[besomebody]

(Original post by Dan1909)
You're either being deliberately obtuse, or simply still not getting my point. In those situations, the extra 20mph or so will make no difference.

Neither. I dismissed it because I thought it was stupid.

[illusionz]

(Original post by wibletg)
He is right dude

Momentum is not energy. The relationship between speed and energy is E=0.5mv^2.

It is a square law so if you double your speed you quadruple your kinetic energy.

You are right about the force being applied to the body being linear though (force x distance = work done in the direction of the force).

And yeah, it's not exponential

I know energy is proportional to velocity squared, I was just theorising that damage done is more related to force than energy. I didn't phrase that particularly well though, I can see how you thought I was saying his expression for energy was wrong!

[Venomilys]

(Original post by konvictz0007)
So lets alter our rules and regulations of driving with the assumption that a kid will come running into the road shall we?

It is not the fault of the motorist if a kid appears in the middle of the road, however like I said it is a skill of a driver to alter their speeds depending on circumstances. I drive very very slowly around schools, because while it is parents responsibility to ensure etc etc, children are stupid by nature so I make probably 4 times the observations I normally would do.

But if we hold the assumption that the kid will run into the road, then 20mph is too dangerous (we must also consider if the car is constant not, which makes a huge difference), some vehicles are so heavy they they will kill at those speeds. So if we are to let children run into the road, lets lower the speed limit to 10mph or 5?

Nope. I was once one of those stupid kids who was hit, the driver was going at 25. If he was going at 30 the doctors said I wouldn't be here today. Your entire thread, including this post here, is invalid.

You also have to take into account that not all drivers are driving enthusiasts. Got that? is that too much for you to comprehend? not all of us are sharp like you whilst driving.

EDIT: and 4 times the observations? on the day of me being hit it was raining heavily and I was crossing in between two cars. You can't see me and I can't see you.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by silverbolt)
the difference that will make a judge decide if your at fault or not.

doing 20 and hit a kid, the kid may well survive, you may stop in time, or the kid may stop in time, or you may still hit him and kill him. The judge may rule - no dangerous driving

doing 100 that kid is dead and your going (rightfully) to prison.

No sorry you're missing my point. I'm saying that (assuming you're not speeding or anything) it's perfectly possible it to be 100% the child's fault if you crash into him/her. The way you phrased your post sounded like you were saying if you ever hit a child it's automatically your fault, it's not.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
Neither. I dismissed it because I thought it was stupid.

Then you're missing my point. Think a bit more.

[besomebody]

(Original post by Dan1909)
Then you're missing my point. Think a bit more.

It's funny how many people seem to be missing your point. I might as well give up now - I'm obviously missing something incredibly insightful that only you can see...

Is it coz I'm female?!

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
It's funny how many people seem to be missing your point. I might as well give up now - I'm obviously missing something incredibly insightful that only you can see...

Is it coz I'm female?!

So you're honestly telling me that there's not a single moment, on any road in any country where it's not that dangerous to exceed the speed limit?

[besomebody]

(Original post by Dan1909)
So you're honestly telling me that there's not a single moment, on any road in any country where it's not that dangerous to exceed the speed limit?

No I'm not. Partly because I'm slightly confused by the double negative.

It's irresponsible. Most of the time it won't be dangerous, but people can't predict the future, and when it's not most of the time speeding can kill.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
No I'm not. Partly because I'm slightly confused by the double negative.

It's irresponsible. Most of the time it won't be dangerous, but people can't predict the future, and when it's not most of the time speeding can kill.

You're starting to get my point.

Sitting at 80 on the motorway when it's empty isn't any more dangerous than sitting at 70 on the same stretch of road. Speeding past a school is.

Speeding ISN'T dangerous. Speeding irresponsibly IS dangerous.

[Planar]

Great post OP(although I don't really understand why you have a passionate hatred for lane hoggers)

(Original post by besomebody)
If a kid darts into the road right in front of you, knowledge of braking distances won't help a bit. And if you're travelling at 50mph you're more likely to kill that little kid than if you're travelling at 20mph. In conclusion, speed kills.

I hate to be the one to say it, but when a boy darts in front of a car doing 50mph, the boy has just killed himself. The driver is not at fault.

[besomebody]

(Original post by Dan1909)
You're starting to get my point.

Sitting at 80 on the motorway when it's empty isn't any more dangerous than sitting at 70 on the same stretch of road. Speeding past a school is.

Speeding ISN'T dangerous. Speeding irresponsibly IS dangerous.

Thanks for making me laugh.

Speeding anywhere, at anytime, is dangerous and irresponsible because no-one ever knows what might happen. Just because speeding on quiet roads hardly ever kills anyone, doesn't mean it won't. Whatever your abilities (unless your ability involves predicting the future), speeding can kill.

[besomebody]

(Original post by Planar)
Great post OP(although I don't really understand why you have a passionate hatred for lane hoggers)



I hate to be the one to say it, but when a boy darts in front of a car doing 50mph, the boy has just killed himself. The driver is not at fault.

It makes no difference who's at fault.

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
Thanks for making me laugh.

Speeding anywhere, at anytime, is dangerous and irresponsible because no-one ever knows what might happen. Just because speeding on quiet roads hardly ever kills anyone, doesn't mean it won't. Whatever your abilities (unless your ability involves predicting the future), speeding can kill.

If you honestly believe that doing 5 or 10 miles an hour over the limit on an empty, dry motorway is noticeably more dangerous than doing exactly 70, then you're deluded.

Although, going by what you said, 70.1mph is apparently dangerous and irresponsible too. Oh dear

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
It makes no difference who's at fault.

Well it does, as if the driver is at fault he's facing a ban or jail time. If he's not at fault, then he's a free man. I'd say that's definitely a difference.

But, if you're happy to go to jail because a child didn't look both ways before walking into your car, be my guest, but I'd rather there was still a difference.

[besomebody]

(Original post by Dan1909)
If you honestly believe that doing 5 or 10 miles an hour over the limit on an empty, dry motorway is noticeably more dangerous than doing exactly 70, then you're deluded.

Although, going by what you said, 70.1mph is apparently dangerous and irresponsible too. Oh dear

This is really boring. I never said that. Travelling faster can be the sole reason for killing someone -it means you're more likely to hit someone/something and it's more likely to be fatal if you do.

(Original post by Dan1909)
Well it does, as if the driver is at fault he's facing a ban or jail time. If he's not at fault, then he's a free man. I'd say that's definitely a difference.

But, if you're happy to go to jail because a child didn't look both ways before walking into your car, be my guest, but I'd rather there was still a difference.

It makes no difference to the point of the thread.

[Planar]

(Original post by besomebody)
It makes no difference who's at fault.

It does actually. You used the example of a child's death to argue in favour of a lower speed. However, you used an example in which the child was at fault, and thus this argument was invalid for the purpose of deciding speed limits for the driver. Q E D

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
This is really boring. I never said that. Travelling faster can be the sole reason for killing someone -it means you're more likely to hit someone/something and it's more likely to be fatal if you do.

This is word for word what you said

(Original post by besomebody)

Speeding anywhere, at anytime, is dangerous and irresponsible

70.1mph is speeding, and is apparently dangerous and irresponsible, whereas 70mph is just fine and dandy, no chance of killing anybody, but as soon as you go over that magic number, suddenly people jump out at you and meteors throw themselves at your car. Let's face it, any speed can be dangerous if not treated carefully, be it 30mph or 80.

(Original post by Planar)
It does actually. You used the example of a child's death to argue in favour of a lower speed. However, you used an example in which the child was at fault, and thus this argument was invalid for the purpose of deciding speed limits for the driver. Q E D

She won't listen.

[besomebody]

(Original post by Planar)
It does actually. You used the example of a child's death to argue in favour of a lower speed. However, you used an example in which the child was at fault, and thus this argument was invalid for the purpose of deciding speed limits for the driver. Q E D

I'm wrong because I made the assumption that people would want to avoid hitting a child, whether or not the child's at fault?

[Dan1909]

(Original post by besomebody)
I'm wrong because I made the assumption that people would want to avoid hitting a child, whether or not the child's at fault?

And yet nobody in the thread has suggested they would want to hit a child, why are you bringing it up?

[besomebody]

(Original post by Dan1909)
This is word for word what you said



70.1mph is speeding, and is apparently dangerous and irresponsible, whereas 70mph is just fine and dandy, no chance of killing anybody, but as soon as you go over that magic number, suddenly people jump out at you and meteors throw themselves at your car. Let's face it, any speed can be dangerous if not treated carefully, be it 30mph or 80.




She won't listen.

lol. I only listen to sense.

I didn't set the speed limits. I'm assuming going over them is going to fast and that limits are higher on open roads and roads where you can see whats coming (you have more time to react) because it's the only way to generalize. No-one has the ability to say exactly what speed is safe on every specific road (especially not individuals), but going over the limit is unnecessary.