Speeding Ticket

bod1467

MX5huggy wrote: »

The dead child won't care if he was doing 30 or 40.

True. But this mythical child is less likely to be dead if he did 30 rather than 40.

Johno100

bod1467 wrote: »

True. But this mythical child is less likely to be dead if he did 30 rather than 40.

And even less likely to die if parents/teachers taught them the dangers of roads and how to cross them safely.

musafir05

Jesus will protect this mythical child.

glentoran99

Johno100 wrote: »

And even less likely to die if parents/teachers taught them the dangers of roads and how to cross them safely.

Went on the speed awarness course and we were shown a video of an accident, Child crossed the road in a 30 zone, had plenty of time if the car was doing 30, it was a road with poor visibilty round bends, car was doing 38 and killed him, 30 it would have stopped in time when it saw him

RS2000.

glentoran99 wrote: »

Went on the speed awarness course and we were shown a video of an accident, Child crossed the road in a 30 zone, had plenty of time if the car was doing 30, it was a road with poor visibilty round bends, car was doing 38 and killed him, 30 it would have stopped in time [STRIKE]when [/STRIKE]if it saw him

There has to be other factors than speed alone because that would mean an 8mph impact.

glentoran99

RS2000. wrote: »

There has to be other factors than speed alone because that would mean an 8mph impact.

Actually it doesn't, another part of the course shows you that where you would have stopped if travelling 30mph your would still be travelling 18mph at that point had you been going 35mph

At 40 mph this rises to 26mph

And at just 2mph over a 30 limit you would hit someone at 11mph where you would have stopped had you been travelling 30

It's all about physics and kinetic energy

Johno100

glentoran99 wrote: »

Went on the speed awarness course and we were shown a video of an accident, Child crossed the road in a 30 zone, had plenty of time if the car was doing 30, it was a road with poor visibilty round bends, car was doing 38 and killed him, 30 it would have stopped in time when it saw him

Sorry but "plenty of time to cross" and "30 it would have stopped in time when it saw him" does not equate. If there was plenty of time to cross then there would be no need for the vehicle travelling at 30 to slow let alone stop because the child would have been safely on the pavement on the opposite side of the road.

glentoran99

Johno100 wrote: »

Sorry but "plenty of time to cross" and "30 it would have stopped in time when it saw him" does not equate. If there was plenty of time to cross then there would be no need for the vehicle travelling at 30 to slow let alone stop because the child would have been safely on the pavement on the opposite side of the road.

Yep that's what they said had it been going 30 the car wouldn't have hit the boy as he wouldn't have been in its path anymore

That 8mph was the difference between hitting and killing him and not hitting him either by stopping in time or him being across the road

MX5huggy

And if you were going 60 the child would not have even started to cross.

RS2000.

MX5huggy wrote: »

And if you were going 60 the child would not have even started to cross.

And at 88 they may not even be born.