The Great Speed Awareness Course Scam

George_Michael

Knapper wrote: »

It's wrong because it is not the speed that is killing the pedestrian, just as the speed of a bullet is not the thing that kills a person

Probably the biggest load of tosh I've read in a very long time.


If you knew anything about physics and how the kinetic energy of a moving object is calculated you would know that the speed of a bullet is by far the most important factor when it comes down to the killing power of the projectile.

Deastons

Knapper wrote: »

It's wrong because it is not the speed that is killing the pedestrian, just as the speed of a bullet is not the thing that kills a person.

"Speed kills" is a pithy tag line that's designed to be easy to remember. If you're going to be pedantic, of course speed cannot kill - it's not an object and it has no mass. It's the velocity of the object and the impact of it that kills.

Scenrio A - Car driving at 20mph and a child runs in front of it. Child survives because the driver has time to react, brakes and the car stops almost instantly.

Scenario B - Same situation, but this time the car is going at 70mph. Driver has no time to react and, even if they did, car takes 350ft to stop. Car hits child, child catapulted into the air, child lands 60ft away. Child dies.

So, I'm sure you agree, speed kills.

Cornucopia

But wouldn't it be better, more accurate and possibly more effective to question what failures of the overall road safety environment may have occurred in order to lead to a (thankfully fictional) child being hit by a vehicle travelling at 70mph rather than dwelling on a generic but narrow reading purely of the physics?

TBH, I don't find your straw man scenarios particularly incisive or helpful. What about the "child" who is struck by a train travelling at 140mph? Or is "speed kills" only relevant to cars?

Mercdriver

"Speed Kills" was brought in as an advertising slogan because simplicity is everything in advertising. Bring Physics into it and 99% of people would switch off.

Speed is very relevant. The speed of an impact impacts on the level of damage and therefore the risk of more serious injury and death.

Deastons

Cornucopia wrote: »

But wouldn't it be better, more accurate and possibly more effective to question what failures of the overall road safety environment may have occurred in order to lead to a (thankfully fictional) child being hit by a vehicle travelling at 70mph rather than dwelling on a generic but narrow reading purely of the physics?

No. The general public are largely stupid. Speed Kills is just a memorable tagline created by an ad agency for an advertising campaign. The television/radio/magazine adverts that surround that tag would go into greater detail.

And it's just one of many taglines (20 is plenty etc) used.

To say that the speed of a vehicle doesn't affect the outcome in an accident is ridiculous.

Drive everywhere at 130mph and see how long it is before you die.

Deastons

Mercdriver wrote: »

"Speed Kills" was brought in as an advertising slogan because simplicity is everything in advertising. Bring Physics into it and 99% of people would switch off.

Speed is very relevant. The speed of an impact impacts on the level of damage and therefore the risk of more serious injury and death.

You said it better than me.

And, of course, lower speeds mean greater reaction times and greatly reduced chance of any impact actually happening.

Robisere

Ex-soldier with 12 years in HMF, having used several weapons during the 1960's to '70's, and kept up to date with modern infantry weapons, apart from the 7.62mm SLR* I used as a personal weapon.


*(Self Loading Rifle, L1A1) - a much larger, longer weapon than the SA80 carried by the British Army today, it has a muzzle velocity of 823 m/s (2,700 ft/s) and a round fired could travel 9Miles in still air. The SA80 muzzle velocity of the rifle is 940m/s. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 610 to 775 rounds per minute.


The difference also lies in the actual size and shape of the rounds: the 7.62 round, now used in the General Purpose Machine gun used by NATO, is designed to carry farther, and will penetrate a human body "Through and Through" - if it does not strike bone and not deflected, it will travel past that body. The SA80 round, being smaller at 5.56 mm, is liable to remain in the body, although its greater muzzle velocity is liable to cause more damage.


The difference is clear: muzzle velocity can be seen as speed and the speed is what causes damage to the body. Smaller frontal area, of vehicle or bulleted round, is also a factor.

AndyMc.....

Deastons wrote: »

No. The general public are largely stupid. Speed Kills is just a memorable tagline created by an ad agency for an advertising campaign. The television/radio/magazine adverts that surround that tag would go into greater detail.

And it's just one of many taglines (20 is plenty etc) used.

To say that the speed of a vehicle doesn't affect the outcome in an accident is ridiculous.

Drive everywhere at 130mph and see how long it is before you die.

Some more so than others.

Deastons

AndyMc..... wrote: »

Some more so than others.

And some less so that others. Which is why I used the term "generally".

AndyMc.....

Deastons wrote: »

And some less so that others. Which is why I used the term "generally".

Have you reversed into and holes lately?