Speed Doesn't Kill - FACT!

[Keepleft]

gtfpv scribbled - well , obviously , nobody here has had an accident , becuase they were going 10kms overthe limit. like i have, before that i hadn't had an accident for 20 years. if i was travelling at 70kms /hr. instead of 80. i believe the accident wouldnt of happened and i would 've stopped in time .

Okay, *you* were going too-fast, what has that to do with the prevailing limit at the time?

I really cant believe that people dont believe that speed killls. perhaps that is why so many get killed on the roads .

At what point does 'speed kill'??? 1km/h? 101km/h??

Other things cause fatalities too, like drink driving, falling asleep, complacency, animals, punctures,

Got that right, and much more can be added....

why is it that people dont think that someone coming the other way, may just be speeding and lose control veer into your lane , and kill you . why do people get angry when people believe this thing happens. It has nothing to o with driver skill or farquing gene pools .

An idiot, et al, will likely be dangerous at any speed, but the faster such an idiot is going the more likely a chaotic-result-outcome!

This outcome may or may not relate to the prevailing posted or default speed limit in place, OR if driving on a derestricted length of road where you are not giving 'a limit' at which to drive.

Elsewhere-
NORMXB references NSW 'speed derestriction' as applied up to July 1979 where we used this sign to represent an 80km/h 'prima facie' rural default.

You could exceed this 80km/h IF it was safe to do so, but were held accountable by the courts for 'bad outcome'. Typically, you had a pig of a time defending yourself of a charge/s - than if you were at 80km/h or less.

The modern legal protection agasint that is to remove the 80km/h referencing and so avoid prima facie legal impact, here 'manner' and 'speed dangerous' charges et al can be laid instead.

Under modern application of speed derestriction - certain road users can remain speed limited, L1, P1, P2 drivers owing 'license category' speed limits, and heavy vehicles under another rule of this jurisdiction.

NSW may well use derestriction once again, but most likely only to some higher-standard remote rural lengths of road, no fanfare, just a mild change in the RUH reflecting its meaning per AS1742.4 of 1999 AND UN Convention and appropriate police patrol enforcement in regards 'manner of driving' etc. (All stated elsewhere).

[merlin]

So I was in Japan on this road that was parallel to some train tracks, all
of a sudden I see a High Speed Bullet train in the distance, I downshift to
catch up. I get alongside of him at about 150 +/-. I give him 3 honks and a
couple seconds later, I put 5-6 bullet train lengths on him and I was STILL
pullin on him.

I met him at the train station and talked to the engineer for a couple
minutes and talked about his mods, hes got an upgraded electrical rail
connector, capacitors and some program. I would hate to see what i would do
to him if we really raced from a dig, cuz if im pulling that many trains
from a roll...dig = owned

[GUNEF]

speed doesn't take lives but it sure helps. if someone was to hit a tree at 60km/h there is still going to be an bad crash if u like it or not. but say if the speed limit was 100km/h insted of 60km/h i think that i wouldent be the only one that would want to hit it at 60 instead of 100. accedent are still going to happen and lowering the speed isn't going to solve all anserws, human error is the main cause of crashes this is not giving way and not looking propraly that road situation. but it is the damage of the impact of which a car hits an object that determinds how bad an accedent can be.

[Cooper69S]

Originally Posted by Eu-GenixX

are people really that deluded... to beleive it's not speed that kills.. it's colliding with an object that kills?

I get the feeling that quite a few people here are missing the point. that comment about it being the sudden stop that kills not the speed is a little bit tongue-in-cheek... EVERYONE knows that in a collision a higher speed will worsen the result. nobody is disputing that.

the point thats being made is that contrary to what the police would like us to believe, there are many occasions where you could exceed the posted speed limit without an exponential increase in the likelihood of a collision. i'm sure we all agree with each other but the reasoning is going round in circles.

[XR8Master]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well , obviously , nobody here has had an accident , becuase they were going 10kms overthe limit. like i have, before that i hadn't had an accident for 20 years. if i was travelling at 70kms /hr. instead of 80. i believe the accident wouldnt of happened and i would 've stopped in time . also just missed someone standing on the road, by a fraction, during this accident. i think if i was doing 85 instead of 80, i may have hit and killed this pedestrian on the road . and it woulkd of purely been because of low limit speeding.
it changed my thinking. obviously no one else seems to see it like i do . or had this happen to them . yet.
there was nothing i could do to avoid the accident. in this case if i was going the posted speed limit. i think my car wouldve stopped in time.

i really cant believe that people dont believe that speed killls. perhaps that is why so many get killed on the roads . other things cause fatalities too, like drink driving, falling asleep, complacency, animals, punctures, why is it that people dont think that someone coming the other way, may just be speeding and lose control veer into your lane , and kill you . why do people get angry when people believe this thing happens .
it has nothing to o with driver skill or farquing gene pools .

No, I haven't had an accident 10km over the limit but I have had one 10km under the speed limit. I hit a pedestrian and his brains splatted over the windscreen while I was traveling at 90km/h, he instantly died.

Now what is the difference between me walking away freely and going to jail for man slaughter? I will tell you, a random number with a circle around it, If the number happened to be 60 then I would have been in court, even though he would have died anyway.

You say speed kills but the majority of accidents and deaths are related to low speed accidents in 60km/h zones, where in your theory this should be the safest.

I will tell you what causes accidents and deaths, its idiots who lack practical driving knowledge, experience and don't pay attention while driving, its idiot pedestrians who don't pay attention on places they are not registered to be on (roads) and its government agencies who use the whole system as a business niche to generate profits and cushy jobs.

[FORD3V]

Originally Posted by XR8Master

I will tell you what causes accidents and deaths, its idiots who lack practical driving knowledge, experience and don't pay attention while driving, its idiot pedestrians who don't pay attention on places they are not registered to be on (roads) and its government agencies who use the whole system as a business niche to generate profits and cushy jobs.

Idiots who dont pay attention and have little driving experience?????

Correct me if Im wrong,but didnt you start a thread a few weeks back stating that you were about to lose your license as a result of numerous traffic offenses???

[Outbackjack]

Now this idiot deserves what he gets....... This is amazing, one for the car crusher. In this case it would be justified.

This would have been one of those occasions where you COULD blame speed by itself for an accident.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22540658-2,00.html

A MAN has been jailed for an hour of road madness that included drink-driving at speeds of up to 237km/h with his 12-month old daughter on board, several abandoned police pursuits and red-light running through inner-Brisbane streets last year.

The Brisbane District Court was told the dangerous situation only ended when Brent Briskey drove his Holden Commodore sedan into a concrete dividing wall on the Inner City Bypass.

The court heard that during the chaos on May 21, 2006, Briskey also drove on the wrong side of the road, ran several red lights, reversed his vehicle at a police car to avoid arrest, performed burn-outs and drove at pace through a Random Breath Testing site.

The 26-year-old pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected and twice previously convicted of a prescribed offence and one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

He was sentenced to a total of five-and-half-years' jail, but will be eligible for release after just six months.

Crown prosecutions told the court that prior to arriving in Brisbane, Briskey drove at high-speed on the M1 from the Gold Coast for at least half an hour.

At one stage a speed camera recorded him travelling at 237 km/h in a 110 km/h zone.

The court heard that after arriving in Brisbane police pursued Briskey three times through various inner-city suburbs but each time abandoned the chase due to the excessive speeds and risk to the public.

For up to an hour Briskey, who had five passengers, performed many breathtaking manoeuvres in a bid to escape police in a case the Crown said was in the worst imaginable category of dangerous driving.

Two of the passengers later told police they had asked Briskey to let them out of the vehicle.

Shortly after 2am he lost control of the vehicle on the Inner City Bypass at Kelvin Grove and ran into a concrete dividing wall.

He was later found to have a blood alcohol level of 0.154 – his third drink-driving offence.

Police found a one-year-old girl in a child seat who was uninjured but taken to Royal Children's Hospital for observation.

The other passengers were a 25-year-old female, a 14-year-old female and a 16-year-old male.

Judge Hugh Botting sentenced Briskey to four years imprisonment for the dangerous operation whilst adversely affected through Brisbane and 18 months jail for the dangerous operation by speeding on the M1.

"The sentence at the end of the day reflects society's condemnation of this type of driving," he said.
Judge Botting recommended that the sentence be suspended in six months and that Briskey be forbidden to hold a drivers licence for five years.

Defence lawyer Andrew Boe admitted the "madness" of his clients' actions and said it was impossible to move away from the fact the driving was of a high order.

However he argued his client had undergone extensive rehabilitation since being charged and should be released immediately on a suspended sentence

[gtfpv]

my point that speed does kill is what i choose to stick with. we all know there are idiots out there, there are faulty roads out there, there are differant tyres , engines , structural designs, weather conditions and random events that just happen.
all of the things i have just mentioned are purely altered by the speed a driver chooses to drive at.
has anyone given any thought that our vehicles are designed to comply for certain speeds up to a structural limit. i'm sure perhaps with great effort and cost, vehicles could all be designed to be safe at 150km impacts . then increases in speed limits could be increased.
but for today our speed limits are set i would like to think , to allow for all variables, that can happen . i'm never disputing that going slower than necessary can get you killed as well, just as if going too fast ( speeding can) . many people here choose to accept. that it is possible for a rock to come through a windscreen and kill you.
but no chance of speeding killing you. i keep reading opposing veiws to mine as -"speed doesn't kill. everything else does but never speed".
there is no set limit for speeding . for example if i jog into a brick wall and my head hits the wall i may injure my head. if i sprint into a wall i may get fatal head injuries . and if i wear a helmet , the variables will chnge . this is the rule of design.

the argument against this is . idiot ! gene pool, bad driver, not very clever .


if your job was to set a posted speed limit on a neew raod . wouldnt you consider all above .

a have great trouble believing people dissmissing the fact that speed kills with stupid comments. as intelligent.

[MAGPIE]

At what speed does speed kill ?

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

my point that speed does kill is what i choose to stick with. we all know there are idiots out there, there are faulty roads out there, there are differant tyres , engines , structural designs, weather conditions and random events that just happen.
all of the things i have just mentioned are purely altered by the speed a driver chooses to drive at.
has anyone given any thought that our vehicles are designed to comply for certain speeds up to a structural limit. i'm sure perhaps with great effort and cost, vehicles could all be designed to be safe at 150km impacts . then increases in speed limits could be increased.
but for today our speed limits are set i would like to think , to allow for all variables, that can happen . i'm never disputing that going slower than necessary can get you killed as well, just as if going too fast ( speeding can) . many people here choose to accept. that it is possible for a rock to come through a windscreen and kill you.
but no chance of speeding killing you. i keep reading opposing veiws to mine as -"speed doesn't kill. everything else does but never speed".
there is no set limit for speeding . for example if i jog into a brick wall and my head hits the wall i may injure my head. if i sprint into a wall i may get fatal head injuries . and if i wear a helmet , the variables will chnge . this is the rule of design.

the argument against this is . idiot ! gene pool, bad driver, not very clever .


if your job was to set a posted speed limit on a neew raod . wouldnt you consider all above .

a have great trouble believing people dissmissing the fact that speed kills with stupid comments. as intelligent.

As you said, speed is just one of many variable factors. But speed by itself does not kill. Other factors must combine to produce the end result. What most are saying is that on the rite roads with the rite driver with the rite attitude and experience, speed need not be the demon that some would have us think. Not many Australians have the experience of cruising at anything other than 110kph for any length of time. I am one of the fortunate few that has had many hours of cruising at higher speeds than 110kph. When I say that cruising at 160kph on the correct highway is not dangerous, I am speaking from experience, not some kind of delusion.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

As you said, speed is just one of many variable factors. But speed by itself does not kill. Other factors must combine to produce the end result. What most are saying is that on the rite roads with the rite driver with the rite attitude and experience, speed need not be the demon that some would have us think. Not many Australians have the experience of cruising at anything other than 110kph for any length of time. I am one of the fortunate few that has had many hours of cruising at higher speeds than 110kph. When I say that cruising at 160kph on the correct highway is not dangerous, I am speaking from experience, not some kind of delusion.

Very true and I can say the same having driven thousands of Kilometers around this vast country clocking a thousand K's per day during most trips, Ive seen a few serious accedents caused for some reason or other and some that left me thinking " How the hell did they manage that".
Really, some of the things people do boggles the mind. I think that some are caused by people who do not realise that the nippy 4 cylynder round town is not so good on the open road at top end and run out of room in a passing manouver, or then you have the ones that take a whole passing lane to get them selves around. Some people have lack the ability to judge their speed and on coming speed together with the over all distance to time there passing manouver saftely.
Any way I don't take my eyes off them. I watch what I do and pay attention and anticipate what others do. I have said it before that driving is a life skill and people should treat more so as that. People do not pay attention and have too many gadgets now to play with whilst driving.

My message is simple, "pay attention to your task at hand"

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

At what speed does speed kill ?

that is the 64 million dollar question. unfortunately you and i cant answer that . so we rely on govts and car manufacturers to decide that for us.
i think they would look at many factors including historical data and have some mathematical formula . to decide the speed limit . which is the most efficient. they dont just spin a chocolate wheel you know.
i'm sure there would be data out there which could answer this question. on % basis taking into account , car, age, population, road design,. and many more and come up with an average speed per road, where speeding over the speed limit at some % will cause death.( hence the point of having a safe speed limit )

just as they have a probability of deaths per amount of alcohol effected drivers .

PS . I STILL THINK THE HEADING OF THIS THREAD IS REDICULOUSLY WRONG . AND SO ARE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH IT. now to wait for someone to complain about having sore ears due to my CAPS.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Now this idiot deserves what he gets....... This is amazing, one for the car crusher. In this case it would be justified.

This would have been one of those occasions where you COULD blame speed by itself for an accident.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22540658-2,00.html

What amazes (scares) me even more is how the hell could he even get to 237km/h whilst 3 times the BAC limit?

[Outbackjack]

Here is a real quick question about driving around our remote/outback roads. What does everyone reckon is the most common animal that is hit by cars/trucks cruising our highways? My guess is most bushies would know the answer. Lets see if our city folk know??

And by the way, it would not matter what speed you are doing the chances of hitting one are equal.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

What amazes (scares) me even more is how the hell could he even get to 237km/h whilst 3 times the BAC limit?

Yeah, what a , I hope he meets up with a real toey big bubba in the big house. I also hope he comes out walking like John Wayne. Teach that passage to drive like he did!!

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Here is a real quick question about driving around our remote/outback roads. What does everyone reckon is the most common animal that is hit by cars/trucks cruising our highways? My guess is most bushies would know the answer. Lets see if our city folk know??

And by the way, it would not matter what speed you are doing the chances of hitting one are equal.

I truly don't know . i'd think kangaroo. but that is probably wrong .

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Here is a real quick question about driving around our remote/outback roads. What does everyone reckon is the most common animal that is hit by cars/trucks cruising our highways? My guess is most bushies would know the answer. Lets see if our city folk know??

And by the way, it would not matter what speed you are doing the chances of hitting one are equal.

BTW, I am talking day light hours only, they dont come out at night, at least most of them dont. They dont alway cause alot of damage either, but the results can be bedlam.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Yeah, what a , I hope he meets up with a real toey big bubba in the big house. I also hope he comes out walking like John Wayne. Teach that passage to drive like he did!!

I mean that behaviour is stupid sober at best let alone whilst that drunk.

Note the actual speed I don't consider to be deadly in itself, rather the circumstances of where and which it was achieved :

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

I mean that behaviour is stupid sober at best let alone whilst that drunk.

Note the actual speed I don't consider to be deadly in itself, rather the circumstances of where and which it was achieved :

Dead rite. That speed was insane in the circumstances.... But out here I have passed road trains in the XR8 (BF) and hit the speed limiter without my mate in the back seat even waking up.... Its horses for courses.

[Outbackjack]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Yeah, what a , I hope he meets up with a real toey big bubba in the big house. I also hope he comes out walking like John Wayne. Teach that passage to drive like he did!!

What happened?? I didn't use any swear words..... Is the language censor that good!!!??

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

that is the 64 million dollar question. unfortunately you and i cant answer that . so we rely on govts and car manufacturers to decide that for us. i think they would look at many factors including historical data and have some mathematical formula . to decide the speed limit . which is the most efficient. they dont just spin a chocolate wheel you know.
i'm sure there would be data out there which could answer this question. on % basis taking into account , car, age, population, road design,. and many more and come up with an average speed per road, where speeding over the speed limit at some % will cause death.( hence the point of having a safe speed limit )

just as they have a probability of deaths per amount of alcohol effected drivers .

PS . I STILL THINK THE HEADING OF THIS THREAD IS REDICULOUSLY WRONG . AND SO ARE PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH IT. now to wait for someone to complain about having sore ears due to my CAPS.

Its so unfortunate that it is the g'ment and local councils that decide on the 'magic' number which must be obeyed and a more sensible, scientific(?) approach isnt taken! Stats, age, population has minimal impact on the 'correct' restrictions. There are just way too many obscurities and inconsistancies around to prove this. If you beleive this ..... you have watched way to many TAC adds and are REDICULOUSLY WRONG!

Also a BIG YES to the chocolate wheel ..... what ever that is.... but it sound magical and I am sure it is in use!



| [/url] |

[Ives]

If you're getting cleaned up by a Pajero travelling at 50km/h in 60 zone, you'd probably be GOOOOOONE.

[daniel_rossy]

speed doesnt kill, impact does...

[Van D]

“The most common factor is failed to look properly which contributed to 35 percent of accidents."

Found that interested from the original post as I find myself looking at the speedo more than half the time, rather than the road.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by nugget378

We have an Einstein here.
Wont it depend on the size of the tree?
a sapling wont kill you at 500kph,a huge redwood probably at 40kph,hell if your that paranoid,catch the train or walk.
But people die doing that too,may as well wrap yourself in cotton wool and stay in bed..

sorry but i have to dissagree here at 500Ks hitting anything could kill you. at that speed a groung vehicle depends on aerodynamics for stability and a sapling could well be enough to upset this delicate balance and send you spinning out of control. but i see your pint at lower speeds a small tree may not be a big issue it just needs to be kept in context

[SB076]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

At what speed does speed kill ?

I actually studied this during physics and its very very low and it depends on circumstances (cant remember the exact details but a human could die at a speed of 10 - 15 ks if I remember correctly) Basically if you are walking and trip and hit your head on a hard surface with no give, in theory that could be enough to kill you (due to rapid deceleration of the brain)

The thing that actually kills is more related to the collision time and change in direction. Thats why cars have crumple zones etc to extend the collision time.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by SB076

I actually studied this during physics and its very very low and it depends on circumstances (cant remember the exact details but a human could die at a speed of 10 - 15 ks if I remember correctly) Basically if you are walking and trip and hit your head on a hard surface with no give, in theory that could be enough to kill you (due to rapid deceleration of the brain)

The thing that actually kills is more related to the collision time and change in direction. Thats why cars have crumple zones etc to extend the collision time.

It depends on way too much and cannot , by physics or otherwise, be known. I can walk down the street doing 1km per hour, trip on a stone, hit my head and cark it, or I could be doing 150km/h in a volvo with upteen airbags, crumple zones and the like hit a tree and walk away! May not even have damaged my cardigan or bowling hat!

Too many variables and thats why so much of this argument is flawed and there will be no conclusion!



| [/url] |

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Too many variables and thats why so much of this argument is flawed and there will be no conclusion!

Which also means the setting of speed limits is flawed, they are more about risk verse consequence than anything else.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Which also means the setting of speed limits is flawed, they are more about risk verse consequence than anything else.

People need to stop thinking of speed limits as the "speed at which they must travel at" at all costs...
They are an indication of the maximum legal allowable speed limit, that's all. The appropriate speed to travel at is somwhere betweem 0 and the posted speed as determined by assesing the conditions etc...

[kpcart]

whats the point of this topic? the guy who started it seems like he needs to have these (FACTS!!) known to justify himself thinking he can drive at whatever speed he wants on a public road not owned by him. just drive the speed limit, your licence to drive comes with rules you must adhere to, it is a privelidge you get to be allowed to drive on public roads. if you cant accept that and do die from speeding, then i will dance on you coffin.