Does speed kill????

[motorman587]

I am an AARP driver safety program instructor. We had an update today and received a Florida Supplement work book. On page K under the heading "Effect of speed on impact", I thougth about this fourm and some of the topics about speed. It continued with, Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways.

 

1. It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.

 

2. It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is preceived.

 

3. It increases the crash energy by the square of the speed. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.

 

So does speed kill or not??

[SageRider]

1. It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.

 

2. It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is preceived.

 

3. It increases the crash energy by the square of the speed. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.

 

So does speed kill or not??

If you truly believe that speed kills, how can you move at all, since any movement will increase the energy that needs to be managed by an infinite amount? (and that doesn't even take into account the sky falling on you when you are not moving!)

[smiller]

And given all that information, isn't it best that we go back to a 55mph speed limit? Much less kinetic energy floating around that way...

[SageRider]

Seems to me, that if speed kills, then speed must be outlawed completely! 55MPH is way too high! Even walking speed is too high!

The only solution is to outlaw all motion.

[Dave McReynolds]

I'll tell you what happens with me. At speeds that are slow for given conditions, say 70 mph where I would rather be driving 80 mph, my mind begins to wander, I play with the radio, talk with people on the (hands free) cell phone, begin to feel symptoms of various real or imagined diseases, and so on. At 80 mph, I don't pay much attention to the radio, hang up the cell phone, and pay more attention to what's out there on the road. I don't know how much my increased attention offsets the increased consequences of a wreck, but I would guess that if I ever do get into a wreck, it will more than likely happen at some speed where I am bored and distracted.

[BFG]

It's been said, "It's not the speed that kills, it's the sudden stop."

 

You control the speed. And you control the brakes.

[zbassman]

Its not the speed, its the sudden deceleration syndrom that kills.

[T__]

I am an AARP driver safety program instructor. We had an update today and received a Florida Supplement work book. On page K under the heading "Effect of speed on impact", I thougth about this fourm and some of the topics about speed. It continued with, Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways.

 

1. It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.

 

2. It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is preceived.

 

3. It increases the crash energy by the square of the speed. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.

 

So does speed kill or not??

 

Speed only kills if you don’t manage it correctly.. Speed in & of itself won’t kill,, well not at logical traffic speeds + some).. If not managed correctly it can ALLOW all of the things you stated above.. It’s really not the speed itself that kills but the potential energy in that speed,, & shortened reaction time,, & lengthened breaking distance..

 

On the other hand “can speed kill”? Sure it can,, if you don’t believe that just stick your head out the window of a plane flying Mach 2..

 

BUT,, there are other factors than speed itself__ the faster you go the less time you spend on the road so your exposure to accidents are lower.. In my case the faster I go the more I pay attention & focus on smooth driving & situation awareness.. When the speed limit was 55 mph I had a dickens of a time keeping focused on the road & situation (lots of daydreaming)..

 

Maybe your question should be re-stated as does speed differential kill.. I feel way more comfortable driving 90 mph when the other traffic is doing the same than doing 75 mph in a large cluster of vehicles some doing 90 & others doing 55.. It’s the abrupt vehicle moves due to traffic speed differential that bothers me most..

 

Maybe we should ask if distractions kill.. That would be at the top of my list as accident causers..

 

Twisty

 

 

[bakerzdosen]

I'll tell you what happens with me. At speeds that are slow for given conditions, say 70 mph where I would rather be driving 80 mph, my mind begins to wander, I play with the radio, talk with people on the (hands free) cell phone, begin to feel symptoms of various real or imagined diseases, and so on. At 80 mph, I don't pay much attention to the radio, hang up the cell phone, and pay more attention to what's out there on the road. I don't know how much my increased attention offsets the increased consequences of a wreck, but I would guess that if I ever do get into a wreck, it will more than likely happen at some speed where I am bored and distracted.

+1.

 

Some of the safest and most alert driving I've ever done was above 225kph.

 

IMHO, the problem is not speed, it's lack of training and attention (and a general nonchalant attitude about driving) in the USA.

 

But I know I'm in the minority. If I wasn't, there wouldn't be speed limits on much of the Interstate system.

[russell_bynum]

I'll tell you what happens with me. At speeds that are slow for given conditions, say 70 mph where I would rather be driving 80 mph, my mind begins to wander, I play with the radio, talk with people on the (hands free) cell phone, begin to feel symptoms of various real or imagined diseases, and so on. At 80 mph, I don't pay much attention to the radio, hang up the cell phone, and pay more attention to what's out there on the road. I don't know how much my increased attention offsets the increased consequences of a wreck, but I would guess that if I ever do get into a wreck, it will more than likely happen at some speed where I am bored and distracted.

+1.

 

Some of the safest and most alert driving I've ever done was above 225kph.

 

IMHO, the problem is not speed, it's lack of training and attention (and a general nonchalant attitude about driving) in the USA.

 

But I know I'm in the minority. If I wasn't, there wouldn't be speed limits on much of the Interstate system.

 

Yep.

[motorman587]

I am an AARP driver safety program instructor. We had an update today and received a Florida Supplement work book. On page K under the heading "Effect of speed on impact", I thougth about this fourm and some of the topics about speed. It continued with, Speed influences the risk of crashes and crash injuries in three basic ways.

 

1. It increases the distance a vehicle travels from the time a driver detects an emergency to the time the driver reacts.

 

2. It increases the distance needed to stop a vehicle once an emergency is preceived.

 

3. It increases the crash energy by the square of the speed. When impact speed increases from 40 to 60 mph (a 50 percent increase), the energy that needs to be managed increases by 125 percent.

 

So does speed kill or not??

 

Speed only kills if you don’t manage it correctly.. Speed in & of itself won’t kill,, well not at logical traffic speeds + some).. If not managed correctly it can ALLOW all of the things you stated above.. It’s really not the speed itself that kills but the potential energy in that speed,, & shortened reaction time,, & lengthened breaking distance..

 

On the other hand “can speed kill”? Sure it can,, if you don’t believe that just stick your head out the window of a plane flying Mach 2..

 

BUT,, there are other factors than speed itself__ the faster you go the less time you spend on the road so your exposure to accidents are lower.. In my case the faster I go the more I pay attention & focus on smooth driving & situation awareness.. When the speed limit was 55 mph I had a dickens of a time keeping focused on the road & situation (lots of daydreaming)..

 

Maybe your question should be re-stated as does speed differential kill.. I feel way more comfortable driving 90 mph when the other traffic is doing the same than doing 75 mph in a large cluster of vehicles some doing 90 & others doing 55.. It’s the abrupt vehicle moves due to traffic speed differential that bothers me most..

 

Maybe we should ask if distractions kill.. That would be at the top of my list as accident causers..

 

Twisty

 

If distractions kills............. if I distracted at 5 mph and crash or if I am distracted at 90 mph, which one is more likely to kill????

[Dave McReynolds]

If distractions kills............. if I distracted at 5 mph and crash or if I am distracted at 90 mph, which one is more likely to kill????

 

Well, in my case, I believe the 5 mph is more likely to kill. You see, I'm a real menace backing up, which probably has a lot to do with being distracted as I'm backing out of the driveway on my way to work: planning my day, not wide awake yet, etc. I'm lucky that no child or person has gotten behind my car when I'm backing out of the driveway in the morning, but I understand from statistics that more children are killed that way than just about any other.

 

On the other hand, at 90 mph I don't think I've ever been distracted.

[smiller]

If distractions kills............. if I distracted at 5 mph and crash or if I am distracted at 90 mph, which one is more likely to kill????

It seems that you think we are all missing the point, but... we get it... more kinetic energy, more damage. Got it.

 

But I think what people are trying to say is that there are more factors to the safety equation than simple speed alone. Do you you agree with that statement?

[T__]

If distractions kills............. if I (am) distracted at 5 mph and crash or if I am distracted at 90 mph, which one is more likely to kill????

 

Is this a trick question?

 

If you crashed at 90 mph into a pile of hay you would probably walk away.. If you crashed at 5mph into the front of a truck traveling at 55 mph towards you, you would probably die..

 

Or put another way if the guy traveling 5 mph crashed with the guy going 90 mph they would probably both die..

 

You just can’t interpret speed as the cause of accidents or death.. If you could the accident & death rate would be much higher on the freeway than on secondary roads & the statistics just don’t show that.. Speed can contribute, as well as lack of sleep, inattention, poor driving skills, worn vehicle parts, etc.. The reason most agencies blame speed is it is easily enforceable & easy to spot.. Ever give a guy a ticket for lack of sleep? (probably more dangerous than being drunk)

 

You want to see accidents? go pull a guy over for going 5 over on a crowded freeway during rush hour in heavy traffic, then watch the accidents appear..

 

After re-reading this last sentence I guess I have to agree that speeding can kill (with a little help)..

Twisty

[motorman587]

I agree with all. I was attempt to stir the pot, as I always do. Keep you guys on your toes.

[Rich_O]

I think most of the responses are related to the effect of speed on the probability of having an accident vis-a-vis alertness being greater at higher speed.

 

(BTW, thats my excuse for speeding too )

 

Given the same mode of impact, I think it's patently obvious that there will be more damage at a greater impact speed.

 

In the real world, there are many more variables, as was stated.

[Stir]

Seems to me, that if speed kills, then speed must be outlawed completely! 55MPH is way too high! Even walking speed is too high!

The only solution is to outlaw all motion.

 

Actually, 30mph seems to be the magic number where our bodies can't squish and give enough so it tears. So, we need to have a max speed limit of 29mph.

 

Of course, 300mph mag lev trains would be out of the question or 700 mp planes; insanity! They could never stop for any event.

[lawnchairboy]

speed does not kill

 

deceleration kills. chris from shock trauma in baltimore...

[Bud]

Headline: Trooper in fatal crash was going 126 MPH.

 

Veered out of control, crossed an interstate median and killed two teenage sisters.

 

The coroners jury ruled the deaths a "reckless homicide."

 

The trooper was involved in two previous crashes in his six year state police career. One of them resulted in a $1.7 Million judgement against the state.

 

Illinois State Police accident reconstruction investigator Chris Gebke testified that is was the trooper's high rate of speed - 126 MPH - that caused him to lose control of the car. Car crossed the I 64 median and was going 102 MPH when it tore in two the vehicle in which the teens were riding. The motor from their car ended up 100 yards away from the rest of the vehicle.

 

Trooper survived with injuries.

 

The "emergency" he was responding to was 22 miles away and local police were already on the scene.

 

In a related article, it was reported that the state law says the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle must drive "with due regard for the safety of all persons" and is not protected "from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the saftey of others."

 

So the question is: Did the 126 MPH speed the officer was driving result in the death of two innocent teens?

 

In this instance, most reasonable persons would agree that speed killed. Argue all you want. Give it your best shot. However, those of you who are convinced that speed doesn't kill will not change your mind, nor mine.

[lawnchairboy]

Well....I maintain

 

speed kills, when it leads to a loss of control which leads to a too rapid rate of deceleration. I see it many times in a week. By the way, the troopers victims were killed by the forces which resulted from rapid deceleration... from a reasonable person who works in a leading trauma center.

[bakerzdosen]

So the question is: Did the 126 MPH speed the officer was driving result in the death of two innocent teens?

 

In this instance, most reasonable persons would agree that speed killed. Argue all you want. Give it your best shot. However, those of you who are convinced that speed doesn't kill will not change your mind, nor mine.

I'm reasonable yet I whole-heartedly disagree.

 

There is a difference between speed on the open road and speeding in inappropriate situations. He was going too fast for the situation. 30mph is too fast sometimes. Keep in mind, in a German residential area (yes, that same place where you can drive WAAAY too fast for most American's tastes), it's not uncommon for the speed limit to be 15kph (9.32mph).

 

According to your argument, there should be no jet airplanes, let alone a space program.

[Bud]

So the question is: Did the 126 MPH speed the officer was driving result in the death of two innocent teens?

 

In this instance, most reasonable persons would agree that speed killed. Argue all you want. Give it your best shot. However, those of you who are convinced that speed doesn't kill will not change your mind, nor mine.

I'm reasonable yet I whole-heartedly disagree.

 

There is a difference between speed on the open road and speeding in inappropriate situations. He was going too fast for the situation. 30mph is too fast sometimes. Keep in mind, in a German residential area (yes, that same place where you can drive WAAAY too fast for most American's tastes), it's not uncommon for the speed limit to be 15kph (9.32mph).

 

According to your argument, there should be no jet airplanes, let alone a space program.

 

Here is what I was going to write:

 

Of course you are a reasonable person. And this is the second time hyperbole has gotten me into trouble.

 

But come on. I'm not a Luddite. I'm not suggesting we all walk at less than one MPH. I"m not suggesting and you don't believe that I'm suggesting that speed, in and of itself is the problem. You have given examples and I have many more where 200 MPH or even 600 MPH or 24,000 MPH is safe.

 

 

But even you agree "He was going too fast for the situation. " I think it is reasonable to assume that he would not have lost control at 65 MPH, therefore his speed did kill.

 

What I object to is the attitude that speed is irrelevant in respect to your chances of dying. I have been here a couple of years and have seen the constant support by many members that while they exceed the "legal" speed limit, they are not speeding nor endangering themselves or others.

 

We are motorcyclists, we are risk takers, more so than the general population and yet we continue to act as though speed has no direct application to our living or dying.

 

But then again, I stated up front that no minds would be changed so I decided no to.

 

Then I decided that winter is a bad time to spend on a motorcycle forum, that I have been on much too long today and need a "time out" so I most likely won't see or respond to any replies.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Bud,

Methinks the speed was not the killer here. Yes, it provided the energy that resulted in the unfortunate deaths but, the killer was the driver who, lacking the training to manage his vehicle at the speed he was traveling, lost control of same. Had he continued down the road at 126 mph or whatever wretched excess he was doing, the incident would not have happened, plain and simple.

 

Certainly, speed has an impact, pardon the pun, on the severity of crashes but, as others have pointed out, speed differential is a far more important factor. Heck, Nascar drivers rub on each other and bump from the rear at speed approaching 200 mph all the time. Sure, sometimes, somebody gets turned around and buys the wall but most times, due to only a couple of mph speed differential, there is little, if any, action. Now, these cars possess a high level of potential energy but the small speed differential and often direction the energy is applied means that there will be little transfer of energy. Kinetic energy is just that, energy. It is not until it is dissipated over a short period of time that problems develop.

[velomoto]

So does speed kill or not??

Yes absolutely speed kills but that was most popular in the 60's and 70's. These days we've got crack and meth...

[bakerzdosen]

Bud,

Speed doesn't kill. Hyperbole does.

 

My opinion(s) can be roughly summed up with this: I was an exchange student in Germany in high school. There were a lot of things that affected my life, and driving on the Autobahn was one of them. Yes, you're right, after that experience, no one will ever be able to convince me that speed in and of itself kills.

 

The German students my age (16-17) couldn't get a driver's license yet. And they also knew that getting a license wasn't just a right given to all 18 year olds, but rather it was a culmination of a lot of training and testing. In addition, Germans have a lot of respect (fear even?) of driving on the Autobahn because they know it actually requires skill to do so and that there is actual danger involved. Meanwhile, I was one of the few 17 year olds from Oregon who had actually undergone any sort of official driver's eduation - mainly because it was a requirement for me when I got my driver's license at 14 (!!!???!!!) in Idaho. (And most of that class I spent flirting with the rather attractive girl seated behind me).

 

You can't tell me that the education of those driving our roads is taken seriously when the most education a 16 year old gets is reading through a thick pamphlet and maybe an hour or two driving around a parking lot with dad.

 

Of course people in this country aren't typically qualified to drive 150mph on the highway.

 

So, while I'd LOVE to see roads (like I-15 through S. Utah to Vegas for example) have the speed limit lifted, I'm not naive enough to think that it should happen without a lot of changes occurring first. (Among them, the roads would need to be upgraded to Autobahn standards.)

 

In other words, I do think that speed limits are needed - even on highways out in the middle of no where - in the USA. I don't like that they're needed, but they are. A 16 year old with under an hour actual driving experience could be driving along eating burritos with a few friends, music blaring, and talking on the cell phone (all perfectly legally) on any road in this country. I know I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that vehicle. If you add speeds north of 100mph into the mix, I'm staying at home because someone's going to get dead and I'd prefer that it not be me.

 

Would speed be the "killer" there? I'd argue that it wasn't. A contributing factor? Yup, I'd agree to that.

 

I know that I had a friend that got in 2 accidents (minor) and received 3 tickets his first day with his license.

[KDeline]

I agree with all. I was attempt to stir the pot, as I always do. Keep you guys on your toes.

 

 

Then bring up speeding tickets and how its about safty and not revenue and see the response you get. But you've done that already.

[motorman587]

I agree with all. I was attempt to stir the pot, as I always do. Keep you guys on your toes.

 

 

 

 

Then bring up speeding tickets and how its about safty and not revenue and see the response you get. But you've done that already.

 

 

 

Your right, I love speed limits, cause I save lives.

[drzep]

Speed is a strong modifier of morbidity and mortality for those involved in motorcycle accidents.

 

Make of it what you will and blame it on skill, vigilance, protective clothing, etc. Outcome measures do not care about "why?", just about the end point which in this case is death or disability.

[Bud]

and having a close encounter with the danger of hyperbole, I've decided that in fact, speed does not kill.

[Bud]

and having a close encounter with the danger of hyperbole, I've decided that in fact, speed does not kill.

 

Forgot the image.

 

[Linz]

I know without doubt that I'm a safer rider if I cruise at where my R1150RT likes to be in top gear as both rider and bike are "in the groove".

If I'm battling to keep the bike happy at forced lower speeds, keeping my eye out for the law in front, behind and the other eye on the speedo, I'm not as safe. It's not possible to ride safely concentrating on that crap, especially in traffic.

 

After 40 years of riding I've come to the conclusion that I have to be behind or in front of the traffic but not in amongst it. I choose the slightly more illegal choice of being very slightly faster than the cages in any given situation. When I have observed LEO's on bikes (not in pursuit) in three different countries, they all travel in that manner. Slightly faster than the traffic. They either agree with my findings or they speed because they can...

 

Linz

[DonMcCall]

Speed? I'm a wimp. I can enjoy being 'out in the smell' on the bike at whatever speed I'm riding at. So typically I'm around 5 miles over whatever the speed limit is. I just have enough to work on to ride well without coopting ANY of my tiny attention span to watching out for the boys in blue...

[sardineone]

Ok, Ok I'll take the bait as I must with my tongue in cheek avitar. I haven't seen mention of the machines we ride! I wouldn't feel safe at shall we say at an elevated velocity on a cruiser due to the limited performance envelope. Some bikes have exceptional handling and stability and that's the kind of machines I gravitate towards. I feel a good bike with decent decisions by an experienced pilot can operate reasonably safe well above the legal limit in many cases.

 

[George Brown]

And given all that information, isn't it best that we go back to a 55mph speed limit? Much less kinetic energy floating around that way...

 

Hush, before someone dangerous gets a hold of that thought.

 

Bud: Speed is relative to many things such as, the condition of the vehicle, the condition of the road, weather, visibility, operator's skill level, attention, mental condition, etc. Obviously, 126 mph was too fast for that trooper at that time for whatever reason. Is it too fast for the salt?

 

What may seem slow to me, may very well be way too fast for someone else. We've all seen the elderly trying to negotiate a parking lot at 5 mph which to them is about 100x too fast. Someday, we all may be there ourselves. Some people have trouble handling a shopping cart.

[Jones]

Speed in and of itself can not kill.

 

Kinetic energy can kill. It absolutely does not matter how you acquire it. If enough of you is exposed to a sufficient amount if it over a critical period of time, it will kill you.

 

The equation is pretty skewed toward velocity though.

[drzep]

[MotorinLA]

Twisty1 wrote:

You just can’t interpret speed as the cause of accidents or death.. If you could the accident & death rate would be much higher on the freeway than on secondary roads & the statistics just don’t show that..

 

Eh?

 

Actually, on the freeway you can. The most common primary collision factor on freeways is unsafe speed. The reason the accident rate is as high or higher elsewhere is that on regular streets there are a lot of other thing, like intersections, pedestrians, etc.. A large number of collisions off the freeways are not due to unsafe speed, rather things like failure to stop for red lights, failing to yield on a left turn, stop sign violations, to mention a few… ergo, your argument makes little sense.

 

Ed wrote:

Methinks the speed was not the killer here. Yes, it provided the energy that resulted in the unfortunate deaths but, the killer was the driver who, lacking the training to manage his vehicle at the speed he was traveling, lost control of same. Had he continued down the road at 126 mph or whatever wretched excess he was doing, the incident would not have happened, plain and simple.

 

Ed, WAKE UP!!!

 

If he had been driving 30 mph he never would have lost control of the car and even if he had the damage he would have done to another vehicle would have been much less severe. You can try to reason away the fact that greater speed does increase risk of injury or death, unfortunately in the real world your reasoning does not hold up.

 

1. External forces have a greater effect on you and your vehicle at greater speeds, thus it is more difficult to control your vehicle as your speed increases. (Training can off-set this to some degree, but physical limitations of your equipment are finite.)

2. Your reaction time stays constant regardless of your speed, so more speed equals longer distances travel during the time it takes you to react.

3. Kinetic energy increases with speed. PERIOD.

 

Arguing whether it is speed that kills or the sudden stop at the end is a matter of semantics. If you are traveling at a lower speed then you are less worried about the sudden stop at the end. Would you rather ride your bike straight into a concrete wall at 5 mph or 90 mph? (And don’t bother stating, “I wouldn’t run into the wall at all.” That’s just a cheap way of avoiding the issue.)

 

An over-simplified estimation of speed used by traffic investigators after a traffic collision is ‘one inch of intrusion for each mile per hour’. In other words, if you get broadsided at 30 mph, the other car is going to push 30 inches into the side of your car. This estimation actually comes close to reality very often.

 

Bottom line, increased speed equals increased damage in a crash.

 

P.S. The last two fatality crashes I helped investigate involved drivers hitting large fixed objects at speeds exceeding 80 mph. I'm pretty sure it was their speed that directly contributed to their deaths...

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Thank you, sir, I'm very awake. And very aware of the laws of motion, I deal with them every day just as you do. I do believe Newton states his case much more clearly than does our various legislatures and certainly more clearly than you have.

 

You have the facts and choose to interpret them in a way that puts the blame for the accident on the fact that the 126 mph speed caused the car to travel across a median strip and strike another vehicle. The fact is, the driver put the car there, not the speed.

 

Speed doesn't kill. Lack of ability to control your vehicle at that speed is what kills. Ability to control includes managing your speed such that you can maintain control.

 

I also stated that speed does contribute to the severity of accidents, that is also part of the laws of motion.

[sardineone]

Did someone mention NEWTON?

 

 

 

Or............. bring the necessary skills & judgement with you when you knock on 'Speeds' door!

[Jones]

 

What him say.

 

[T__]

Twisty1 wrote:

You just can’t interpret speed as the cause of accidents or death.. If you could the accident & death rate would be much higher on the freeway than on secondary roads & the statistics just don’t show that..

 

Eh?

 

Actually, on the freeway you can. The most common primary collision factor on freeways is unsafe speed. The reason the accident rate is as high or higher elsewhere is that on regular streets there are a lot of other thing, like intersections, pedestrians, etc.. A large number of collisions off the freeways are not due to unsafe speed, rather things like failure to stop for red lights, failing to yield on a left turn, stop sign violations, to mention a few… ergo, your argument makes little sense.

 

 

MotorinLA, I don’t know where you get your information form but I would be willing to bet that most fair weather freeway accidents are caused by following too close (tailgating),, followed by inattention,, with improper lane change in there somewhere..

I would buy the speeding thing in inclement weather,, slippery roads, or in fog but wouldn’t classify that as speeding as much as driving too fast for conditions as it is still probably at or below the posted speed limit..

 

There seems to be a lot freeway accidents in my area lately due to road rage & that can just as easily be caused by not driving fast enough in the L/H lanes.. Why America doesn’t have a drive-right law is beyond me..

 

Twisty

[Paul Mihalka]

"Why America doesn’t have a drive-right law is beyond me.."

 

Some states have the law but it is absolutely not enforced. A law that is not enforced is worse than no law. If you don't have to respect this one, why do you have to respect a different one?

[bakerzdosen]

I've made my position clear a bit earlier in the thread, but I will say that speed helped this situation turn really bad, but it was definitely inappropriate speed.

[MotorinLA]

Thank you, sir, I'm very awake. And very aware of the laws of motion, I deal with them every day just as you do. I do believe Newton states his case much more clearly than does our various legislatures and certainly more clearly than you have.

 

I didn't turn this into a thread about how to best restate Newton's Laws of Physics, I simply commented upon and reiterated some of the points made by other participants.

 

You have the facts and choose to interpret them in a way that puts the blame for the accident on the fact that the 126 mph speed caused the car to travel across a median strip and strike another vehicle.

 

PU-LEEZ!! The responsibility for the collision clearly rest on the driver, however, the primary collision factor (the factor that contributed most directly to the cause of the collision) is clearly unsafe speed. Again, as stated earlier, if the officer had not been traveling at such a high rate of speed, the collision most likely would not have occurred. Thus, the speed is the primary cause. PERIOD.

 

The fact is, the driver put the car there, not the speed.

 

No. The driver didn't put the car there. He had lost control of the car due to his excessive speed. Your statement implies that the driver had a choice in where he ended up. Once he lost control of the car he lost that choice.

 

Speed doesn't kill. Lack of ability to control your vehicle at that speed is what kills. Ability to control includes managing your speed such that you can maintain control.

 

Semantics. Higher speed = less control. (Less ability to steer, less ability to slow quickly, less ability to react fast enough, more influence from outside forces, exceeding equipment performance levels, etc.)

 

Having operated Ford CVPIs for many years, through several body style changes and various upgrades, I can tell you that driving 126 mph in this vehicle (especially with a lightbar on top of your car) is generally unsafe. The PI portion (Police Interceptor) of the title is greatly exaggerated. IMO the suspension and brakes are not adequate for speeds above 105-110 mph. In other words, the top performance level of the engine exceeds the top performance level of the rest of the vehicle.

 

I understand your argument about being responsible for knowing your ability to control your vehicle at a given speed. My point is that increasing your speed will always reduce your level of control. So yes, greater speed equals greater risk.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

My point is that increasing your speed will always reduce your level of control. So yes, greater speed equals greater risk.

 

You're gonna call semantics on me again but, I think your logic is flawed here. Increasing speed does not necessarily reduce your level of control. It does change the parameters you must control. I don't argue that greater speed = greater risk, that just brings us back to the kinetic energy thing. By your logic, just cause we are going faster we must needs, if we go fast enough, completely lose control. Simply isn't the case. Do we need different technique to negotiate a piece of terrain at different speeds? Certainly. Is there a speed beyond which, on that same piece of terrain, we cannot hope to maintain control? I would have to say that depends on the terrain and the operator but, sooner or later, yeah.

 

BTW, I fully agree with you on the Crown Vic being all but uncontrollable at elevated speeds and the fact that the operator chose to use those speeds is a big contributing factor in the accident.

[motorman587]

Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze, put the laptops down, and go for a ride and cool off.

 

Aren't we all taking about the same thing in a way. The faster you go the more energy in bring in to a crash, but to crash the driver/operator has to make a error, but if you error at a lower speed there will be less damage/injury. I think I said that right.

 

But, seriously go for a ride.

 

I think this guy was attempting to take off on his BMW car.

 

http://www.local6.com/news/15144329/detail.html

[motorman587]

Pictures of the BMW car crash.

 

http://www.local6.com/slideshow/news/15144748/detail.html

[PRC]

Aren't we all taking about the same thing in a way. The faster you go the more energy in bring in to a crash, but to crash the driver/operator has to make a error, but if you error at a lower speed there will be less damage/injury. I think I said that right.

 

I don't remember if it has been said yet or not (too many dang posts)but as your speed increases, statistically you chance of serious injury or death also increases. You folks can argue control or vector sum analysis or what ever. Physiological events in a crash lead to death. The aorta separates or tears at a sudden speed change of approximately 35 mph or better (delta V's). What I mean by that is: if traveling at say 60 mph in one direction and then have an immediate change in direction 40 mph, the chances that your aorta will hold are greatly diminished. Remember when there's a crash there are actually three crashes. Vehicle impacts whatever, you impact the vehicle (Seat belt is included and slows the the delta v's), and your organs impacting you body (i.e.-brain impacting your skull). So statistically, the greater the speed the greater chance of serious injury or death.

[MotorinLA]

My point is that increasing your speed will always reduce your level of control. So yes, greater speed equals greater risk.

 

You're gonna call semantics on me again but, I think your logic is flawed here. Increasing speed does not necessarily reduce your level of control. It does change the parameters you must control. I don't argue that greater speed = greater risk, that just brings us back to the kinetic energy thing. By your logic, just cause we are going faster we must needs, if we go fast enough, completely lose control. Simply isn't the case. Do we need different technique to negotiate a piece of terrain at different speeds? Certainly. Is there a speed beyond which, on that same piece of terrain, we cannot hope to maintain control? I would have to say that depends on the terrain and the operator but, sooner or later, yeah.

 

BTW, I fully agree with you on the Crown Vic being all but uncontrollable at elevated speeds and the fact that the operator chose to use those speeds is a big contributing factor in the accident.

 

Ed,

I'm sorry to have made you the main subject of my rant, but I think the problem that perhaps you are overlooking is that most people do not realize the limits of their 'control' over a vehicle. I think that you are not the norm and I mean that as a compliment. You seem to know your own limits better than most and practice both physically and mentally for riding or driving. Unfortunately this is not true of most people.

 

Joe Average (biker and cager alike) is used to operating his vehicle at normal speeds/conditions and as such has come to believe that he is completely in control of his vehicle. When you throw him a curve ball he does not adjust appropriately, because he believes he is still in complete control. I believe a great many traffic violations are committed by drivers who believe they are 'in control' of their vehicle and their driving environment. When stopped they argue, "It was safe," for this very reason. They are mentally incapable of seeing the danger, or potential danger, they may have created by committing the violation. IMO this also applies to speed, as I think a large portion of riders/drivers are simply not aware of how little control they may have at a given speed. They zip along at elevated speeds, thinking they still have the same amount of control that they would at lower speeds.

 

So, if you want to argue the point, I’ll concede that it is not speed as an entity by itself that kills. However, it is speed as used by the overconfident/ignorant/unpracticed/inexperienced, that directly contributes to a higher rate of fatalities and major injuries in traffic collisions. In this respect the statement “Speed kills,” is not inaccurate.

 

[slumping forward over the horse carcass]

[ShovelStrokeEd]

That is one dead equine, with considerable evidence of battery upon its person.

 

I agree fully with your last post in that way too many drivers out there are incompetent to even handle the speeds they normally travel. Witness only the wonderful habit they have of riding/driving along at 80 mph with less than 2 car lengths between vehicles, all the while yakking away on their cell phones.

 

I know speed not to be the culprit as I have exceeded 200 mph on one of my bikes and never was out of control and that was on dried mud (El Mirage).