Confused over speeding ticket

pendulum

pendulum wrote: »

Please do try and justify that to me, because so far nobody has managed it.

I'm still waiting Jamie.

Crazy_Jamie

pendulum wrote: »

I said I wouldn't rely on their own statistics, not that I don't know how resources are allocated. It's a shame you have to resort to misquoting to make a point.

Yeah, except that isn't what you said;

Me wrote:

Presumably then you have some sort of figures as to the proportion of officers/man hours allocated to traffic as opposed to other areas that you're basing this on?

You wrote:

No.

I asked if you had figures as to how the resources were allocated. Not police figures. Just figures in general. You said 'no'. Seems pretty clear to me. Though by all means I'm happy to call your bluff on this; are you now saying that you do now know how those resources are allocated?

pendulum wrote:

I'm still waiting Jamie.

There's nothing to justify. You're contrasting police policy for responding to traffic collisions with where police set up mobile speed cameras. I'm happy to accept that police policies on how and when to respond to road traffic incidents may not be perfect, but I don't see how that issue should have any effect at all on where they set up speed cameras. The two are independent issues and warrant individual discussion.

pendulum

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Yeah, except that isn't what you said;

I asked if you had figures as to how the resources were allocated. Not police figures. Just figures in general. You said 'no'. Seems pretty clear to me.

You don't need figures or statistics to know what's going on.

Have you heard the phrase lies, damned lies and statistics? You can make figures tell whatever story you like. Only a fool relies on figures.

As you're the one who seems to want to talk figures, how about you post what you have. Or don't you have any either?

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I'm happy to accept that police policies on how and when to respond to road traffic incidents may not be perfect

And so, my record of failing to achieve a satisfactory justification remains unbeaten.

At least you're almost honest enough to admit they're getting it wrong, even if you don't understand the full extent of their hypocrisy and why it undermines the reasons they give for launching anti-speeding campaigns.

Joe_Horner

pendulum wrote: »

I'm glad to see you can read the link I posted for you.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Different models will also have different energy absorbing capabilities, which will alter the effect in favour of one and against the other (because the same total energy must be absorbed). Even that page you linked to makes that distinction, but fails to mention that non-identical can make a huge difference to one or other of the cars. Not that I'd pay much attention to a page with "/grrr/" in its URL as a source of physics

Why are you telling me this? This is all included in the link I gave you. In fact you've almost done a copy and paste job.

0
Completed that bit of selected quoting for you ;

pendulum wrote: »

Are you really suggesting one will walk away at 60mph head-on, but die in agony at 70mph, so that's why they set the limit at 60mph? Give me a break. I said the results would be pretty much the same because you will die or be seriously injured whether you hit head on at 60mph or 70mph.

I'm saying that, with a full 1/3 more energy at 70mph you have much less chance of walking away than you do at 60.

pendulum wrote: »

There are so many more important factors other than speed when it comes to avoiding collisions. Choosing a sensible speed for the road conditions - whether that be above or below the speed limit - is far more important than the arbitrary speed limit that was set in a council office some 10-years-ago that doesn't take in to account the road conditions at the time, the weather, or anything else. I find it laughable that you can have such reliance on a set speed limit to tell you how safe it is for you to travel, and seem to have a serious belief that exceeding that speed by even a little bit would result in huge amounts of increased danger, but if you stay below that limit, you'll be safe. This driving lark is a little more complicated than that.

I agree that appropriate speed for the conditions is what matters and nowhere have I (ever, here or elsewhere) suggested that "keep below the limit you're safe" - that's obvious !!!!!!!!. Neither is breaking the limit necessarily dangerous.

But the sad fact is that a large proportion of drivers out there are incapable of making such a judgment - if they were there would be virtually ZERO accidents because everything could be reacted to in time - so we either remove those drivers from the road or we have arbitrary limits to try and limit the harm caused by them.

Personally I'd rather see the people who get it wrong removed permanently from the road but that's not going to happen, so we have limits.

Once a limit is in place, like it or not, it needs to be enforced or it becomes meaningless and if you chose to ignore it (which I very often do btw) then you take your chance against that enforcement.

If you're caught, the only acceptable answer is "I knew the limit, I chose to ignore it, fair cop"

davelees

Coveredinbees!!!! wrote: »

Probably wasn't a police office operating the thing anyway just some poor soul who's job it is to operate a speed camera

I agree, most speed detection camera vans are operated by civilians, not Police Officers so they do not tie up any resources.
These vans will also record other offences such as people on mobiles, passengers being carried in a dangerous manner etc.

Crazy_Jamie

pendulum wrote: »

You don't need figures or statistics to know what's going on.

Of course you do, otherwise you're just guessing. Unless you're secretly omniscient and not telling us.

pendulum wrote:

As you're the one who seems to want to talk figures, how about you post what you have. Or don't you have any either?

Well, no I don't. That much should be obvious. But I'm not the one criticising how the police allocate resources without knowing how they actually do allocate resources.

mgdavid

Joe_Horner wrote: »

.......... Not that I'd pay much attention to a page with "/grrr/" in its URL a.........

if you think page URLs are relevant then you are in the wrong place, this one has 'expert' in its URL and you're clearly not.

Joe_Horner

mgdavid wrote: »

if you think page URLs are relevant then you are in the wrong place, this one has 'expert' in its URL and you're clearly not.



The following user says thank you to mgdavid for injecting a meaningless jibe when he can't answer the facts. Show me>>>

I take it you're with Pendulum then that a head-on with a moving vehicle is no worse than you hitting a stationary object at whatever speed you're doing yourself?

mgdavid

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I take it you're with Pendulum then that a head-on with a moving vehicle is no worse than you hitting a stationary object at whatever speed you're doing yourself?

irrelevant as the number of 100% headon collisions is minimal possibly almost zero; only TRL manage to line up collisions that accurately. When the vehicles are offset even by a metre or less then there is a completely different result.

Joe_Horner

mgdavid wrote: »

irrelevant as the number of 100% headon collisions is minimal possibly almost zero; only TRL manage to line up collisions that accurately. When the vehicles are offset even by a metre or less then there is a completely different result.

Which still involves getting rid of the combined kinetic energy of both vehicles in a very short space of time. The differences involve how each vehicle dissipates that energy, and how it deforms as a result, but it doesn't materially alter the amount of energy that has to be dissipated.

So, back to the question (try not to side-step it this time, huh?):

Do you, or do you not, agree with Pendulum that the kinetic energy of the object you hit (a car moving towards you compared to a stationary object) has no possible bearing on the effects you feel?