This is getting political, could you please move all further conversations regarding this topic off list. Thanks. Mike Hord wrote: > Russell- > > Thanks for posting this. I was beginning to think that I was the only one > who had considered these points and things along these lines. > > I personally feel that there should be 100% passive speeding detection > checkpoints every few hundred feet, everywhere. A mailbox with 200 > tickets after a trip to visit the family would certainly apply the > brakes to > those who feel no obligation to obey posted speed limits, and at much > less cost than the corpse of a child. > > Basically, I have weighed the options and decided not to risk it. > > And now an anecdote...I live in Iowa, Central US, and a prominent > politician in a neighboring state recently struck and killed a motorcyclist > because he was speeding and ran a stop sign. > > The man fell apart. I never saw him that he wasn't weeping. He > resigned from Congress and is currently serving his penance (I don't > think he got any jail time). His life is ruined, and I think it's less > than > he deserves. > > There are numerous records of him saying "If I'm willing to pay the > fine, why shouldn't I speed?" The man he killed wasn't willing to > pay, nor was his family, but they paying they are. > > Look, the long and the short of it is this: kinetic energy increases > as the square of velocity. IF you wreck, or hit someone, or > whatever, the difference between 25 whatevers/h and 26 > whatevers/h is the difference in scaling KE by 625 or 676. > > Let's not even get started on the mass element and what that > shiny new Hummer H2 is going to do to my little car... > > Mike H. > >> I feel a moralistic rave coming on. >> But not one without good engineering foundation. >> Fasten your seatbelts, set your cruise controls, we're off .... >> >> After just having suggested offlist to one poster that he may be treading >> on >> politically shaky ground (not that I care, it's not my stooge he was >> talking >> about :-) ) , I'll >> turn to a so far unproscribed area and add my 2 cents worth :-) >> >> I often hear people waxing lyrical over the inequity of speed cameras, >> red >> light cameras, traffic radar and traffic police in general. I do wonder >> what >> such people (and there is of course a range of opinions) would feel >> genuinely comfortable and happy with? No traffic rules? No speed >> limits*? - >> or perhaps limits but no enforcement. Maybe limits with very wide >> enforcement margins. (50 mph with 30 mph margin = typically 90 mph in >> town). >> I also wonder what they would do that they don't do now to protect their >> children under such utopian arrangements. >> >> I note that there seems to be a correlation between speed capacity of >> vehicle and probability of radar detectors being fitted. I am aware, of >> course, that radar detectors are fitted by responsible drivers to improve >> the safety of their driving (I just haven't worked out how that works >> yet). >> I note that a more recent safety improvement is the fitting of GPS and >> waypoint memory to radar detectors so that the driving may be even safer >> again - and I also so far have not been able to muster the intellect >> required to understand the no doubt simple mechanism by which this works. >> >> Social contract (whatever that may mean in this age) says that we give >> ourselves certain rights to kill a certain percentage of ourselves in >> exchange for the rights to expect a certain level of protection from >> ourselves. It's not as if there is some external authority who we are >> trying >> to beat. We are dealing with ourselves. The whole basis for the >> engineering >> of our environment stands on the social contract we have set >> ourselves. How >> clean the air, how fast the cars, how good or how often the safety >> checks, >> how polluted the food or how uncertain we are of what we are ingesting is >> set >> by ourselves. (We know that Mon$anto and their ilk will try and bend the >> rules at every turn in some of these areas, but lets stick to road safety >> in >> this diatribe.) >> >> If we all, or a clear majority, feel that the limits we have set are too >> restrictive, then we have the right and ability (in most countries at >> least) >> to stand up >> and say so and do something about it. If we think that more children >> should >> die on city streets so that we can get home sooner, or if we think that >> changing our driving behaviour won't change how many children die, or >> if we >> think that enforcement mechanisms are inefficient or wrongly targeted, >> then we have the right and the ability to do something about it. If we >> think >> we'd rather have arguably safe nuclear power and leave the problems to >> our >> children's children in place of unquestionably >> unsafe coal power which gives us problems now then we have a right to do >> something about it. >> >> If instead we simply do what we wish, or attempt to, or wish to then >> we are >> stealing, attempting to steal or wishing to steal the benefit of the >> agreed >> social contract from ourselves - or from the portion of ourselves who >> don't. >> If we ALL do this then it's just money in the government's coffers, and >> SOMEBODY has to fund us, so who cares. (Less government-ers, tax is >> theft-ers, enclave isolationists and others** may stand up and be >> counted >> here :-) ). And of course, more dead children all round, but if we all do >> it >> then we have just modified the social contract and we're all happy. >> >> The major problem is, that the child struck by the car which >> would have been able to stop if it had been travelling at >> agreed-social-contract mph, or the person broadsided by the "why >> shouldn't >> I run late orange was-that-REALLY-red-officer? lights if I want to" >> free-thinker is usually not the person who has bought into the social >> contract initially. Each year the US kills more of its citizens in road >> "accidents" than died in the whole Vietnam war, over 10 time as many as >> died >> in "911" and far far more than will die in Afghanistan & Iraq, no matter >> how >> many more >> that may yet be. (43,000 auto fatalities USA 2003, almost 3,000,000 >> injuries.) >> (NHTSA early assessment for 2003 - interesting) >> ( http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2003EARelease.pdf >> ) >> >> But, my constitutional rights, it's only done to fill government coffers, >> everyone does it, radar >> detectors for safety,... & more mean that's not liable to reduce >> appreciably >> anytime soon. >> >> For a little perspective, the US death rate per car is less than for >> France >> and half as much as Portugal's. For a bit more perspective, the death >> rate >> per capita (a more real measure) is worse than for France but not >> quite as >> bad as Portugal or Greece. I suppose one could be proud of having a >> better >> death record than Greece. Or Portugal. (Have you ever seen spectators >> at a >> Portugese rally ? :-) !!!! ). >> US fatalities per capita which are 2.5 times a high as UK suggests (only >> suggests) that the >> unreasonably strict tolerances on speeds on their motorways and their >> obnoxious bobbies MAY just be doing something. So the USAites can laugh, >> NZ's record is slightly WORSE per capita than the USA's. >> _______________ >> >> Few people (even engineers) seem to appreciate how much more damage a car >> travelling only "slightly" faster will typically do to a pedestrian. >> >> Fatality rate (McMahon empirical formula) is approx >> >> % killed = V^2/5000% V in kph or >> % killed = V^2/1800% V in mph. >> >> Above 100% death is essentially certain. >> eg at 50 kph %death = 50^2/5000 = 50% >> at 70 kph =~ 100% >> >> A car travelling at 70 kph will kill about 50% of the ball chasing >> children >> that the same car travelling at 50 kph just manages to stop for. >> >> A car travelling at 60 kph will kill over 20% of the ball chasing >> children >> that the same car travelling at 50 kph just manages to stop for. >> >> What may not be intuitively obvious without having thought about it (even >> to >> engineers) but which is obvious on reflection, is that if two identical >> vehicles, which have a speed difference of V mph, start braking together, >> then >> when the slower one stops, the faster one will be still travelling at >> MORE >> than V mph. Possibly much more. This is because the energy in the vehicle >> accumulates with the square of the speed and the extra speed adds >> substantially more than linear energy. As an example, two cars travelling >> at >> 70 & 50 kph start braking together. Assume that the brakes can remove >> energy >> at a constant rate. In practice brake fade etc may make this assumption >> invalid - which leads to a worse result. Car A at 50 kph has 50^2 = 2500 >> units of energy. Car B at 70 kph has 70^2 = 4900 units of energy. When >> car >> A >> has just stopped car B has (4900-2500) = 2400 units of energy left so is >> travelling at sqrt(2400) = 48+ kph (!!!!). ie A 70 kph car will hit at >> about >> 50 kph an object that a 50 kph car can just stop for !!!!. Reaction time >> makes this worse as during reaction time car B travels further so has >> less >> distance to brake in. >> >> As covered in more detail below - >> >> Car A CANNOT kill the child which it just fails to hit. >> Car B will kill the child about 50% of the time. >> >> There are some assumptions that vary the end result eg reaction time, >> whether the car can decelerate at constant g or at constant energy >> reduction >> rate or .... . Whatever the assumptions - if a 50 kph car JUST stops a 70 >> kph car will hit at around 50 kph - maybe more. >> (Constant energy reduction should be a reasonable assumption. Unless you >> are >> at maximum coefficient of friction point then brakes should be working as >> hard as they can which should be a constant rate until they begin to >> fade. >> At brake locking point the best that can be achieved is about 1g (depends >> on >> car) so that could also be used as a best case assumption). >> >> At 50 kph impact you kill 50^2/5000 = 50% >> Hey - that's not so bad. 50% odd live! >> But every dead child is one outside social contract. If you ever kill one >> in >> such circumstances you should feel (as you are) responsible for the >> rest of >> your life. There are, of course, ways to feel better about this. >> Should have looked first, parents didn' bring them up to take care, they >> KNOW people drive fast through here, they shouldn't have been allowed to >> play with a ball on such a busy street, my car had superb performance and >> excellent brakes and my reaction times are so swish hot that an ordinary >> car/driver would have killed them anyway,... . >> >> The social contract, as currently implemented, assumes that all >> drivers and >> vehicles are equal. It gives good drivers and good vehicles a chance to >> improve the safety of others. I would not like to bet that "good" drivers >> with "good" cars only equal out the equation when they decide to make >> themselves as dangerous as the average car/driver. The velocity^2 energy >> rule brings the BMW into normal territory faster than most would realise. >> (if YOU dispute this - do YOU believe the analysis above that says >> that 50% >> of people that YOU would have just missed will die if YOU are doing 70 >> rather than 50?.)(If not, explain why). >> >> Have I ever hit a person while driving a motor vehicle? Yes and no - I'd >> laid the motorcycle on the road by the time I hit the running child - >> and I >> wasn't speeding. And they weren't severely hurt. Still doesn't feel very >> nice (for them or me :-) ). >> Do I sometimes exceed posted speed limits? yes. Run the occasional red >> light? - er, >> yes. Make excuses for why I do it? No. It's indefensible. >> Is it safe enough? - often, yes. Aren't there occasions when the posted >> limits don't make sense? - yes, BUT when they don't make sense and >> then an >> "accident" happens, it's no accident. But of course there are lots of >> explanations. >> How was I to know that there would be a kid there at that time in a >> weekend?! - this place is ALWAYS deserted in weekends !!! >> Who would have thought that anyone would have been coming through that >> intersection at that time of night? >> Hey! - I drive a BMW/Mustang/Lamborghini/Unimog :-) / Have been >> driving for >> 60 years/have a clean >> record / am a Mason (where'd that come from) ... >> >> Dead. My little girl is dead!? What happened??? >> Rerun above excuses. >> >> And I wonder how many who feel utterly frustrated by tightly controlled >> speed limits (like our British brethren seem to) have worked out how much >> difference it actually makes to trip time to travel at say 100 kph versus >> 120 kph. Or around town at 50 vs 60 or 70. >> >> In Arizona I'm told that people cruise at 100 mph plus. Didn't see >> any. May >> have been due to the spotter aircraft signs ? >> >> But, I did like the autobahns * :-) >> >> >> Russell McMahon >> (who really hopes he won't now go & do something stupid in a >> car >> and kill anyone in the next while) >> >> >> _______________________________ >> >> For a NZ article that explains that increased speed does NOT result in >> more >> deaths, see >> >> http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm >> :-) >> >> ______________ >> >> * In Germany on the autobahns there are indeed no speed limits. And it >> all >> looked and felt very safe. When we were there last year, cruising at >> 130 - >> 140 kph (80-90 mph) we had people passing us at 100+ kph deltas (!). >> Sit in >> the outside lane more than a few seconds too long at 130 kph and you have >> a Mercedes glued on your rear bumper until you pull into the "slow" lane. >> While there are no speed limits, there are definitely rules AND everyone >> seems to abide by them. The roads are built to suit. When they do have >> accidents, and of course they do, the probably have less problems with >> getting people to hospital than we do here. Elsewhere in Germany there >> are >> very strictly controlled speed limits - some quite conservative. Heavy >> vehicles have their limits for each class of road displayed >> prominently on >> the back so authorities can see at a glance whether they are doing as >> they >> are intended to. >> >> ** I thought about saying "... other whingers ..." there, but I'll >> leave it >> to the footnote readers to decide if that was wise :-) . >> >> *** Congratulations if you got this far :-) >> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: >> [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads > > > _________________________________________________________________ > FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! > http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ > > -- > http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: > [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads