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

"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?



Depends..on many things.

I've come upon a rover in a ditch that lost it at 125mph (police estimate,
with which I agree..I got up to 110mph myself to check that bend, and it
was fully takable at that) and the front seat passengers crawled out..the
rear seat passengers who were not wearing seat belts, were pretty badly
knocked about..broken bones and multiple lacerations. They all lived tho..

I know of an accident where a group drove into a bridge support at 90. It
killed everyone in the van.
Some people are lucky most aren't.

So accident severity is something that is only vaguely correlated to
speed..one person I knew years ago, found himself faced with a head on
collision with a wall on a motorbike,.. He decided to go out in a blaze of
glory and opened it up wide..in fact he flew over the top of the wall,
knocked himself out and broke an arm and a collar bone. At less speed he
would have been dead.

Have you or he done the tests to prove that assumption?
If not then itis just cr@p being used to justify speed.


To an extent, high speed accidents are seldom one thump. They are rolling
tumbling events which bleed speed off progressively.

Its probably better to smash through a brick wall at 100mph, than come to
a dead stop doing 40mph, but it depends on so many factors.

The old experiment of pushing a candle into a piece of wood comes to mind.
It crumples. Fired from a gun, the candle goes right through the board
undamaged..

Do you want a bet?

I am not advocating unlimited speed, just that fixed speed limits are a
poor way of achieving road safety. Driver experience and education is the
only solution. The downside of speed limits is they make people who keep
to them excessively smug and self righteous, and never likely to question
their own behaviour..as can be seen in many posts here.

Fixed maximum speed limits don't detract from safety provided drivers obey
them.
If you can't obey a simple law then what hope have you got?
What other road laws do you suggest we ignore?
Red lights, level crossing barriers, pedestrian crossings, driving with
lights on all of which fit into the you could do this safely some of the
time.