Good money maker today

[anonymous-user]

Phatboy317 said:

34, 35, 36mph - what's the difference? Really?

3 points, £100.

[anonymous-user]

Jeez, this got sidetracked rather!

All people want is proof that prosecutions do happen at these claimed lower speeds of 34.

It's not about the rights and wrongs of the speeds, we'd just like to know.

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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?

[anonymous-user]

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?

If the car isn't present at the point in time when the child runs out what happens?

Because the scenario is based around what happens when a collision occurs when a child is hit at 35 MPH as oppose to 30 MPH.

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?

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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.

Have you seen the pathetic arguing over 1MPH earlier in the thread???

It was relevant only because the 1 MPH meant it was either at the guidance threshold or not.

[anonymous-user]

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.

[anonymous-user]

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.