That's a good example of statistics, facts, being used to deceive.
bill-robinson,
Jan 3, 5:17am
that is easy to explain. they used the new 100% that is used for climate change. keep up in the back please.lol
mechnificent,
Jan 3, 5:27am
I try Bill. I really do. most people.
apollo11,
Jan 3, 5:30am
What wild bill hiccup meant to say was that there can be more than one contributing factor to most accidents. ie "sorry h'officer, I was tired, drunk, going too fast for the conditions, lost control while trying to find my cell phone around my feet".
bumfacingdown,
Jan 3, 5:51am
That a lot of times there is no single factor but multiple contributing factors?
mechnificent,
Jan 3, 6:00am
I didn't see tourists in there.
tweake,
Jan 3, 6:18am
yeah something like that. SCU is only an hour or so away. as its a major choke point on sh1 its a big push to clear scene pretty quickly. there was no SCU paint mark marks on the road, that had all been cleaned off. it would have had a big clean due to oil etc anyway. paint crews may have been called anyway. but most certainly the old paint lines where there when i went through that evening and new ones when i went through in the morning.
the official cause is driver cut the corner, but that was common because the lines where in the wrong place. however what was never mentioned is that for the two cars to hit, the other car must have been following the centre line which put him meters away from the normal driving line. if he had kept left instead of following centre line, even if the other car was completely over the centre line, the cars would have missed each other.
that accident is in an episode of SCU tv program but all the footage is with the repainted centerline.
tweake,
Jan 3, 6:23am
+1 plus things like "lost control" is not really a cause. its an outcome of other factors.
apollo11,
Jan 3, 6:28am
I've gotta wonder what the tourist is doing to you to cause you to crash.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 3, 6:37am
Who said you would?
tygertung,
Jan 3, 6:56am
Would driving faster or slower make one less likely crash?
bill-robinson,
Jan 3, 7:02am
get a new line on the graph headed "unsure of speed but this is the cause" then pick a number. you know it makes sense.
tygertung,
Jan 3, 9:24am
Your line of higher speed is no more unsafe is getting a bit tired.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 3, 11:26am
One of those options could make it less likely to be fatal ✅
apollo11,
Jan 4, 2:44am
Wasn't the government talking about lowering most motorway speed limits to 90 at one point?
bill-robinson,
Jan 4, 3:46am
i have an idea in my head that the govt raised it to 110kph on the new highway in the BOP. probably wrong though.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 4, 4:29am
What did you not understand bill? The going slower makes a fatal less likely or the faster makes it more likely?
It would be way safer crashing at 80 km/h than 100 km/h
kiwilandchch,
Jan 4, 10:23am
#75 Thanks for getting me a warning who ever didnt like what i said and went running to admin . get a life . just not posting anymore in here some good and helpful people on here but also some real ## s
mechnificent,
Jan 4, 12:26pm
Oh that sucks. You should ignore it and don't get pinged again. We've all been there. Well I have. several times.
bill-robinson,
Jan 5, 2:50am
if you follow statistics mindlessly you could arrive at that conclusion.
bill-robinson,
Jan 5, 2:53am
and safest not to crash at all.
alowishes,
Jan 5, 4:05am
Very few get killed when they’re in a stationary vehicle. I didn’t need to ‘mindlessly follow statistics’ to figure that out
bill-robinson,
Jan 5, 4:32am
do not to to bed tonight then.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.