Safespeed spoilsports



Status
Not open for further replies.
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 12:53:10 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you do, try taking some advanced lessons, (which are all about safety btw) and then tell me
>> what you think.

>Been there, done that and still think your arguments are dangerous and wrong.

OK, what course(s) did you do and how long for?
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> OK, what course(s) did you do and how long for?

I did a chunk of the standard IAM stuff (probably equivalent to about a third of the course) about
15 years ago but then moved to Germany and couldn't continue it.

The thing that stayed with me was the emphasis on obeying traffic laws, the need for continuous
awareness and the hazard perception.

Nothing I did suggested that I should drive faster or more recklessly.

T

T
 
On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:29:05 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> OK, what course(s) did you do and how long for?

>I did a chunk of the standard IAM stuff (probably equivalent to about a third of the course) about
>15 years ago but then moved to Germany and couldn't continue it.

I quite understand. I don't think you reached the point where the objectives and underlying
principles came out. For some there's a moment of realisation when it all suddenly becomes clear.

You should have another go if you're able. It's a good investment in safety for you and your
passengers if nothing else.

>The thing that stayed with me was the emphasis on obeying traffic laws, the need for continuous
>awareness and the hazard perception.

There's nothing wrong with traffic laws and I support them wholeheartedly.

>Nothing I did suggested that I should drive faster or more recklessly.

And nothing I suggest involves "faster or more recklessly" either.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tony, you obviously weren't speeding on the road to Damascus!

The Defendant: I did hear a thump but the son was in my eyes and the radar thingy wasn't bleeping --
Mi'lud. I didn't see the old guy on his cloud that you claim I hit, Mi'lud. On that part of the Road
to Damascus there is no speed limit and I adjudged I was doing a safe speed (just below Mach 1 --
not corrected for the low humidity and high temperature).

Judge: The victims family are pressing for eternal damnation with fire and brimstone. However we
have had one appeal for forgiveness. However, you have consistently failed to head the lessons of
Safespeed so I am sentencing to the maximum the law allows. For the death of a deity -- 200 quid, 3
Hail Mary's and 3 points on you licence.

Next case.

:)

Seemed like a standard Smith response to me. I don't agree with him so I clearly haven't appreciated
the lessons.

T
 
"Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote
> "DR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >Why do you keep repeating the false assertion that 5% comes from the pre-incident CE (sic).
>
> >Yesterday he tried telling me it was 0.5%.
>
> I can put it between 0.5% and 5% (I think) on average at present.
>
> >> Because it's clear from the tiny percentages who die that on average only a small percentage of
> >> the previous energy ends up in the crash.
>
> >The idea obviously hasn't sunk in yet that a vehicle can suffer damage while keeping acceleration
> >below a threshold for serious injury. If you examine footage of racing car crashes it might give
> >a clue.
>
> I've got 400 sample accident reports, and I'm trying to factor such things in. One field is
> "number of impacts", which is helpful. Most are a single impact.

I don't doubt that "most are a single impact". I don't think that is the issue. I take issue with is
your assessment of of KE absorbed in impact.

We know racing accidents deliver 100% of the KE to damage to the car and track from speeds typically
greater than road accidents. I know from personal experience that 10 people survived without injury
when about 30% of pre-event KE was delivered (at a guess 35mph impact after braking from 60mph).

You might be right if 0.5% of energy was delivered to a pedestrian or cyclist, but I don't have a
figure for the absorbency of human flesh. With a mass difference of at least 12:1 the impact itself
does not slow a vehicle significantly.

Quite clearly, what you hit is the important consideration. In that link to French data I gave you a
couple of weeks ago, one of the entries was that about 6% of casualties hit a tree. I don't know but
my guess is that people don't see an "unexpected" tree and try to brake to avoid. They go into a
tree because they lost control.

David Roberts
 
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 01:19:33 -0000, "DR" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I can put it between 0.5% and 5% (I think) on average at present.

>> I've got 400 sample accident reports, and I'm trying to factor such things in. One field is
>> "number of impacts", which is helpful. Most are a single impact.

>I don't doubt that "most are a single impact". I don't think that is the issue. I take issue with
>is your assessment of of KE absorbed in impact.

>We know racing accidents deliver 100% of the KE to damage to the car and track from speeds
>typically greater than road accidents. I know from personal experience that 10 people survived
>without injury when about 30% of pre-event KE was delivered (at a guess 35mph impact after braking
>from 60mph).

>You might be right if 0.5% of energy was delivered to a pedestrian or cyclist, but I don't have a
>figure for the absorbency of human flesh. With a mass difference of at least 12:1 the impact itself
>does not slow a vehicle significantly.

>Quite clearly, what you hit is the important consideration. In that link to French data I gave you
>a couple of weeks ago, one of the entries was that about 6% of casualties hit a tree. I don't know
>but my guess is that people don't see an "unexpected" tree and try to brake to avoid. They go into
>a tree because they lost control.

You're quite right to highlight these issues. Nevertheless, I see massive value in attempting to
determine the ratios of KE dissipations in incidents and my efforts continue.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email speed
cameras cost lives
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads