425 said:
A 30mph speed limit is not permission to drive as fast as 30mph. Is it less important for someone doing 30 in conditions that dictate 25 to slow down than it is for someone doing 35 in conditions that dictate 30 to slow down?
You've moved on to a different topic. We are talking about the difference between 30 and 35.Edited by SK425 on Monday 9th March 17:52
LoonR1 said:
How many tangents can this thread go off on? And how many smug "look at me for my thorough and indepth knowledge of driving" comments can be on here as well?
If you don't want to follow the tangents stop reading 
The 34mph issue has clearly been done now anyway and until someone provides evidence I'd file it under the same heading as God, Bigfoot and the loch Ness monster
LoonR1 said:
SK425 said:
A 30mph speed limit is not permission to drive as fast as 30mph. Is it less important for someone doing 30 in conditions that dictate 25 to slow down than it is for someone doing 35 in conditions that dictate 30 to slow down?
How many tangents can this thread go off on?
.The conversation here seemed to have moved on to how to avoid driving into people - with some posters suggesting that that is achieved by driving faster so that you've already been and gone by the time the incident would have happened, and some other people countering that rather silly idea with some odd points of their own.
SK425 said:
RobinOakapple said:
SK425 said:
A 30mph speed limit is not permission to drive as fast as 30mph. Is it less important for someone doing 30 in conditions that dictate 25 to slow down than it is for someone doing 35 in conditions that dictate 30 to slow down?
You've moved on to a different topic. We are talking about the difference between 30 and 35.RobinOakapple said:
SK425 said:
RobinOakapple said:
SK425 said:
A 30mph speed limit is not permission to drive as fast as 30mph. Is it less important for someone doing 30 in conditions that dictate 25 to slow down than it is for someone doing 35 in conditions that dictate 30 to slow down?
You've moved on to a different topic. We are talking about the difference between 30 and 35.Devil2575 said:
WinstonWolf said:
That is precisely the point, as soon as you change any one factor the incident won't happen. Speed it up OR slow it down and the timeline is altered.
Yes, you are right that incident won't happen. You could say that if everyone sped up by 5 mph then they will avoid all the incidents that would have happened had they been travelling at 30 mph. The problem is that there will an even greater number of incidents at 35 mph instead.Incidents are going to happen no matter what and you can't predict them because they are affected by random stuff like whether I bumped into my neighbour and had a chat on my way to the car or whether it was raining so I ran to the car rather than walking. What you can do is influence your ability to prevent or minimise the effect of an incident when one occurs.
You're right that there will be a statistically larger number of collisions at 35 than at 30, but it amounts to around 8% more - assuming a 0.7 second reaction time and a good, dry road surface.
But, as a comparison, a 0.3 second increase in reaction time has roughly the same effect on the likelihood of collision as a 10mph increase in speed.
And, anyway, this is the worst-case scenario, and assumes that not only do pedestrians always dash into the road without looking, but that drivers always barrel along at the speed limit, never slowing down for changing conditions and potential hazards, and only reacting if and when a pedestrian is in the road in front of them. Fortunately, most people are better behaved than that most of the time, otherwise the accident rate would probably be orders of magnitude higher than it is.
And, of course, the more people who run into the street without looking, the more collisions there will be, so it's of not much use to introduce measures to reduce the probability of collisions by, say, 20%, if this is going to be accompanied by a 100% increase in the number of people running into the road.
Edited by Phatboy317 on Monday 9th March 19:26
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. 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.
if you change the initial speed then you cannot keep everything else the same and so you don't have the same incident.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.
That's a simple enough concept to grasp - except for you it seems.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff