No Access to Home without Several Speed Humps

bosseyed

johnson293 wrote: »

Nice example. I dont suppose the biker wearing protective racing leathers, crash helmet and being on a race track with very little around him, had anything to do with him being able to walk away from a 150mph crash.

Say he hit's someone on the track, or trackside (marshall or other rider for example) at 150mph - how do you think they will come out of it?

Is that not basically the crux of what I just said? Read it again before your try getting all sarcastic.

I'll re-iterate for those who skim read and interpret how they like - I'm saying the race track is designed for riders to fall off, hence fatalities comnpared to accidents in motoGP are pretty low as they don't skid into the kerb/a lampost/a car. Contrast that with the open road which are clearly not laid out with tumbling bodies in mind and you'll see that speed isn't necessarily the overriding factor in what kills you - its what you crash into as you fall off.

fatbadger2 wrote:

And your argument is what exactly?

That 10 mph is no more risky than 30 mph? Only an antisocial oaf could think that.

Calm down dear. You're awesome and I love you very much, but you need to read first then interpret correctly prior to bashing your face into the keyboard in some manner of ill judged response.

Clearly I'm not suggesting 10mph is no more risky than 30mph - only a halfwit would extrapolate that from what I wrote. I'm clearly suggesting that speed isn't always the overriding factor with a fatality. The point is I could hit someone at 30mph and they survive with some bruising, I could clatter someone in a carpark at 10mph, they fall awkwardly and die. Speed isn't the only factor to consider when thinking about fatalities.

And you can do as much nice maths as you like sunshine, its not relevant to my point in any way and as such was a nice waste of your time.

johnson293

bosseyed wrote: »

Is that not basically the crux of what I just said? Read it again before your try getting all sarcastic.

Oh no, not another touchy one??!!! :rotfl:

mikey72

bosseyed wrote: »

Is that not basically the crux of what I just said? Read it again before your try getting all sarcastic.

I'll re-iterate for those who skim read and interpret how they like - I'm saying the race track is designed for riders to fall off, hence fatalities comnpared to accidents in motoGP are pretty low as they don't skid into the kerb/a lampost/a car. Contrast that with the open road which are clearly not laid out with tumbling bodies in mind and you'll see that speed isn't necessarily the overriding factor in what kills you - its what you crash into as you fall off.



Calm down dear. You're awesome and I love you very much, but you need to read first then interpret correctly prior to bashing your face into the keyboard in some manner of ill judged response.

Clearly I'm not suggesting 10mph is no more risky than 30mph - only a halfwit would extrapolate that from what I wrote. I'm clearly suggesting that speed isn't always the overriding factor with a fatality. The point is I could hit someone at 30mph and they survive with some bruising, I could clatter someone in a carpark at 10mph, they fall awkwardly and die. Speed isn't the only factor to consider when thinking about fatalities.

And you can do as much nice maths as you like sunshine, its not relevant to my point in any way and as such was a nice waste of your time.

Well, if it's not speed, if you don't like science we'll do it your way. You name the car park, I'll hit you with my car at 10mph, if you stand up, I'll hit you again at 30mph, if you stand up again fair play, I'll admit you're right.

fatbadger2

almillar wrote: »

Fatbadger - Are you saying that it's not safe to drive at 30mph in a 30mph speed limit, no, just that if you do hit something, your potential to do damage in proportional to the square of the speed, i.e. slighty higher speed = much more damage that it is only safe to drive at 10 mph no, common sense should prevail (hence the speed bumps) and that I should be driving as if a child (SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!) is going to appear at the end of my bonnet all the time? well, yes, i do think you should be on the look out, is that unreasonable? BTW, I do have one of the safest bonnets of any car on the road for pedestrians to hit, and airbags in bonnets are a very real possibility in the near future.
Speed doesn't kill, Fatbadger You're being obtuce, speed does kill only if you don't hit anyone, that's obvious. Why are motorways the safest and fastest roads in the UK then? Because kids and grannies don't cross them regularly

is this that difficult to follow???

fatbadger2

bosseyed wrote: »

Calm down dear. You're awesome and I love you very much, like wise! but you need to read first then interpret correctly prior to bashing your face into the keyboard can't help it, i was typing while driving over speed bumps at 30 in some manner of ill judged pot-kettle response.

Clearly I'm not suggesting 10mph is no more risky than 30mph - only a halfwit would extrapolate that from what I wrote except you're about to repeat that same thing..... The point is I could hit someone at 30mph and they survive with some bruising, I could clatter someone in a carpark at 10mph, they fall awkwardly and die Yes, true. But statistics show that if you're hit at 30 you are much more like to be injured badly than at 10. Speed isn't the only factor to consider when thinking about fatalities, for pedestrians it just is mate, it's a fact.

And you can do as much nice maths as you like sunshine, its not relevant to my point in any way except it proves speed and danger are not proportional, which is what most people think, they're exponential and as such was a nice waste of your time .

what do do you think debating on here is exactly!

fatbadger2

mikey72 wrote: »

Well, if it's not speed, if you don't like science we'll do it your way. You name the car park, I'll hit you with my car at 10mph, if you stand up, I'll hit you again at 30mph, if you stand up again fair play, I'll admit you're right.

A genious idea :beer:, my car's quite heavy, we'll use that.

To be statistically relevant tho we need to repeat at least 30 times.

OK?

fatbadger2

almillar wrote: »

I do have one of the safest bonnets of any car on the road for pedestrians to hit, and airbags in bonnets are a very real possibility in the near future

This is idiot of the decade territory here, and proves my thought experiment (see earlier) to be valid:

Car with no air bags or seat belts and a spike sticking out of the the steering - whats a safe speed?

Car covered in air bags - whats a safe speed - ALMILLER is coming! :eek:

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

fatbadger2 wrote: »

A chair made from broken glass would not be able to be driven, end of.

Errm, what was the point of that particular thought experiment? To prove you have no thoughts worth mentioning perhaps?? :cool:

Thanks for that, very illuminating. :beer:

It's a thought experiment, it requires thought, therefore stick to the experiment.

And your answer is? :T

Congratulations on completely missing the point. Something that you obviously experience on a regular basis.

DirectDebacle

All very interesting. The debate has moved the topic of the original post, of someone who feels their vehicle is virtually marooned because it has been surrounded by a tide of speed humps, to the speed a china teapot can be safely driven at.

Speed is not in itself dangerous but, as almost anything else in life, carries an element of risk. In driving, at any speed, by constantly assessing the risk factors that may or may not be present will determine whether or not the speed is appropriate.

As an example I can be driving at 50mph on a road and the circumstances (risks) at the time dictate that this speed is as safe as it can possibly be.

Circumstances change and a fat badger waddles out into the road in front of me. Re-assessing the risk determines whether it is safer, for me and other road users, to come to a controlled stop, allowing it to continue its journey unharmed, or continue and squash the T.B. carrying creature into the tarmac.

The speed itself under these circumstances is neither safe nor unsafe but one of several factors that need to be considered in making a risk assessment. Similarly the OP has to assess the risk of regularly driving over speed humps poses to the integrity of their vehicle. Some options are to campaign to have some or all of the speed humps removed, change vehicles, move house to a road where there are no speed humps or perhaps consider they are making a mountain out of a speed hump.

Strider590

Let's have some more effective methods of making our roads safer.

Speed humps are best kept to the bedroom.....