"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Autolycus wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

If people were prosecuted not for speeding, but for HAVING
ACCIDENTS. the roads would be a far safer place.

Or *both*.
Not really. There is no direct correlation between vehicle speed
(within broad limits), and accidents.

If this is indeed true (and I'd need rather more than repeated
assertion to convince me), then is there one between vehicle speed
and severity of accident? Hint: m/2*v**2


No. There is a correlation between severity and peak *deceleration*.

That depends on how long it takes to stop the projectile.


In a well belted in passenger, up to 10g no damage. snip

This takes a very narrow view of "severity" and a very tightly-defined
accident. In real life, cars don't always run head-on into concrete
blocks: they hit odd shaped objects with strangely projecting bits at
funny angles, and they do things like flipping onto their roofs if
certain dynamic criteria are met. If my car runs into a road sign at 10
mile/h, I'll probably survive, as I probably would at 40 mile/h. But
which would be the more severe accident?

An imperfect, inattentive, or foolish driver (obviously not a reader of
this group) suddenly realise you are stationary, in front of him and
100ft away when he starts braking. At 48 mile/h, he taps your back
bumper: at 55 mile/h, he's still doing 25 mile/h when he hits you.
Which is the more severe accident?


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. )***