"I NEVER get out of the way for Police cars..."
Discussion
gone said:
A really well designed shell will be much more stable at 100 MPH then it is at sixty, simply because of the influence of downforce.
A really well designed shell may stay together reasonably in a crash at 40-50mph on its own with something stationary.
A reasonably well designed shell does not stay together well in high speed collisions regardless of whether what they hit is moving towards them, stationary or even immobile!
It is no less simple than that
Speed is the defining characteristic of the consequence of any collision. It can sometimes be the cause of the collision at the outset.
Speed may even determine whether a collision occurs or not and that may be purely down to luck at that particular time!
If a collision ocurs, it is better that it happens at lower speeds than higher ones. There is no arguement to that! What could be simpler IOLAIRE?
Totally missing the point Gone.
My statement was a response to Gary's who said that the slower a car was travelling the more stable it was.
This is totally inaccurate and once again gives the impression that slower driving is more stable and therefore safer; utterly untrue, misleading, and coming from a Traffic Patrol officer who drives the very cars I am talking about, unacceptable.
The very tenet of safe driving is to avoid accidents.
There are numerous factors to be taken into account, but handling and stopping are probably the most important.
If you have not noticed the handling of your patrol car really sharpen up at speed then there are only two explanations. Either it is not properly serviced and set up, which is highly unlikely, or the principles of aerodynamics of your vehicle have not been properly explained to you during your training, this the more likely.
The vehicle will respond instantly at speed to steering input in a way that it doesn't at low speeds.
The bite of the tyres at high speed during evasive manoeuvres and braking is much more instant due to downforce and aerodynamics; that is completely lost at low speeds.
It is a physical impossibility for speed to be the cause of a collision.
If we are talking solely about vehicles coming together, a collision is the meeting or striking together of two or more vehicles set on conflicting paths. The speed is of course irrelevant if they are on a conflicting course; they will collide if they don't stop.
Now it could be argued that if the speed is reduced the damage is less, but that is the best possible result you could hope for.
What is certain is that if the path of the vehicles are altered to a non conflicting course, they could each pass one another in total safety at 150MPH, no collision.
This post is about emergency vehicles and the problems encountered when driving at speed to a situation.
The only time a collision occurs is when another driver refuses to give way or does not assess the situation correctly and fails to notice the emergency vehicle. When they do give way the emergency vehicle can travel at a speed way in excess of the limit in comparative safety because there is no conflicting paths.
Could that be any simpler Gone?
No Discretion said:
My point of speed, was that the 9/10 serious/fatal RTCs have had excessive speed as the main factor. Not 10% over but things like 30%,40 and even 100%.
The main factor of what? You really are not listening are you?
earlier towman said:
I have to take exception to your first point Gary. Using the same words, but in a different order, a more truthful point is made.....i.e The highest contributing factor to death or serious injury in an RTC is speed. Get my point? Speed does not neccesarily cause accidents, it merely worsens the consequences. Take a motorway blowout at 100mph - the blowout caused the accident, speed made it worse.
Prove to me that you are right and I am wrong.
steve
No Discretion said:
Now just because a PH earns enough money to buy a flash car and might even be a decent driver, doesn't mean they are automatically allowed to drive around the UK at whatever speed they want, just because they pay bloody tax.
If this is your honest opinion, may I respectfully suggest that you are in the wrong place. The first word of this forum is?...........Answers on a postcard to...Mr R Bumsting, Wales
I know all that....and speed is exciting....
Hell....even I get a stiffy when I'm blatting through the streets with the lights and sirens blaring....
However, why does Mr Motorist whine/whinge when he gets caught...
What about....we know the time if we do the crime....
in the words of Gary Gilmore..."Lets do it"
Hell....even I get a stiffy when I'm blatting through the streets with the lights and sirens blaring....
However, why does Mr Motorist whine/whinge when he gets caught...
What about....we know the time if we do the crime....
in the words of Gary Gilmore..."Lets do it"
gone said:
If a collision ocurs, it is better that it happens at lower speeds than higher ones. There is no arguement to that! What could be simpler IOLAIRE?
God, I can't believe this is still hard for some people to grasp. Of course there is no argument to that, it's common bloody sense.
The point that seems to sail over speed obsessives heads is the fact that it would be far better to concentrate on avoiding an accident in the first place rather than spend such a disproportionate amount of effort on reducing damage caused by one.
Imagine an army training camp, new recruits would keep shooting themselves and their mates with their new weapons. Solution? make em all buy armoured vests and kevlar helmets.
Still they manage to kill each other, solution? make the vests/helmets more expensive and make em pay for the bullets.
It might be also a good idea to train them but that's gonna cost a bit
>> Edited by apache on Thursday 30th December 08:24
No Discretion said:
I know all that....and speed is exciting....
Hell....even I get a stiffy when I'm blatting through the streets with the lights and sirens blaring....
However, why does Mr Motorist whine/whinge when he gets caught...
What about....we know the time if we do the crime....
in the words of Gary Gilmore..."Lets do it"
Because it's not a crime ?
Or because it's a "manipulated" crime of the sort becoming so popular amongst the Police farce, where no real crime is committed at all, you are breaking an absurdly low speed limit ?
autismuk said:
I know all that....and speed is exciting....
Hell....even I get a stiffy when I'm blatting through the streets with the lights and sirens blaring....
However, why does Mr Motorist whine/whinge when he gets caught...
What about....we know the time if we do the crime....
in the words of Gary Gilmore..."Lets do it"
Because it's not a crime ?
Or because it's a "manipulated" crime of the sort becoming so popular amongst the Police farce, where no real crime is committed at all, you are breaking an absurdly low speed limit ?
Riiiight...
So what are we going to do then? Overthrow the governement?
IOLAIRE said:
It is a physical impossibility for speed to be the cause of a collision.
What utter tosh!
Bends have critical speeds which even formula 1 cars will not be able to negotiate. A driver entering a bend at too high a speed will crash. The reason for the crash is the excess speed.
The driver who is not concentrating and travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions when something happens has a contributory factor of the speed causing the accident such as when the driver fails to brake in time to stop ata junction and overshoots into the path of someone else.
I accept that there is a human element in both BUT the overiding cause other than the human element which is a factor of every collision (otherwise they would not occur) is the speed at the time. Therefor speed is the cause of some accidents. To argue otherwise is niave in the extreme
You can try and fit any analogy you like into a rebuttal of that but it is fact. Fact which Gary and I have had the misfortune to see throughout our career and will continue to see. If a vehicle is travelling fast when something untoward happens regardless of its better handling characteristics, it is at greater risk of serious damage to both the occupants and its structure and that of anythng it is likely to strike as a result of its greater speed.
IOLAIRE said:
The speed is of course irrelevant if they are on a conflicting course; they will collide if they don't stop.
Again tosh!
The speed is critical. If the driver is travelling at a lesser speed, it will give more time to react to avert the collision or reduce the velocity to a more managable one for the structure of both human frames and vehicle designs.
IOLAIRE said:
Now it could be argued that if the speed is reduced the damage is less, but that is the best possible result you could hope for.
The best possible result would be that the collision would be avoided completely!
IOLAIRE said:
What is certain is that if the path of the vehicles are altered to a non conflicting course, they could each pass one another in total safety at 150MPH, no collision.
I agree if that was always the case but it isn't. Rapid reactions and over reactions when things go wrong at high speed create a situation where weight shift applies forces of which there is no control over. The fact they actually pass each other at 150mph in this situation is down to luck and nothing more.
A vehicle travelling slower is much easier to control and has a tendancy to not snap into opposite control loss because of over reaction on any of the controls to correct the original problem.
IOLAIRE said:
This post is about emergency vehicles and the problems encountered when driving at speed to a situation.
Is it?????
IOLAIRE said:
The only time a collision occurs is when another driver refuses to give way or does not assess the situation correctly and fails to notice the emergency vehicle. When they do give way the emergency vehicle can travel at a speed way in excess of the limit in comparative safety because there is no conflicting paths.
Could that be any simpler Gone?
You have obviously reached Nirvanah
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th December 12:52
apache said:
If a collision ocurs, it is better that it happens at lower speeds than higher ones. There is no arguement to that! What could be simpler IOLAIRE?
God, I can't believe this is still hard for some people to grasp. Of course there is no argument to that, it's common bloody sense.
It would appear not though Pete
apache said:
The point that seems to sail over speed obsessives heads is the fact that it would be far better to concentrate on avoiding an accident in the first place rather than spend such a disproportionate amount of effort on reducing damage caused by one.
The overiding problem here is that vehicles are controlled by humans! That aint going to happen until you stop people operating machines which have a capacity to get into each others way!
apache said:
Imagine an army training camp, new recruits would keep shooting themselves and their mates with their new weapons.
Is this a Rumsfeldism?
apache said:
Solution? make em all buy armoured vests and kevlar helmets.
Still they manage to kill each other, solution? make the vests/helmets more expensive and make em pay for the bullets.
It might be also a good idea to train them but that's gonna cost a bit
Ahhh there is the answer. It is
autismuk said:
Because it's not a crime ?
But it is!
It is the job of a Police officer to address this.
Definition learnt in 1st week of training.
Police Officer = Citizen, locally appointed but having authority under the Crown for the protection of life and property, the prevntion and detection of crime and the prosecution of offenders against the peace!
autismuk said:
Or because it's a "manipulated" crime of the sort becoming so popular amongst the Police farce, where no real crime is committed at all, you are breaking an absurdly low speed limit ?
I expect this is the same sentiment of the professional burglar/Drug Dealer/Kiddy Fiddler too
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th December 12:49
Gone said:
Again tosh!
The speed is critical. If the driver is travelling at a lesser speed, it will give more time to react to avert the collision or reduce the velocity to a more managable one for the structure of both human frames and vehicle designs.
I think youll find that the "mass" of the two colliding objects makes a very big difference to the outcome of any collision, far more so than outright speeds thereof....eg;two feathers colliding as opposed to two planets.
I was going to say "heavenly bodies" but i know you'd go and pervert my meaning...
Gone said:
I expect this is the same sentiment of the professional burglar/Drug Dealer/Kiddy Fiddler too
Steady on.
All of the above crimes are considered by the "majority" to be a crime. Speeding is most definitely NOT considered a crime by the majority, hence we shall continue to speed.
Surely you can see that?
DeltaFox said:
Again tosh!
The speed is critical. If the driver is travelling at a lesser speed, it will give more time to react to avert the collision or reduce the velocity to a more managable one for the structure of both human frames and vehicle designs.
I think youll find that the "mass" of the two colliding objects makes a very big difference to the outcome of any collision, far more so than outright speeds thereof....eg;two feathers colliding as opposed to two planets.
I was going to say "heavenly bodies" but i know you'd go and pervert my meaning...
You are absolutely right.
I will tell you a story about a colleague in court being cross examined by a clever barrister
. He asked my colleague if he had formed an impression of his clients speed before activating the device.
The reply was obvious that he had done so.
The Barrister than asked how long he had been a Traffic Officer and how long his expertise of speed estimation had taken to develop.
This question was answered to the satisfaction of the bench.
The Barrister
, obviously using his last trick to upend the evidence of my colleague, to the surprise of the bench and everyone else in the room, suddenly threw his pen across the court room and with a smirk said to my colleague, "Well then officer, if you are such an expert, tell the court how fast that pen was travelling in your opinion"
Reply = "Your worships, I don't know as I have never driven a pen"
UNFORTUNATELY AS DRIVERS, WE DO NOT DRIVE FEATHERS INTO EACH OTHER
DeltaFox said:
Gone said:
I expect this is the same sentiment of the professional burglar/Drug Dealer/Kiddy Fiddler too
Steady on.
All of the above crimes are considered by the "majority" to be a crime. Speeding is most definitely NOT considered a crime by the majority, hence we shall continue to speed.
Surely you can see that?
Speed is considered a crime by residents until they become drivers. Then the opinions generally rapidly change I can tell you!!!!
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 30th December 13:05
gone said:
How's about this?
If you are exceeding the speed limit and have collision.....you automatically waive the right for compensation...
I will put that in the suggestion box at HQ ( North Wales HQ
Brunstroms obviously gotten to you...
.....whats he done? Upped your pay? Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff