Speed Kills - Rubbish - from Motor....

[MYVYSS]

By Mickey T, Wheels Editor

Speed perse does not cause crashes. Never has. If it did, there wouldn’t be a live race driver or fighter pilot on the planet.

If a car is doing 40, 60, 100 or 200km/h on a straight road with no camber, there is no physical or mechanical reason why that car will alter its course and run into something. Of course increased speed can exacerbate the forces in any resultant impact, and cut down reaction times, but the mistake has to be made before any of this becomes pertinent.

You see, there is no such thing as an accident. If a car hits something, it’s because its operator has done something incorrectly or made a mistake (or, most frequently, a series of mistakes).

Cars are inanimate objects. A car does not: “leave a road and hit a tree”. It gets driven off the road by its operator.

The time has long since past when the trained mind accepts the simplistic government implication that you cannot possibly die or be injured in a car if you drive beneath all speed limits, stay sober and have a kip now and again. It is not only wrong, it is dangerously wrong and encourages people to ignore their own inadequacies.

I cannot tell you how many people on both the Pacific and New England highways over the Christmas period drove on two-lane roads at 70-80km/h in 100 zones. Tell me this isn’t a recipe for disaster? And these people are driving under the (government-advertised) assumption that if 100 is safe, then 70 must be 30 percent safer.

It is a nonsense to suggest that survival-oriented advanced driver training causes more problems than it cures. Were that true, the training of pilots would be over in minutes, rather than days.

And why are fatal crashes examined in such cursory fashion? So few people die in plane crashes here (sorry to harp on about planes, but they are the only comparable type of fatal incident, with potentially fast machinery often mismanaged by human intervention), yet each and every crash is investigated by a team of experts who claw over every scrap of evidence until they know exactly what happened and why. This does not occur in car crashes and you won’t ever get to the root causes until it is.

My suggestion to you is that the reason for all car crashes is very simple. People make mistakes. That’s why they crash.

And the mistakes they make more often relate to operators not actually knowing the skill sets that could save them in the first place, rather than mis-applying them.

It truly scares me that so few people know how best to stop a car in a straight line. Please tell me you concur that this would be a skill advantageous for all licenced drivers to acquire. Vital, even.

Even less know how to sit in one so that they can operate the controls in the most effective manner. Why don’t we talk about this?

Throttle and steering inputs are never, ever raised as causes of crashes. It’s just far easier to justify government inaction by blaming people – and how often do politicians come out and say irresponsible people have caused this or that crash before the investigation has even started?

Please can we put away the psychological assassination of motorists and focus on some realities. Can people be given a proper understanding of how to control the tools at their disposal? Can we teach them to look at where they want their cars to go instead of looking at the thing they’re trying to avoid? Can we get them to regularly check their tyre pressures – because they have no other contact with the road.

Can we give people a braking technique?

Can we move back to speed limits set to the 85th percentile, rather than seemingly nonsensical engineering requirements that so few Australians regard as credible. Can we stop dumbing down what is, after all, a difficult craft. It will never be less difficult, so tackle it properly, in schools, for starters. A pass mark should be far, far higher and if you can’t pass it, you don’t drive. Simple.

And if that’s too expensive to test for, make the licences more expensive. I cannot tell you how many taxi drivers in this country make me fear for my life, but I’d estimate it at four out of five. And none of them scare me because they drive above the speed limit. It’s because they’re simply appalling drivers with no skill or craft.

Not that I have an opinion…

[gtfpv]

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

[KEV EB XR8]

So much sense that he makes......... but to no avail...?

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

Yes but mickey's explanation above tells us that cars arent dangerous till we as humans make them

With the exception of wildlife running out onto the road randomly, if you take your average accident, injury or road death scenario the ultimate cause of it is either the person driving the car, or the person responsible for the car

It comes down to better driver education. Not just how to turn left and right, but how to drive the thing too in all situations. The old saying "You cant teach an old dog new tricks" fits perfectly- kids getting their license should be learnign all facets of driving with a strict testing criteria, not just the road rules. No use sticking with the current system them oulling them up in 15yrs time to make them learn how to drive again

[KEV EB XR8]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

Contradiction...... you would ultimately still be in control of the speed that you travel :

[Mack 6]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

If you were doing 20kmh in a 100 zone, I bet you'd hate me running up your bum (auto sensor?), even if I had slowed to 60-70 in the time available to me after I have seen you putting along in first.
I'm realise there are many contributing factors to crashes, speed is one, alcohol is one, but incompetence is a biggy, whether you driver carelessly (ie fast), or overly cautiously (too slow) it's incompetence.

[Steffo]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

The laws of physics agree that hitting a hard object like a tree very fast will not be pretty.

However, who's fault is it that the car is heading for a tree at 100km/h? It's certainly not the car's or the tree's....

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

Why would you want to hit a Tree anyway

[TheSneakiness]

I thought I had read this before. Mickey posted it here...

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=73

[EF, What else?]

i have a different angle on speeding and related accidents. All accidents are caused by something, alcohol, drugs, speed, fatigue, driver error, driver driving past their limits and the like. However, of all those, speed is the only constant. We are always travelling at speed, whether it is 20, 40 or 120 kilometres an hour. But an accident from travelling at speed is ALWAYS linked to another of the problems. You cannot crash a car just because you are speeding, its impossible. It must be linked to something else, such as your were drinking, you made a mistake while negotiating a bend and so forth. Where as all other causes can be the SOLE reason of a crash, speeding cannot be.

I do not in anyway condone speeding, but governments need to look at it from a different angle. ALL accidents have a speed element in them, whether it was 20 under, on the limit or 20 over. So what are speed camera's doing? If you step off the pedal, and make the same basic driving error at 90 k's an hour, you will still crash, just 10 or 15 k's slower. So hence, governments need to put more money into driver training, where lives can be saved through improving driver skills!

I hope you guys can follow that!

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

It isn't the speed that kills. Acceleration or jerk can kill. Jerk is the rate of acceleration. If you understood physics you would know that speed doesn't kill.

Mickey T seems to have forgotton that other factors also cause accidents. Examples include mechanical failure, wildlife and other road users.

I am aware of somebody who died when there auto failed at 100mph. The police put the cause of the accident down as speed.

[MITCHAY]

Going back to high school I remember being taught there is two or more causes of an accident. As others have said, speed itself cannot cause an accident it only increases the severity of the result.

Back when cars first became available, people were dying at speeds as low as 10mph. Hell I'm sure some people can run that fast if not faster yet they don't die if they fall over (well not usually). That alone is proof that speed doesn't cause death, but it is a combination of other factors.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Mack 6

If you were doing 20kmh in a 100 zone, I bet you'd hate me running up your bum (auto sensor?), even if I had slowed to 60-70 in the time available to me after I have seen you putting along in first.
I'm realise there are many contributing factors to crashes, speed is one, alcohol is one, but incompetence is a biggy, whether you driver carelessly (ie fast), or overly cautiously (too slow) it's incompetence.

mate i was doing 100kms an hour on the m4 and had a car run up my bum pushing the bumper into the back wheels . it is all relative isnt it. in my case if iwas going slower than 100 maybe it wouldve killed me. but if he was going slower maybe he wouldnt of hit me squre on at whatever speed he was doing.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Going back to high school I remember being taught there is two or more causes of an accident. As others have said, speed itself cannot cause an accident it only increases the severity of the result.

Back when cars first became available, people were dying at speeds as low as 10mph. Hell I'm sure some people can run that fast if not faster yet they don't die if they fall over (well not usually). That alone is proof that speed doesn't cause death, but it is a combination of other factors.

Elite marathon runners run at over 20 km/h.

Sprinters can run at 42 km/h.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Stampy

Why would you want to hit a Tree anyway

if it was raining and a kid run out in front of my car i would naturaly swerve . if i didnt and there was witnesses i would be charged with murder. so if iwas doing 60kms an hour odds are id stop . if i was speeding say 90kms an hour i might not stop and run off the road and hit a tree. or even if iwas doing 60 i still might lose traction and hit a tree in this case the speeding would have a higher chance of killing myself and the pedestrian.
at the end of the day speed kills. and human error will always happen . it is better if it happens at slower speeds than higher ones . now that motorcross driver that was killed at 150kms an hour last week i think the speed was probably the highest contributing factor combined with his human error that contributed to his death . now single vehicle fatalities almost always involve excessive speeding.

[parawolf]

gtfpv, as others have pointed out, but i'll repeat, i'd prefer not to be hitting the tree.

Originally Posted by xbgs351

It isn't the speed that kills. Acceleration or jerk can kill. Jerk is the rate of acceleration. If you understood physics you would know that speed doesn't kill.

'jerk' is not a force. Acceraleration is a force. Velocity (speed) is in metres per second, accleration is the rate of change of velocity measured in metres per second per second. There is no 'rate of change' of acceleration because it is already a measurement of rate of change. Positive acceleration is a constantly increase velocity, negative acceleration is a constantly decreasing velocity. If there is no acceleration velocity is constant.


The message that gets lost is that higher speed increases the risk of a fatality in any "INCIDENT". I say incident because when driving, there are no accidents, it isn't "whoops I slipped and hit a tree", there is always a cause. Hitting the tree is the affect, the cause was a lack of; skill, concentration, quality componentry.

If you are involved with an incident, speed increases the problems of the incident, however this only deals with the affect, not the cause of the incident.

Revolutionary changes would need to be made to reduce the cause of traffic incidents:
* Driver training (covered to death)
* Increased Licencing costs
* Increased Rego on cars older than 5 or 7 years
* Forced roadworthy on cars older than 5 or 7 years.
* Change of liquor rules - why do we allow kids of 18 years old to drink in public (clubs, bars, etc) and obtain their drivers licence on the same day?

Only these and other social society changes will influence the rate of incidents on our roads.

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

if it was raining and a kid run out in front of my car i would naturaly swerve . if i didnt and there was witnesses i would be charged with murder. so if iwas doing 60kms an hour odds are id stop . if i was speeding say 90kms an hour i might not stop and run off the road and hit a tree. or even if iwas doing 60 i still might lose traction and hit a tree in this case the speeding would have a higher chance of killing myself and the pedestrian.

Right - lets deal with some things in your scenario, raining, you are on a road doing 100km/h (assume the speed limit) and a kid runs out onto this major road. Not only that, the kid runs out into your stopping zone. Lets assume this kid is under 16 years old.

First question is not charging you with murder, but where is this kids guardian? Why and how did this kid get so close this major road where vehicles travel at 100km/h.

Sorry but if someone pulls into your stopping distance on the road, it isn't murder, it isn't manslaughter, it is negilgence on behalf of the other road user - in this case someone that should be legally under supervision.

Originally Posted by gtfpv

at the end of the day speed kills. and human error will always happen . it is better if it happens at slower speeds than higher ones . now that motorcross driver that was killed at 150kms an hour last week i think the speed was probably the highest contributing factor combined with his human error that contributed to his death . now single vehicle fatalities almost always involve excessive speeding.

Speed does not kill. Elevated speed above that of walking pace increase the chance of death during an incident. Driving beyond ones skill level and safety level is the cause of an incident.

[falcon91]

Speed = Reaction time.
In my humble opinion speeds are set for many reasons (Some I agree with, others not) But the average Joe motorist with the training of Mum or Dad in the Torana and then studying a little handbook is absurd.
The reaction time of an untrained driver (Not just talking about slamming on the brakes - .45sec) BUT analysing the problem, ascertaining the correct course of action and then carrying it out correctly equals reaction time.
The faster you go the longer the reaction time required ie. More distance covered!

Jeez, now I'm sounding like that guy who want's us all to have a reflective triangle (No Offence)

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by parawolf

gtfpv, as others have pointed out, but i'll repeat, i'd prefer not to be hitting the tree.



'jerk' is not a force. Acceraleration is a force. Velocity (speed) is in metres per second, accleration is the rate of change of velocity measured in metres per second per second. There is no 'rate of change' of acceleration because it is already a measurement of rate of change. Positive acceleration is a constantly increase velocity, negative acceleration is a constantly decreasing velocity. If there is no acceleration velocity is constant.




Revolutionary changes would need to be made to reduce the cause of traffic incidents:
* Driver training (covered to death)
* Increased Licencing costs
* Increased Rego on cars older than 5 or 7 years
* Forced roadworthy on cars older than 5 or 7 years.
* Change of liquor rules - why do we allow kids of 18 years old to drink in public (clubs, bars, etc) and obtain their drivers licence on the same day?

Only these and other social society changes will influence the rate of incidents on our roads.

if everyone drove slower say 60 kms an hour everywhere in the country . i bet there would be just as many accidents and much less deaths . proving my theory that speed killls. howabout . * learning how not to have a heart attack stroke or epileptic fit while driving . or learning to drive with the stereo off. driving without passengers . or passangers not to talk unless an emergency is imminent. . howabout pets being detained in yards better, pet leads being stronger, children having better eyesight at younger ages . one thing is sure with all of these things speed varies all of them .

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by parawolf

gtfpv, as others have pointed out, but i'll repeat, i'd prefer not to be hitting the tree.



'jerk' is not a force. Acceraleration is a force. Velocity (speed) is in metres per second, accleration is the rate of change of velocity measured in metres per second per second. There is no 'rate of change' of acceleration because it is already a measurement of rate of change. Positive acceleration is a constantly increase velocity, negative acceleration is a constantly decreasing velocity. If there is no acceleration velocity is constant.

Jerk is not a force, neither is acceleration.

The rate of change of acceleration is called jerk. It is measured in metres per second cubed.

Force is measured in Newtons which is actually kilogram metres per second squared. Force is mass x acceleration.

Yank is mass x jerk

Originally Posted by gtfpv

if everyone drove slower say 60 kms an hour everywhere in the country . i bet there would be just as many accidents and much less deaths . proving my theory that speed killls. howabout . * learning how not to have a heart attack stroke or epileptic fit while driving . or learning to drive with the stereo off. driving without passengers . or passangers not to talk unless an emergency is imminent. . howabout pets being detained in yards better, pet leads being stronger, children having better eyesight at younger ages . one thing is sure with all of these things speed varies all of them .

IMO at 60km/h there would be more accidents and less deaths ,when I travel at 100 I am more aware than when at 60 this is me not eveyone.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Stampy

IMO at 60km/h there would be more accidents and less deaths ,when I travel at 100 I am more aware than when at 60 this is me not eveyone.

disagree. when you travel at 100 your on a raod designed for 100kms an hour less bends less traffic . longer distance you are probably less alert and driving further for longer.sorry to be so stern but my eyes have been opened with 2 car accidents i had 1 week apart last year both of them were unavoidable by myself , and completely unexpected. 1 high speed 1 low speed . speed contributed to both . even the low speed one at 70 kms an hour in the m5 tunnel which was an impact at about 20kms hour. i hope our famous KEEPLEFT HAS as a say in this thread as it is one of his specialty areas . he has all the statistics. we can change rods car safety materials etc etc . we cannot change reaction time and human error . but we can slow down reducing most risks.

[LTDHO]

Ah finally, someone agrees. I have been saying this for years.

Speed doesn't kill
Speed provides revenue.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Yank is mass x jerk

As long as there isnt a mass yanking or jerking contest on!:

The scenario about hitting a kid along the street also depends on the alertness of the driver. He could be very aware of the road and it's surroundings at 70km/hr and see a little boy/girl about to run onto the road well before he is too close and apply brakes or swerve to avoid them. Yet on the other hand, you could have old mate tootling along whistling a tune at 40km/hr and not paying attention, and still hit the kid

As for other people running into your own cars, the same responsibilities apply to them, you may not be at fault, but as drivers also they have failed in driving responsibly and safely

[LTDHO]

Sorry for the double post, but I had a re-read.

Originally Posted by Steffo

However, who's fault is it that the car is heading for a tree at 100km/h? It's certainly not the car's or the tree's....

Speed doesn't make cars hit trees, drivers do!

Originally Posted by xbgs351

It isn't the speed that kills. Acceleration or jerk can kill. Jerk is the rate of acceleration. If you understood physics you would know that speed doesn't kill.

Jerk is the driver! ;)

[parawolf]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Jerk is not a force, neither is acceleration.

The rate of change of acceleration is called jerk. It is measured in metres per second cubed.

Force is measured in Newtons which is actually kilogram metres per second squared. Force is mass x acceleration.

Yank is mass x jerk

there you go... learn something everyday! :

[MYVYSS]

on a side note interesting that over the xmas period the only place to record a ZERO road toll was........YEP NT the only place that does not have speed limits...I think this in its self speaks volumes...just not the dollar volumes the speed limits produce...

Q: Why did you have an accident...I was too busy concentrating on my speed to actually watch the road....

[gtfpv]

drivers will always make cars hit trees and telagraph poles the speed at which they hit them at determines wether they live or die . is this a speed forum or what . sounds like most people here want to drive faster on our roads.arent there enough accidents and death already .most p platers have accidents not from poorer reaction times. or drinking alcahol , mostly it is due to driving faster then older drivers . experiance doesnt mean you are a better driver because you will make less mistakes it means you will drive safer and usually slower reducing the risk of an INCIDENT.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by MYVYSS

on a side note interesting that over the xmas period the only place to record a ZERO road toll was........YEP NT the only place that does not have speed limits...I think this in its self speaks volumes...just not the dollar volumes the speed limits produce...

Q: Why did you have an accident...I was too busy concentrating on my speed to actually watch the road....

COME TO SYDNEY AND DRIVE LIKE YOU DO UP THERE . bet you dont get to your destination.

[JC]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

well i'm afraid speed does kill . the laws of physics agrees with me. id rather hit a tree at 20kms an hour than 100kms hour.

Your statement has one major flaw. Speed = distance over time. 20km/h is a speed. You say you would rather hit a tree at 20 than 100, even though 20 is a speed, you are saying that at 20 it would not kill you. If we assume you are right, the peed does no kill. What does kill is the impact, and the forces that you hit with. The force increases with speed/momentum.

Speed in and of itself does not kill - if it did, then everyone who ever moved would die immeditely, as speed is the measure of distance over time.