To all those on this forum that says speed doesn't kill

jackieblack

Scrapit wrote: »

Absolutely wrong.
A fall will always kill.

Absolutely wrong :cool:

A few examples...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/jet-passenger-tells-of-fall-from-3000ft-ejector-seat-malfunctioned-during-victory-roll-1367928.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-survives-13000ft-fall-as-parachute-fails-8100024.html

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/skydiver-survives-14000-foot-fall-3699030

https://nypost.com/2019/08/16/skydiver-miraculously-survives-5000-foot-fall-after-parachute-malfunctions/

unforeseen

And the most famous of all. Flt Sgt Nicholas Alkemade 18,000ft without a parachute after bailing out of his Lancaster in March 1944.

Arklight

fred246 wrote: »

It's really sad the way that motorists have been allowed to terrorise our communities. Children used to be allowed to play out. Now it is expected that they are locked up in their houses. The council put up 20MPH signs but there are no speed cameras. It's as though we know what we should be doing but we can't be seen to be stopping motorists having their 'fun'. Holland is the only place where it seems to be tackled properly. 80MPH is fine on the motorway but then they slow down in residential areas. In 300 years time when all cars are fully automatic they will look back in horror that we allowed drivers to continue driving at 40 or 50MPH round residential areas.

Although Dutch towns are slow to drive round, they're lovely to walk around. Dutch drivers expect to, and are on the lookout, to give priority to pedestrians. The ethos in the Netherlands seems to be that the town is there to provide a safe comfortable environment for the people that live there, most of whom at any one time are on two legs. Cars come second, and when you realise that as a driver it's not too bad. You go slow and accept the journey, and tend not to have some twit 2 cm away from your rear bumper leaning on his horn with his face turning beetroot.

Traffic in less enlightened places carves up and divides urban spaces. For most Brits, the road outside their house may as well be a wall, and the pedestrian crossing a guard telling them when they may pass through.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

unforeseen wrote: »

And the most famous of all. Flt Sgt Nicholas Alkemade 18,000ft without a parachute after bailing out of his Lancaster in March 1944.

As a kid I remember watching Record Breakers, there was a higher fall than that when an air stewardess fell from a passenger plane. Think it was Russian and she survived.

shaun_from_Africa

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

As a kid I remember watching Record Breakers, there was a higher fall than that when an air stewardess fell from a passenger plane. Think it was Russian and she survived.

33,000 feet!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

adonis

Arklight wrote: »

Although Dutch towns are slow to drive round, they're lovely to walk around. Dutch drivers expect to, and are on the lookout, to give priority to pedestrians. The ethos in the Netherlands seems to be that the town is there to provide a safe comfortable environment for the people that live there, most of whom at any one time are on two legs. Cars come second, and when you realise that as a driver it's not too bad. You go slow and accept the journey, and tend not to have some twit 2 cm away from your rear bumper leaning on his horn with his face turning beetroot.

Do you know what is it like around the schools there, do cars still drop the kids off or is it all bikes and buses?

Car_54

adonis wrote: »

Do you know what is it like around the schools there, do cars still drop the kids off or is it all bikes and buses?

Still? I don't imagine they ever did, it seems to be a peculiarly British thing.

Jackmydad

It shows me why I don't ride motorbikes any longer. In the car I've had several "near misses", (and one "hit" many years ago) with people simply driving on the wrong side of the road round blind bends. I try to drive within my range of vision as well, but when they're belting along overtaking a cyclist, it doesn't matter how quickly you can stop.

Modern cars are extremely forgiving to mistakes. They make the driver and passenger feel safe, and so encourage them to drive beyond their own capabilities.
When stuff does go wrong, even at 40 mph, things happen extremely fast. It's 60 feet a second give or take. Long way to go before any reaction even for a good driver who is concentrating. Once the plot comes unstuck. . .

And FWIW, why don't people who deliberately drive dangerously and seriously hurt or kill people lose their licence permanently?
It might have some effect on the general standard of driving.

AdrianC

Jackmydad wrote: »

And FWIW, why don't people who deliberately drive dangerously and seriously hurt or kill people lose their licence permanently?
It might have some effect on the general standard of driving.

You don't think there's already any dissuasion from a bare minimum year ban and the need for an extended retest before getting their licence back - even without any injury or death? Add that in, and the potential for jail time...?

Simple. They don't think they're driving dangerously. It doesn't apply to them.

Look again at that video. He wasn't actually going that fast. He could easily have got round that bend on his side of the road. He simply assumed it was clear, and chose to run wide on the exit - then target-fixated on the oncoming biker. He could EASILY have missed him, either by heading for the scenery on the right, or by pulling back into his own lane - he simply froze. There were nearly three seconds between seeing the bike and impact. Look at the subtitles on the video - when the bike came into view, he was doing 57mph (in a 60 limit - not even breaking the limit). A second later, he was still doing 55mph. A second later, the biker is up on his front wheel, he's braking so hard - yet the camera car has only shed 10mph. By impact, he's only shed another 15mph. He isn't even braking that hard. The car following was doing the same speed, if not more, approaching the bend - yet didn't cross onto the wrong side of the road, and was near stationary on the verge before even reaching the impact position.

The car drivers weren't doing anything markedly different to the bikers - they were out for a pleasure drive in the hills with a bunch of like-minded mates. I very much doubt the bikers were religiously obeying the spirit and letter of the HC, either... The difference is only that one person wasn't paying attention to what he was doing - and one mode of transport makes the user more vulnerable than the other. If he'd hit a similar-weight car coming the other way, there'd have been two seriously injured people.

I very much doubt the 3yr ban, let alone the 16mo jail, is going to be the longest-lasting effect for the driver. Obviously, it isn't for the biker...

Ergates

Scrapit wrote: »

Absolutely wrong.
A fall will always kill. Speed more than certainly doesnt. It's a simple fact.

Did you hear the whoosh?