Printable View
There is a big difference between motor racing and driving down your average road. Much more is done to ensure driver safety in motor racing because they are traveling at such high speeds and it is understood that high speed increases the chances of being killed or injured.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy John
If speed doesn't kill then I assume that hitting a tree at 100km/hr must be much the same as hitting a tree at 10km/hr.:rolleyes:
It's not the speed that kills it's the sudden stop. Seriously, if someone hits a tree at 100 Kph they will probably be killed - no doubt. It's the reason he/she left the road and hit the tree that I am alluding to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vernonv
As far as auto sports go, in most cases everyone is going in the same direction and the drivers are at a much higher level of training/competence, the track is isolated from other traffic and there are marshalls to warn of imminent danger thereby eliminating many of the unknowns that make driving on the open road at any speed dangerous.
19 year old driver of the vehicle confirmed as having a blood alcohol level of 0.19. With a BA level that high surely the the guy must have been visibly drunk and at least one of the passengers should have had the intelligence to work out letting this idiot be in control of the vehicle was not a good idea.
Vernov you think that speed is a Major factor in collisions, don't beleive what you are told do your own reaserch and you will find that you statement is wrong, as for ray's comment, I beleive he is misinformed. Most people think speed camera's are acurate because that is what we are told but I am afraid it could not be farther from the truth. When this blatant misinformation is somehow reversed then we can start solving some of the real causes of motor vehical collisions
Instead of waiting for Vernov to do his reaserch, can you enlighten us to why speed isnt a major factor in collisionsQuote:
Originally Posted by China
Of all those who have posted on this subject, Ray is the only one i can see who has had real life hands on experience with fatalities, as he has attended many in his line of work. Im curious why you would say he he is misinformed:?Quote:
Originally Posted by China
It seems that some of the latest posts are discussing the reason most of the occupants are dead - they hit a tree at high speed.
Obviously if you speed and don't collide with anything you get there in less time however if you collide with something then the damage dramatically increases with an increase in speed.
The consequences of high speed collisions are drastic and the problem is that it may not be the person who decided to speed who is injured or killed or gravely (no pun intended) affected.
Apart from the sole survivor the others are dead and we can't do much for them now apart from bury them or cremate them.
Can we do something particularly for the living younger people who are fit, have a great future and are clever but will tragically die in similar circumstances?
Some of the mates of the killed have been caught doing similar speeds within days of their mates being wiped out. Why?
Some people call them stupid and perhaps in our eyes they may appear stupid.
Some people have thoughts of showing young people casualty wards but the behaviour of the dead kids' mates indicates that might not work.
Ok China, as I said quite a few things in my post, can you be more specific as to where I am misinformed? You believe that I am misinformed, explain why you hold that belief please, rather than just claiming it without explanation. I am curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by China
I am also curious as to why you believe that the statement by Vernon is wrong. How about instead of just making a claim that another is wrong, how about providing some evidence of your own to prove Vernon's statement wrong, rather than just saying it is wrong.
I am not sure how speed cameras came into this argument, but since it has, I will put my perspective forward. I am speaking for myself here, not in any way in an official capacity, something that I cannot do.
Speed cameras are accurate to a legal standard. A legal standard is not the same standard as a scientific standard. A legal standard can be reached through a scientific analysis of the instrument and establishing what the performance parameters are if certain operating conditions exist and criteria are met. The legal standard merely says that a device, operated in certain conditions and in a certain manner will give a result, accurate to within 2 or 3 kilometres per hour depending upon the instrument. That degree of precision or accuracy is accepted by legislators and Courts of law as a standard of accuracy or precision sufficient for the purposes of the Road Safety Act in Victoria. Is it a standard that a scientist would be satisfied with? Perhaps, perhaps not, it is largely irrelevant as scientists are not the people determining what the required standard should be.
Each speed measuring device, be it fixed or mobile radar, laser, digitector, camera of whatever description all have a tolerance. This tolerance varies from device type to device type and from laser to laser, radar to radar, camera to camera. Parliament has recognised this fact and to allow for that variance for a legal standard, the Act which names each device as a "prescribed device" for the purposes of the Act, the Act also legislates what that tolerance allowance must be.
That is why whenever a person is prosecuted for an offence whereby the evidence that we rely upon derives from one of these devices, the penalty notice or charge sheet always includes both the detected speed and the alleged speed. The Act states that the alleged speed is obtained by subtracting the prescribed tolerance from the detected speed.
If you believe that "speed kills" and other such theories are wrong, then I have no doubt that if you can prove them wrong and identify the real cause, I am sure that once you provide that evidence to Vic Roads, Monash University Accident Research Centre, lawmakers and legislators, Victoria Police, Traffic Accident Commission and all other parties who have an interest in the field, then the collective efforts would be refocussed in a second.
I haven't yet seen in any post a claim that speed is the ONLY cause of fatal or serious injury collisions. Are there other contributors? Absolutely.
Alcohol, drugs, speed, road condition, weather condition, human error, inexperience, fatigue, bad luck, poor decision making, peer pressure, ignorance, vehicle condition, vehicle design, vehicle malfunction, laws of physics, roadside environmental design, lack of confidence, misplaced or excessive confidence, poor reflexes, insufficient or non existent skills.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but in every single collision I have ever been to, at least one of these factors has been the trigger for the collision.
My opinions as expressed in my first post are formed through attending over the course of the last 19 years, in excess of 30 fatal collisions and 100's if not 1000's of serious injury collisions and well into the 1000's minor injury and non injury collisions. It is formed through from a trained, experienced and thorough analysis of the human and physical evidence that is left behind in each and every collision scene. I have been able to give my opinions as to the cause of collisions and what happened in particular collisions to Magistrates, Judges and Coroners on numerous occasions and my expertise has been recognised and accepted by these Courts.
So now that I have put forward the basis upon which I have formed my opinions about the causes of fatalities or serious injury collisions, it is now your turn China. I await your post eagerly, explain to me how exactly I have been misinformed.
It is a fact that young people, and particularly our young men, have a greater feeling of immortality than others. Its programmed into our DNA and as a society we take advantage of it - who do we send off to war to fight in the front lines as cannon fodder? - young men because they will have less hesitation than others.
In terms of the attitude on our roads, our society has produced what we have today. In many parts of the country young people are brought up in a drinking culture and it is senseless to only rely on punitive measures to address the consequences of this.
Our politics and society are pitched toward individual rights and a "give me" attitude of many, and the greater good is often ignored. I'm afraid there will be no improvement in this area without changing some of the basic conditions that produce the attitudes in people we have today.
Just to add to Ray's explanation of the tolerances of speed measuring devices....
As well as the legal standards required, there are Australian standards for the calibration of these devices, which are scientific standards. Devices calibrated according to these standards (and they all are - if you can show that a device wasn't you're off scott free) will have error bounds that are much less than the legal tolerances.
As Ray says, if you can show that they are wrong, go for it.
Speed not a factor in accidents?
Do a simple test. Drive at 50km/hr and see how long it takes to brake to a complete stop. Now drive at 100km/hr and notice how it takes a longer distance to bring the car to a halt. People do the test every day as they race past my house at up to 30-40kms over the posted 50km/hr speed limit.....usually with nothing more than a car length between themselves and the person in front of them who's observing the speed limit.
140km/hr, drunk 19 year old P plate driver with no concept of mortality, a car full of passengers he's out to impress......a straight out selfish criminal act and it shows the guy had a total lack of respect for other humans including his friends.
Keep up the good work, Ray.
After 18 years of driving, I have had one "failure to stop at a stop sign" (I got lazy, made a "rolling stop", took the fine and demerit points on the chin and now stop every time) and ZERO speeding fines. Don't like speeding fines? Get your foot off the go pedal and obey the numbers in a red ring by the side of the road. Very simple cause and effect relationship.
As for the idiot who killed his mates, I don't think there's a single solution. Certainly isn't a simple one. I like the idea of moderate consequences for minor speeding of up to 10 kph over the limit, with massive consequences for anything above that. A couple of k's over can be an honest mistake, but it's a deliberate act for 10+ and should be treated as such. Perhaps fines indexed to income would be good as well.
If you don't like the speed limits, tell your MP about it. We can't just pick and choose which laws to break just to suit ourselves. "You're not allowed to steal my car because the law says so, but I can break the law any time I like and speed when it suits me." :screwy:
I was fined for missing a sign showing the limit had reduced to 80 so was doing 20kph over the limit which is more than 10km over the limit but wasn't doing it intentionally. :)
Not exactly. What I said was that speed was a major cause of death and serious injury. It's a no-brainer and doesn't take much research to figure out that the faster you are going when you hit something, the worse shape you will be in after the impact. Simple really.Quote:
Originally Posted by China
Also as has already been pointer out, the faster you are traveling the less time you give yourself to react and the longer it takes you to stop in an emergency ... basic physics really.
Believe that.
One of the worst road safety adverts is the one that says, "We'll catch you before you kill someone".
However, one fact is constantly missed even in this thread. Getting a licence is one thing but keeping it is contingent on obeying the road rules whether they relate to speed, drink, using mobiles etc.
Jim
Just heard on the news that a drunk driver crashed his car in full view of a funeral for one of the victims of the accident which caused this thread.