Training hasn't helped with seat belts. Apologies if it has already been mentioned, but today's Press, has a headline, "Half of holiday crash victims not wearing seatbelts". Didn't Darwin have something to say about such people? At least they will not crash into innocent belted up (and I mean seat belted up, not beaten up) families in the future. Severe penalties are needed for non-compliance for things like seat belts, cell phone use, failing to give way and dangerous overtaking. In my opinion, speed is not a major issue unless ridiculous.
paul861,
Jan 7, 1:24am
cell phone use should be treated at least as harshly as DIC
bill-robinson,
Jan 7, 2:40am
if you stand totally still, no movement at all you will die. if you try moving at 10.000 mph ( 16,000 kph for the metric impaired) with no protection at all, you will die. the end result is the same, your point is?
alowishes,
Jan 7, 2:45am
If you’re born - you die.
So I’m unsure of your ‘logic’ bill
bill-robinson,
Jan 7, 3:06am
you finally got it, proving my point, speed is not relevant.it is the stop that does the damage. a guy i knew had a head on into a solid wall at well over 130 mph shortened his legs by a couple of inches but lived and was talking to the people trying to get him out, he finally drowned after a plane crash several years later.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 7, 4:56am
And all that had what to do with the question, standing still involves what crash?
bill-robinson,
Jan 7, 5:18am
the bang when you fall over. see if you can get your own brain to work instead of using mine.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 7, 5:30am
Ha ha ha, instead of using yours. Your logic, if it exists, is flawed, the question involved crashes, your example does not
bill-robinson,
Jan 7, 6:29am
i did tell you there were to many variables but your mind did not ,or could not understand that. you had your chance but did not take it. bye bye
nice_lady,
Jan 7, 6:49am
You two should get a room.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 7, 6:51am
bill, the variables are cover with "The going slower makes a fatal less likely or the faster makes it more likely?" Two operative words for you top consider " less likely" or perhaps these two "more likely".
wahinetoa62,
Jan 7, 11:00am
However, in the article, they are citing the driver at the fault of the fatals rather than those who were killed. Just as stats also take per capita into consideration.
socram,
Jan 7, 11:33am
That would be David Purley GM? Brave man. Made the Guinness book of records for that crash and the remains of the car, were at the Donington Museum for ages.
Idiots not wearing seatbelts is something I just do not understand, any more than I understand nutters speeding through a built up area. By speeding, I do not mean 55kph either. That is breaking the speed limit.
It doesn't matter how safe the car, how safe the roads, what the laws are, how tough the driving test, we seem to have far too many idiots who just can't or wont drive to the road and the conditions.
I feel much safer as a passenger in a car driven at high speed by a driver who knows what he is doing, concentrates and is aware, than an ex- neighbour who scared me silly on the only time she gave me a lift.
She managed to write off her car doing a U-turn on Link Drive at what one presumes was about 15kph and was lucky she wasn't killed or injured as the car was T-boned, luckily onto the passenger's side.
gazzat22,
Jan 7, 11:43am
As long as its padded.
bill-robinson,
Jan 7, 12:50pm
you got it, was a nice guy
tygertung,
Jan 7, 4:13pm
Surely, due to physics, one should imagine that if one had a sudden stop from a lower speed, the risk would be lower than a sudden stop from a higher speed?
bumfacingdown,
Jan 7, 6:10pm
You will not get a straight answer from bill on that one, to many variables you see
bill-robinson,
Jan 8, 3:04am
Image result for david purley, a racing driver, survived deceleration from 173 During pre-qualifying for the 1977 British Grand Prix Purley sustained multiple bone fractures after his car's throttle stuck open and he crashed into a wall. His deceleration from 108 mph (173 km/h) to 0 in a distance of 26 inches (66 cm) is one of the highest G-loads survived in a crash. above copied from google makes a mockery of slow speed crashes. the result depends on too may things to blame just one.
ronaldo8,
Jan 8, 4:16am
Exceptional outlier points of data prove nothing.
Unlike ignoring a significant contribution factor by hand waving it away by demanding it should be the only factor before it should be given any consideration proves something.
Not such a good something.
bumfacingdown,
Jan 8, 4:30am
All very interesting but little relevance to road crashes on public roads in NZ
bill-robinson,
Jan 8, 6:38am
i know that, i was replying to post #174 that is why we have global warming. study how temp graphd were fiddled with.
alowishes,
Jan 8, 8:43am
How many crashes occur in suburban/town areas vs the highway/open road.
And how many of the first are fatal vs those of the second location type in a percentage.
If speed was not an issue relating to the ‘sudden stop’ the percentage of the fatalities in bth instances would be much the same.
Is it?
bwg11,
Jan 8, 9:36am
I think we need to differentiate between the causes of accident/incidents and the the results thereof. How many fatalities are caused solely by speed? How many are caused by alcohol, cell phone use, playing with the sound system, inattention, failing to give way, running reds, or simple incompetence?
likit,
Jan 8, 9:44am
Keeping on your side of road makes less chance of a fatal, quite simple really. Speed only has an effect on the outcome.
apollo11,
Jan 8, 9:50am
It's only common sense that the more energy that goes into a collision, the greater the damage. Only a troll would argue otherwise. The government were talking about dropping highway speeds to 80 to make fatalities less likely, but there is an economic cost to do so and I guess it died a quick death.
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.