Speed Limit Enforcement
-
-
Speed does not equal death, lack of driving skill equals death. Look at Germany, fastest roads in the world, one of the lowest death rates. Why? Best roads, very strict TUF(MOT) and hard driving test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
I agree with this. Although there are certain situations in which speed is totally uncalled for.
My Blog *cough* My Achievements: *cough* * Posted 25,000th message in GIT O_O * Official supporter of the "thatraja's GIT Meet Sponsor Foundation" :D What you do, when you don't know what to do is what you do when you don't want to do what you do.
-
_Damian S_ wrote:
Any time anyone suggests that, I offer to hand them a round of ammunition and allow them to throw it at me as hard as they can...
:laugh: :laugh: Great find!!
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
lol... same logic as my first post applies though...
Reminiscing just isn't what it used to be!! Booger Mobile - My bright green 1964 Ford Falcon - check out the blog here!! | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
You are as likely to die at 70 as at 100.
Rubbish. It stands to reason that if you hit another object the amount of damage and potential for death is proportional to the velocity at which the two bodies collide.
<pedantry> Still wrong. ;P If we ignore relativistic effects (fairly easy to do in a motor car), the potential damage is in the kinetic energy, which is proportional to velocity squared. So hitting something at 100 involves twice as much energy as hitting it at 70. </pedantry> Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
-
<pedantry> Still wrong. ;P If we ignore relativistic effects (fairly easy to do in a motor car), the potential damage is in the kinetic energy, which is proportional to velocity squared. So hitting something at 100 involves twice as much energy as hitting it at 70. </pedantry> Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
Peter_in_2780 wrote:
<pedantry> Still wrong. ;-P If we ignore relativistic effects (fairly easy to do in a motor car), the potential damage is in the kinetic energy, which is proportional to velocity squared. So hitting something at 100 involves twice as much energy as hitting it at 70.
</pedantry>As I was typing my replay to DD I thought "I bet I get corrected by someone that actually knows what they're talking about"
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Sort of a "Decrease the surplus population" campaign?
Best wishes, Hans
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
The sole issue is almighty Revenue. Few people have ever died of going too fast; in most cases, a failure to stop quickly enough was the cause. Slow moving, inattentive, inconsiderate, and inept drivers account for 90% of traffic fatalities. While public safety is the emotional flag all politicians and policemen wave, their only motivation is to make criminals of honest citizens in order to collect fines. Statistics are deliberately warped in order to support more stringent laws, and more revenue collections, as a matter of course. I witnessed an accident involving a couple who were on the way home from the store with groceries, a bottle of wine included. They were rammed by a non-legal resident Mexican lady with no insurance who made an illegal left turn right into them. The impact shattered the bottle of wine, and the couple was cited for open container. I looked them up and read the accident report. The box "alcohol involved" was checked. Although the open container case was thrown out of court, the "alcohol involved" statistic is forever part of history, helping to "prove" that alcohol and driving is a Bad ThingTM. When I was arrested for DUI 20 years ago, parked in my own driveway, I had consumed two drinks in the course of the evening. As I was leaving the bar, word got out that I'd just received the first job offer in two years, and several people insisted on buying me a shot. I drank them in a hurry, then went home, knowing that it takes twenty minutes for the booze to get into the bloodstream. I arrived sober, but the cop knew a bit about biochemistry, too, and kept me talking idly and engaged in silly tests (which I passed) for 40 minutes. Then he had me test for BAC, and took me in for being over the limit. Once I was safely booked and cited, he gave me a ride back home and to my car, keys in pocket. He even let me keep my butterfly knife, which is illegal to possess in Arizona. The reason given for stopping me was that I was driving at 40 mph in a 25 mph zone; I checked the next day and found that my car wasn't capable of reaching more than 30 mph in the span he cited. Public safety, my ass! It's all about revenue, and controlling the public with fear and economic losses. There is no such thing as a risk-free existence, but politicians never tire of trying to convince us that just one more law will make everything bad go away, and police are more than happy to play along, because bigger budgets let them buy more cop toys to make them look more scary and compensate for the tiny hardwa
-
The sole issue is almighty Revenue. Few people have ever died of going too fast; in most cases, a failure to stop quickly enough was the cause. Slow moving, inattentive, inconsiderate, and inept drivers account for 90% of traffic fatalities. While public safety is the emotional flag all politicians and policemen wave, their only motivation is to make criminals of honest citizens in order to collect fines. Statistics are deliberately warped in order to support more stringent laws, and more revenue collections, as a matter of course. I witnessed an accident involving a couple who were on the way home from the store with groceries, a bottle of wine included. They were rammed by a non-legal resident Mexican lady with no insurance who made an illegal left turn right into them. The impact shattered the bottle of wine, and the couple was cited for open container. I looked them up and read the accident report. The box "alcohol involved" was checked. Although the open container case was thrown out of court, the "alcohol involved" statistic is forever part of history, helping to "prove" that alcohol and driving is a Bad ThingTM. When I was arrested for DUI 20 years ago, parked in my own driveway, I had consumed two drinks in the course of the evening. As I was leaving the bar, word got out that I'd just received the first job offer in two years, and several people insisted on buying me a shot. I drank them in a hurry, then went home, knowing that it takes twenty minutes for the booze to get into the bloodstream. I arrived sober, but the cop knew a bit about biochemistry, too, and kept me talking idly and engaged in silly tests (which I passed) for 40 minutes. Then he had me test for BAC, and took me in for being over the limit. Once I was safely booked and cited, he gave me a ride back home and to my car, keys in pocket. He even let me keep my butterfly knife, which is illegal to possess in Arizona. The reason given for stopping me was that I was driving at 40 mph in a 25 mph zone; I checked the next day and found that my car wasn't capable of reaching more than 30 mph in the span he cited. Public safety, my ass! It's all about revenue, and controlling the public with fear and economic losses. There is no such thing as a risk-free existence, but politicians never tire of trying to convince us that just one more law will make everything bad go away, and police are more than happy to play along, because bigger budgets let them buy more cop toys to make them look more scary and compensate for the tiny hardwa
Roger Wright wrote:
What was that awful movie, Tom Cruise was involved I think, where the cops could monitor your thoughts and stop crimes before they happened?
Minority Report? The "pre-crime" technology worked by predicting the future. I suppose they did that by sort of reading minds... the minds of the precogs.
Roger Wright wrote:
I was arrested for DUI 20 years ago, parked in my own driveway
I nearly got charged with DUI for sleeping in my car while it was on (I turned it on to use the heater so I could sleep rather than drive home drunk). Luckily, the guy let me off. It's still messed up that I can be charged with a DUI for being responsible.
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
What you're saying is that you speed, you want to continue to speed, and you don't want anyone to punish you for speeding. I have a feeling that it wouldn't matter what the speed limit was, you'd want to go faster. Put a sock in it. Cars, particularly cars going faster than the speed limit in built-up areas, are one of the major causes of child mortality. And here's an absolutely can't-****ing-argue-with-it fact: The faster a ton and a half of of metal and cretin is moving when it hits a child, the more damage does. I don't want to see a posting here later about how sorry you feel for yourself because a little boy stepped out in front of your car when you were going too fast to stop, avoid him, or slow down enough to not do much damage. The best drivers are Careful and Cautious. The worst ones begin with a C, too.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Speed does not equal death, lack of driving skill equals death. Look at Germany, fastest roads in the world, one of the lowest death rates. Why? Best roads, very strict TUF(MOT) and hard driving test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
The way they are driving here in Munich, I would wish they made driving tests mandatory. Driving home from work has something from Ben Hur's charriot race :)
"I just exchanged opinions with my boss. I went in with mine and came out with his." - me, 2011 ---
I am endeavoring, Madam, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone knives and bearskins - Mr. Spock 1935 and me 2011 -
Well, The real issue is that of Tolerances in measurement. How can you enforce a Zero Tolerance of a Speed Limit, if by law your Speedometer has to be within 10%, and the Police has equipment that has to be 'Accurate' within 5% There is No such thing as Absolute Truth, Masurement,Value. The Other issue is, We try to Drive down Road Deaths and Injuries. Each extra measure costs economically. The Actions of Society will cause victims to die. I think there is sufficient Health and Safety. Bram :)
Bram van Kampen
Bram van Kampen wrote:
by law your Speedometer has to be within 10%
<pedantry> Actually the speedometers shown speed has to be within +10 to -0 percent of the actual speed, which is why most cars show about 6+-3% higher than actual speed.</pedantry>
-
The sole issue is almighty Revenue. Few people have ever died of going too fast; in most cases, a failure to stop quickly enough was the cause. Slow moving, inattentive, inconsiderate, and inept drivers account for 90% of traffic fatalities. While public safety is the emotional flag all politicians and policemen wave, their only motivation is to make criminals of honest citizens in order to collect fines. Statistics are deliberately warped in order to support more stringent laws, and more revenue collections, as a matter of course. I witnessed an accident involving a couple who were on the way home from the store with groceries, a bottle of wine included. They were rammed by a non-legal resident Mexican lady with no insurance who made an illegal left turn right into them. The impact shattered the bottle of wine, and the couple was cited for open container. I looked them up and read the accident report. The box "alcohol involved" was checked. Although the open container case was thrown out of court, the "alcohol involved" statistic is forever part of history, helping to "prove" that alcohol and driving is a Bad ThingTM. When I was arrested for DUI 20 years ago, parked in my own driveway, I had consumed two drinks in the course of the evening. As I was leaving the bar, word got out that I'd just received the first job offer in two years, and several people insisted on buying me a shot. I drank them in a hurry, then went home, knowing that it takes twenty minutes for the booze to get into the bloodstream. I arrived sober, but the cop knew a bit about biochemistry, too, and kept me talking idly and engaged in silly tests (which I passed) for 40 minutes. Then he had me test for BAC, and took me in for being over the limit. Once I was safely booked and cited, he gave me a ride back home and to my car, keys in pocket. He even let me keep my butterfly knife, which is illegal to possess in Arizona. The reason given for stopping me was that I was driving at 40 mph in a 25 mph zone; I checked the next day and found that my car wasn't capable of reaching more than 30 mph in the span he cited. Public safety, my ass! It's all about revenue, and controlling the public with fear and economic losses. There is no such thing as a risk-free existence, but politicians never tire of trying to convince us that just one more law will make everything bad go away, and police are more than happy to play along, because bigger budgets let them buy more cop toys to make them look more scary and compensate for the tiny hardwa
Roger Wright wrote:
It was an awful movie
Roger Wright wrote:
Tom Cruise was involved I think
No kidding!
-
Speed does not equal death, lack of driving skill equals death. Look at Germany, fastest roads in the world, one of the lowest death rates. Why? Best roads, very strict TUF(MOT) and hard driving test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
And strict control of speed limits.
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
Facts: - available reaction time for a fixed distance decreases with speed. - Kinetic energy increases wiht square of speed. So in common scenarios
E ~ v``3. Half the speed, eigth of a dent. [edit] That's only so roughly it's close to bullshit. In any case, higher speed decreases the time for brkaing, thus increasing the impact speed.
"Acceptable" rates are actually known. While subjective perception differs wildly depending on the event, objective measures (e..g used for insurances) are roughtly "1 in a million is ok, 1 in 100.000 is not" (might be off by a decade or two).
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchymodified on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 3:17 AM
-
There is a Campaign here in Northern Ireland to enforce Speed Limits, All Over TV. The Message Is, We will Catch and Do you if you are over the speed limit by as much as 5%. Various unsubstantiated statistics are quoted, about the effects of impact at higher speeds. (i.e. Rate of Death or Serious Injury) The First and Obvious point is that those driving these issue are unaware of the subject of tolerances of measurement, both in the legal requirement for the accuracy of spedometors in cars, and the calibration tolerances in the equipment used by police. There are several more substansive issues to be adressed here. First of all, What is an acceptable death or Injury Rate. When I asked my Partner, she said Zero and Zero. I said, Well, In that case we forget about all motorised Trafic, and go back to say 1880. So, We have to accept that motorised trafic will cause death and injury. Why are Politicians trying to avoid this fact. Why can we not have a real discussion about the Issues surrounding, and take in items such as 'Benefit to Society' Rather than a Populist drive of No Road Deaths.
Bram van Kampen
-
Wow... I must be tired, to me my reply still makes sense after three re-reads... what did I miss? EDIT: Ok, FINALLY starting to get it. It's about how do you prove/legislate what 'speeding' is when the law requires a higher accuracy than the devices used to enforce it. Right, easy. We change speedometers to enforce that they are accurate to within 5%. Then, we have some sort of chip/RFID or something that police equipment will, when "shot" at the car, ask "what is the driver being shown on the speedometer". If the speedo reads 61 in a 60 zone, the driver is speeding - the question of whether the driver is actually doing 61km/h becomes irrelevant because the driver "knows" he is speeding. Does that work?
a cople of points, 1/ worn but legal under inflated tyres against new over inflated tyres can affect the speed displayed by more than 5% 2/ if you are looking at your speed you are not looking at the road, so which would you prefer knocked down by someone doing 29.9 mph or not knocked down by someone doing 35? as for speed kills, these reports of reductions in fatalities bewteen 35 and 30 mph - if you read the actual reports refer to pedestrian being hit , not the occupants on the car. \\so what is being said is that we should slow cars down to stop killing Pedestrians, however what is being done to stop said Pedestrians walking in front of the car in the first place? and people who step in front of a tonn of metal going even as slow a 20mph should be held responsible for the result? not to mention the fact that although the chance of death is reduced at 20mph the chance of disabiltating injury increases by a similar ratio
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
so it would be perfectly sake for me to smash you over the head with a rifle butt a few times? when will the US realise that guns were developed to kill, this is a primary function of any gun, any gun can cannot perform this function is either a/ not a gun or b/ badly designed or c/ a toy. now you can have your argument that you can use them for "not killing" ie sport or target etc but this does not change the fact that they are a device designed to kill
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Speed does not equal death, lack of driving skill equals death. Look at Germany, fastest roads in the world, one of the lowest death rates. Why? Best roads, very strict TUF(MOT) and hard driving test.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
They might have no speed limits on some autobhans but they are also some of the slowest drivers in towns I have ever seen, and of course this is where the deaths occur. If you want lower death rates then attatch steel spikes to the center of the steering wheel. Seriously, it will stop any kind of stupid driving.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, IPCC "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you here are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman