Good money maker today
Discussion
Phatboy317 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.
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.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Phatboy317 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.
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.
Phatboy317 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.
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.
Phatboy317 said:
The collision speed is not related to travelling speed, except for the small chance that it could be greater than 30mph in the former case.
They are highly correlated for these hypothetical scenarios. Phatboy317 said:
if you change the initial speed then you cannot keep everything else the same and so you don't have the same incident.
It's not about the same incident. It's about a large enough sample where the impact speeds are greater and the consequence of the extra energy vs those where the impact speeds are less. La Liga said:
Phatboy317 said:
The collision speed is not related to travelling speed, except for the small chance that it could be greater than 30mph in the former case.
They are highly correlated for these hypothetical scenarios.In the ten years from 2001-2010, of the 105,000 pedestrians who were hit on 30mph roads in built-up areas, 0.74% were killed.
Yet we are told it should be closer to 40%.
So either that figure's way out, or the vast majority of impact speeds are way less than 30mph.
La Liga said:
Phatboy317 said:
if you change the initial speed then you cannot keep everything else the same and so you don't have the same incident.
It's not about the same incident. It's about a large enough sample where the impact speeds are greater and the consequence of the extra energy vs those where the impact speeds are less. Edited by Phatboy317 on Monday 9th March 20:52
Phatboy317 said:
Those hypothetical scenarios have little in common with real life.
Scenarios where higher speed = higher energy = greater risk to the person hit have little in common in real life? I expect many of those who end up as the accused for driving standard offences, where the speed is relevant would disagree with you. Phatboy317 said:
In the ten years from 2001-2010, of the 105,000 pedestrians who were hit on 30mph roads in built-up areas, 0.74% were killed.
Yet we are told it should be closer to 40%.
So either that figure's way out, or the vast majority of impact speeds are way less than 30mph
Which has noting to do with the points people are making. Yet we are told it should be closer to 40%.
So either that figure's way out, or the vast majority of impact speeds are way less than 30mph
La Liga said:
Phatboy317 said:
Those hypothetical scenarios have little in common with real life.
Scenarios where higher speed = higher energy = greater risk to the person hit have little in common in real life? I expect many of those who end up as the accused for driving standard offences, where the speed is relevant would disagree with you. Phatboy317 said:
In the ten years from 2001-2010, of the 105,000 pedestrians who were hit on 30mph roads in built-up areas, 0.74% were killed.
Yet we are told it should be closer to 40%.
So either that figure's way out, or the vast majority of impact speeds are way less than 30mph
Which has noting to do with the points people are making. Yet we are told it should be closer to 40%.
So either that figure's way out, or the vast majority of impact speeds are way less than 30mph
Phatboy317 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.
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.
There is two or maybe three unconnected circumstances that have to coincide for the incident to occur. You cannot influence these. There are then a number of things that can potentially mitigate the effect of the incident. Speed is one of these. The slower you are going the greater the chance you have of stopping or avoiding a collision and even if one does occur you are less likely to be injured or killed. It really is that simple.
La Liga said:
Phatboy317 said:
The collision speed is not related to travelling speed, except for the small chance that it could be greater than 30mph in the former case.
They are highly correlated for these hypothetical scenarios. What's important is that those accidents that do occur above 30 mph will be the most severe ones.
Devil2575 said:
Phatboy317 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.
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.
There is two or maybe three unconnected circumstances that have to coincide for the incident to occur. You cannot influence these. There are then a number of things that can potentially mitigate the effect of the incident. Speed is one of these. The slower you are going the greater the chance you have of stopping or avoiding a collision and even if one does occur you are less likely to be injured or killed. It really is that simple.
I was replying to that.
Ahimoth said:
I understand.
The thread I referenced posting on the other place has prompted a guy I've known for 7 or 8 years to say that an elderly aunt of his was done for 34 in a 30 recently. Again, no letter. But no reason I can see for him to lie.
Another chap, who I don't know, claims to have worked for an insurance company inputting speeding convictions and did plenty of 34 in 30s. But I can't even slightly vouch for his claim, not that this would be worth a thing without the evidence.
Seeing my brother in a bit, will raise it with him.
btw - in terms of argument over evidence, I'd suspect a philosopher might regard this and the Loch Ness monster scenarios as being rather different. Absence of evidence, evidence of absence and the likelihood of evidence being found in this two cases is a little different.
Well that is complete and utter crap. Insurers know what points you have and what code and what fine, currently we get this from you telling us when we ask a question, soon we'll get it directly from DVLA. However, what we never, ever know is the speed. We don't ask and even if we did few could tell us accurately, even if they could, we can't gauge the accuracy of response. The thread I referenced posting on the other place has prompted a guy I've known for 7 or 8 years to say that an elderly aunt of his was done for 34 in a 30 recently. Again, no letter. But no reason I can see for him to lie.
Another chap, who I don't know, claims to have worked for an insurance company inputting speeding convictions and did plenty of 34 in 30s. But I can't even slightly vouch for his claim, not that this would be worth a thing without the evidence.
Seeing my brother in a bit, will raise it with him.
btw - in terms of argument over evidence, I'd suspect a philosopher might regard this and the Loch Ness monster scenarios as being rather different. Absence of evidence, evidence of absence and the likelihood of evidence being found in this two cases is a little different.
Edited by Ahimoth on Sunday 8th March 10:43
Devil2575 said:
La Liga said:
Phatboy317 said:
The collision speed is not related to travelling speed, except for the small chance that it could be greater than 30mph in the former case.
They are highly correlated for these hypothetical scenarios. What's important is that those accidents that do occur above 30 mph will be the most severe ones.
And actual casualty figures strongly suggest that most collision speeds are considerably less than 30mph
Edited by Phatboy317 on Monday 9th March 21:43
Phatboy317 said:
The impact speed can be anything between zero and full travelling speed.
And actual casualty figures strongly suggest that most collision speeds are considerably less than 30mph
Of course, because most drivers manage to brake before impact. However that speed will still on average be higher the higher the travelling speed. And actual casualty figures strongly suggest that most collision speeds are considerably less than 30mph
Edited by Phatboy317 on Monday 9th March 21:43
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.
Devil2575 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...
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 purely 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.The whole point of driving is to control the car. There is no such thing as an accident, that is why the emergency services now call them RTCs.
Part of the skill of driving is vision. The ability to see something and think "hello, this may become a problem".
Do we not think that the reason for these low (in comparison to the advances in vehicle dynamics and crash technology) speed limits is that many people lack these basic skills? And then blame other things or people instead of their own lacking of basic skills like observation, the ability to see everything happening around you?
Finally, and this is not something that occurs to many, in a powerful car (which in comparison to older cars, most are these days) it is possible and sometimes beneficial to accelerate out of trouble, than to brake into it?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff