Posted: 12/1/2002 5:00:50 PM EDT
| Lawmakers and insurance companies love to say that speed kills as an excuse to keep the speed limit down to generate ticket revenue and insurance payment increases. I've been thinking and doing some reading and it seems that saying speed kills is like saying guns kill people. Drunk divers kill when going slow. Old folks kill while going slow. Being tired kills. Talking on the cell phone kills. Inexperienced/poorly trained divers kill. Driving at low speeds in poor weather kills. I've been to Germany and those folks drive fast, but boy do they know how to drive. I cruised at 155mph passing several cars and I didn't kill anyone. Police pursuits kill. Why? Not because of speed alone but reckless driving. Stupid cops who speed in conjested areas without their lights on during night in a black car however are asking for trouble. Saw one yesterday. The ass was doing twice the speed limit through lights in a narrow crowded road. |
|
It's not the fall (speed) that kills... it's the sudden stop at the end. Really, tho... the odds of a fatality/injury increase with higher rate of speed during accidents. Check out how many people survive a 155MPH (or even anything over 100MPH) crash compared to a 35MPH crash (on a percentage basis). I think it's more of a safety thing... just like seat belts. You're less likely to be killed/injured (as badly) wearing a seat belt then w/o one in an accident... does that mean you WON'T be killed/injured w/ a belt on...? nope. What are you talking about... highways, or just everywhere? The average person takes 1 second to react (hit brakes) to a potential accient. If you're driving down a residential zone going 80MPH and a kid walks out from behind a car... the odds of you swerving/braking in time to miss that child are GREATLY reduced. Same as if a car doesn't see you and pulls out from a side street in front of you... Does speed kill... I guess that depends on how you look at it. Is a reasonable speed limit likely to reduce the risk of accidents... I sure think so. Because you're not speeding, does that mean you wont die? Nope. BTW, if you ingest too much speed, I can assure you it will kill you. |
|
Quoted: Lawmakers and insurance companies love to say that speed kills as an excuse to keep the speed limit down to generate ticket revenue and insurance payment increases. I've been thinking and doing some reading and it seems that saying speed kills is like saying guns kill people. Drunk divers kill when going slow. Old folks kill while going slow. Being tired kills. Talking on the cell phone kills. Inexperienced/poorly trained divers kill. Driving at low speeds in poor weather kills. I've been to Germany and those folks drive fast, but boy do they know how to drive. I cruised at 155mph passing several cars and I didn't kill anyone. Police pursuits kill. Why? Not because of speed alone but reckless driving. Stupid cops who speed in conjested areas without their lights on during night in a black car however are asking for trouble. Saw one yesterday. The ass was doing twice the speed limit through lights in a narrow crowded road. I completely agree. Most accidents, especially fatal accidents occur on surface roads, but the vast majority of tickets are speeding tickets written on expressways. They should be patrolling the surface streets for people following too close, failing to yield right of way, no lights on when it is raining, etc, as those are the causes of the vast majority of fatal accidents. Over 80 percent of traffic fatalities occur on surface roads. Hell, I drive up and down I16 between Savannah and Macon, GA and there is rarely any traffic to speak of, yet there are several small towns along the way that have extended their city limits to include a mile or two so they can sit out there and write speeding tickets. They are neither protecting nor serving the citizens of their towns with this BS, just fattening the city coffers. So here you are, in the middle of nowhere, having to drive like an old lady to keep from getting a ticket. |
|
Difficult question, multi-layered answer. In Europe, the drinking age is below the driving age, which means by the time kids are allowed to drive a car (usually 18) they are also experienced with alcohol (which they are allowed to consume in public at 16) and know how to drink responsibly. European highways are usually of a much better quality than American ones: wider, thicker, less cracks and potholes, better markings, less confusing directions, better, i.e. more logical on and off ramps, more curves thus less monotony. It's a complex process to obtain a driver's license in Europe. In Germany, one has to go through 12 hours of classroom instructions, and at least 24 hours of supervised driving, plus at least 2 more hours each at night, in a big city, on the Autobahn. This is followed by a written and a driving test. The stakes for either are rather high, and last time I checked, it cost about DM 2,500.- to obtain a German driver's license, which in turn will never expire for use on European streets. (Grandfathering; I know people over there who still have and use their Wehrmacht driver's license) Strict rules: passing on the right for instance is absolutely /verboten/ and ranks about the same as mugging grandmothers for their beer money. Sophisticated "smart" traffic guidance systems are installed all over Europe: sensors in and at the sides of the highways count cars and should a traffic jam, or conditions of fog or wet streets, threaten to occur, drivers are told to slow down by electronic signs. Radio assistance: European car radios have a function you won't find on American models: if you turn this feature on before you start, traffic hints and warnings will override your CD-player, radio or cassette player every 30 minutes or in cases of emergency, even if the speakers are muted. Roadside assistance can be summoned by walking not more than a 3/4 mile in either direction. After not more than a 10 minutes walk, you'll find a call box which can be used to connect you the local version of the AAA (ADAC and AvD in Germany) or police/ambulance/fire dept. Also, if you don't feel like walking...the cellphone coverage in most parts of Europe is much better than outside the major American cities. (I'm not bashing the US system here. It's just not worthwhile to cover every square inch of the US). One more thing I'll mention: cars for the European market are built to European specs. Almost every American-built car feels mushy to Europeans. Lack of handling in curves, unreliable electrics, outdated headlights, shitty gas mileage are just the tip of the iceberg. Why do you think a 96 Chevy S10 sells for $2,000 here in the US, and a Mercedes E of the same year fetches about ten grand more. Also, every European country has extremely strict annual to bi-annual safety inspections mandated for cars. So, in conclusion: Europe has better educated drivers, better streets and better cars. I'm quite content with our speed limits here. Unless you want to pour trillions into the American system, they can leave the speed limits right where they are. |
|
Differential in speed kills. If we were all going 180 mph in cars suited to same, then we would have an environment like a NASCAR or IRL race. Barring single car crashes most stuff is caused by one car doing something that changes it's speed dramatically lower than those around it, which causes a huge chain reaction of events caused by reactions of the other drivers. If the speed limit was 85 in the "country" rather than 65 - 75, I would doubt that the fatalities would go up dramatically. As witnessed by the average speed limit being raised in recent years after the 55mph limit was made a voluntary "exercise" for the states. Ed |
|
Stupid cops who speed in conjested areas without their lights on during night in a black car however are asking for trouble. How about stopping on the side of the road or in the median(!) without any lights on so they can catch speeders. I'll admit my night vision isn't what it used to be, but at night it's hard to see a dark car parked in the median, especially one facing you. If I remember correctly, I read that the state of Florida requires cops to turn-on their parking lights while parked on a road. It would be nice if SC did the same thing.z |
| Our maximum speed limit on the freeways in Kali used to be 70mph then they changed it to 55mph."They" advertised and marketed this "speed kills,stay alive,drive 55"nonsense for years.Well,nobody really paid much attention (it took forever to get anywere!)and they finally bumped it back up to 65.I think when the state looked at the stats,there really weren't any less fatalities than when it was 70mph.Remember Sammy Hagar?...I Can't Drive 55? |
|
Stupid people drive cars too ... remember all the idiots you went to school with? Not smart enough to read, think, or walk and chew gum? They all have cars or trucks and drive on the same roads as you. I'm never worried about me driving at speed, it's the other idiots on the road. Like the guys doing 20 miles faster then the traffic weaving in and out cutting across lanes with out signaling, getting cussed at every half mile. |
|
Quoted: Like the guys doing 20 miles faster then the traffic weaving in and out cutting across lanes with out signaling, getting cussed at every half mile. Yep. I saw somebody driving like that about a year ago, tried to squeeze in and didn't make it. He came REALLY close to being spun out in 75mph traffic. These people and the ones who need to stop in the middle of traffic to make a turn onto a side road. Plus the obvious DUI's |
|
Some years ago Car & Driver did a big article addressing the issue of "does speed kill." I don't rememeber the specifics, but their point was that using the NHTSA's own data, increasing crusing rates up to something like 90 mph on limited access higways did nothing to appreciably increase fatality rates. They confronted the NHTSA's director...or some higher up....and he didn't really have a response. It was quite a few years ago...I'd love to find that article again. The bottom line? It's a revenue generator. It's a burdonsome tax on the masses. Many police officers seem to get a power kick out of it too. How? In every instance I have heard a cop refer to radar detectors...whether personally, television, or even on this website...if they pull someone over that is using one...they automatically go into a mindset of no leniency for the speeder. WHAT!? As if their authority is being challenged!? Truly pathetic. Not to mention the fraternal "license to speed" that cops apparently give each other. If it were such a safety issue, why aren't the cops busting the maniacs in their own ranks? About a month ago, I was travelling north on I-71 just north of downtown Cincinnati doing about 70...obviously not too aware of whats behind me as I suddenly get passed by a police cruiser...no rollers going...containing just the driver...from Cold Springs, Kentucky mind you. So, I sped up and paced him. He was doing 80-85. Traffic was light. Perfectly safe. In hindsight, I should have called his station and let them know what kind of bloodthirsty maniacs they have in their department. Cops who sit around making speed traps make me a little sick. I dont see how they can respect themselves. Come to think of it...I have never seen a speed trap in a 25-30 mph residential area or a school zone...WHERE THEY SHOULD BE!!!! |
|
Well, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go 150mph on the freeways around here... too many idiots doing stupid things. Besides, driving that fast is very inefficient, and our roads are simply not made for speeds like that. You're probably sucking at least two to three times as much gas to go that fast. Wind resistance DOUBLES for every 10mph over about 50mph, so at 150mph, you're exponentially increasing wind resistance, thus exponentially increasing the work your engine is doing. 65 is fast enough for me, 75 if traffic moves good. Too many idiots to want to go faster. |
|
A few things that seperate Europe from America that a lot of Autobahn fanatics seem to forget. In Europe, the cost of driving is several times that of driving in America. From the cost of vehicles, licensing fees, registration charges, insurance, to the immense expense of gasoline all pro-rated against the average TAKE HOME wages of the people, Europeans cannot afford to drive as much as Americans, so there are fewer drivers on the roads. Public transportation is much more efficient in Europe than the USA (even in England where the British Rail is notorious for being late.) Public transportation is cheap and available in Europe so there really isn't that great a need for cars. Lifestyle. Europeans are more bound to their home neighborhoods and cities. Where Americans are likely to commute as much as a hundred miles to work each day, and think nothing of vacations or long weekends hundreds of miles away, Europeans spend most of their lives inside a fairly close radius around their homes. When they do go away, they take public transportation more often than not. Typically all but the smallest towns are serviced by at least a busline that will take people to a train nearby. Speed on the Autobahns. There are speed limits on the Autobahns in many places and those speed limits are frequently rigorously enforced by automated speed trap. Drive by one too fast and Smile you're on candid camera. The ticket arrives in the mail with three photos of your car (front plate, rear plate and driver). The only way you can fight the ticket is if the driver ain't you. Otherwise you pay a hefty fine (remember that low take home pay) and suck it up. Fatalities in high speed Autobahn crashes. VERY high. Failing to render aid at an accident scene (if you are the first to pass it) is a criminal offense in Germany. Why? Well it is un-neighborly, but that's not it. The reason is that fast aid may mean the difference between life and death for the victim. I've seen a number of accidents on German highways, and they are frequently very messy with bodies ejected from the vehicles leaving bloody streaks and body parts down the road and trucks with their entire payload spread all over the place. I also contend that German cars are not particularly better made than US cars. The mid- to top-grade Mercedes and BMW's yes, but the majority of Germans drive econobox VW's, and American car sub-brands. There are a lot of Citroens as well and no-one can tell me that those are more road-worthy than a Chevy Lumina. And let's not even talk about the POS, light duty trucks that they use. Their trailers are aluminum frames with laminated canvases buckled to the bed. When a truck has an accident in Germany, typically the driver is seriously injured or killed and the load blows loose of the trailer and spreads itself explosively across the highway creating a major hazard for other drivers. So does speed kill on highways? Yup! It is a major contributing factor thanks to the loss of reaction time and the lower level of control should something unexpected occur (a tire blow out at 100 MPH is a BAD thing in any country). Before you make blanket statements about how speed limits aren't justified and are just a method of generating revenue, consider that European models are a POOR comparison to the US. |
|
Even if the limits were 90, the vast majority of drivers would not go much over 80-85. Most interstates should have their limits raised to at least 75-80 if not 100 in rural states. I have driven all over this nation, and 75 mph along I-80 from Reno to Salt Lake City is absolutely ridiculous. Around Chicago, as well as other big cities, traffic moves along at about 75-85 MPH despite a double-nickel limit. Most interstates were designed for 80 MPH traffic and faster. |
|
Quoted: Come to think of it...I have never seen a speed trap in a 25-30 mph residential area or a school zone...WHERE THEY SHOULD BE!!!! Where exactly do you live? Around here there are speed traps EVERYWHERE... school zones are big targets... had an old girlfriend who got her license revoked for doing 45 in a 25 school zone. Those of you who wanna do 90 on rural roads... have you considered what a cow or deer is gonna do to you, if you're unlucky enough to have one move out in front of you? Some of the higher center of gravity vehicles (SUV's) that would try to swerve at 90mph would end up rolling... I did a quick lane change at 75 in my explorer when I first got it and it felt like the thing was about to go up on 2 wheels. IMO, there are too many bad drivers around that I wouldn't feel comfortable w/ most of them driving 90MPH. Just like I'm not comfortable w/ morons who obviously have no clue about gun safety, walking around w/ their fingers on the trigger. Both cases are greater risk of accidents to themselves and me... |
|
To take your question literally; Force delivered equals mass times acceleration. You will almost certainly survive a head on collision at a combined speed of ten miles an hour. You will almost certainly be raspberry jam in a head on collision at a combined speed of 160 miles an hour. Velocity contributes dramatically to mechanism of injury. Looked at that way, yes, speed does kill. Does that mean traffic laws save lives? Hell if I know. What is the per capita death rate from MVAs on the autobon compared to our highways? That'd be the best indicator that I can think of. Addendum: Kar98 already pointed out some factors that make my autobon / highway comparison an invalid indcator. I should'a read more thoroughly. |
|
Failure to adjust speed to driving conditions is the real threat. ( Weather, construction, poor road surface, etc. ). Also in this category are driver fatigue, unfamiliarity with the area, and in car distractions such as children. A new major distraction is the in-vehicle DVD/VHS player with viewing screen within the drivers line of sight! [:(!] [i]"Wow Mom!, Look at Yoda jump around..." "Huh, what? How cute! How did they[/i] [b][red]CRASH![/b][red] |
|
Quoted: Well, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to go 150mph on the freeways around here... too many idiots doing stupid things. Besides, driving that fast is very inefficient, and our roads are simply not made for speeds like that. You're probably sucking at least two to three times as much gas to go that fast. Wind resistance DOUBLES for every 10mph over about 50mph, so at 150mph, you're exponentially increasing wind resistance, thus exponentially increasing the work your engine is doing. 65 is fast enough for me, 75 if traffic moves good. Too many idiots to want to go faster. Depends on what roads you are talking about. My drive from WA to MT to visit my parents is about 500 miles, part of it being a few *hundred* miles of straight, wide freeway. Last time I drove it I did 120mph in my 528i for a good portion of the trip. I might have got a few mpg less but not bad. I will do 90mph on open freeways around here on my motorcycle whenever I can. If you do 65 on the freeways you are a traffic hazard. |
|
Snorman, it's a physical fact. Friction due to wind exponentially increases the faster you go, thus the amount of work your engine has to do increases. This IS also affected, of course, by the Coefficient of Drag of your car (aerodynamics) and weight (mass at speed=momentum). A shapely sports car will do better than an SUV because of it's aerodynamic efficiency, but an SUV might do better because it just has such sheer mass. YMMV, but mine always kicks ass. |
|
Quoted: Snorman, it's a physical fact. Friction due to wind exponentially increases the faster you go, thus the amount of work your engine has to do increases. This IS also affected, of course, by the Coefficient of Drag of your car (aerodynamics) and weight (mass at speed=momentum). A shapely sports car will do better than an SUV because of it's aerodynamic efficiency, but an SUV might do better because it just has such sheer mass. YMMV, but mine always kicks ass. He didn't argue with the statement about drag, only stated that his car got a few less MPG, but "it wasn't bad" meaning he's willing to pay for it. I didn't see a gripe about it at all. Anyway, I don't think that speed kills, its idiots that kill. I drive fast, usually where I'm not "supposed" to, but where its safe to do so, I do. FOTBR |
|
Speed does not kill. Even cell phones have little effect on accident rates. ( i have never written a TC report where the primary collision factor or even a contributing factor was talking on the cell phone). What does kill? Um..Driving while very drunk, such as .15 and above. Driving while under the influence of OTC antihistamines, Rx & street narcotics, & hallucinagenics. Driving while very tired. Guys driving home after a midnights shift kill ALOT of people. Eating while driving & putting on makeup while driving. Driving a poorly maintained car. |
|
Quoted: One more thing I'll mention: cars for the European market are built to European specs. Almost every American-built car feels mushy to Europeans. Lack of handling in curves, unreliable electrics, outdated headlights, shitty gas mileage are just the tip of the iceberg. Why do you think a 96 Chevy S10 sells for $2,000 here in the US, and a Mercedes E of the same year fetches about ten grand more. Also, every European country has extremely strict annual to bi-annual safety inspections mandated for cars. First, a S10 is a PICKUP TRUCK! And a fairly small one, generic one at that... That's like asking why does a 96 Trans Am fetch more than a 96 Corolla? Second, as for headlights, what's better? Those blinding-bright POS lights that every Fast&Furious wannabe puts on his econo-box tuned faux-racer? Now THAT is a safety hazard (Especially when they're pointed right level with your mirrors...). Third, the cars most people drive, from ANYWHERE, either handle like overpowered golf carts (econo-boxes) or like a bulldozer (SUVs). If people wanted good handling, they'd pay for it (and judging by the boatUV-craze, they don't). You can't expect a S10 or Excursion (those things give a new meaning to 'Rock & Roll') to handle like a Camaro or Talon. As for gas milage, I'll put up with my T/A's gas milage issues in exchange for fairly easy maintanance, inexpensive & easily available parts, and the like. I have a motorcycle for when I need high milage... |
|
Quoted: Speed does not kill. Even cell phones have little effect on accident rates. ( i have never written a TC report where the primary collision factor or even a contributing factor was talking on the cell phone). Fan, I have personally witnessed a crash that was caused by a guy talking on a cellphone. If he were .2 seconds behind where he was, he would have broadsided a pickup truck right in front of me instead of just glancing off it's front. Minimal damage to both vehicles. The guy was VERY lucky that the 6 lane intersection he flew into through a red light wasn't more busy that morning. Anyway, a cellphone IS a distraction. Of course, it can depend on the depth of the conversation. I got a call about half a mile from my house from one of my female friends that will make and answer calls all the time while driving. I try to get her to avoid it if possible. To prove the point, I got into my parking lot, and told her: Three cars passed me going the other way, I think. I think ONE of them was white. Couldn't tell you any more than that. There could have been a fine nekkid woman on the side of the road bouncing some big giggly titties, and I wouldn't have noticed them. Anyway. Where's that Nikki Cox thread at???? |
|
Quoted: Depends on what roads you are talking about. My drive from WA to MT to visit my parents is about 500 miles, part of it being a few *hundred* miles of straight, wide freeway. Last time I drove it I did 120mph in my 528i for a good portion of the trip. I might have got a few mpg less but not bad. I will do 90mph on open freeways around here on my motorcycle whenever I can. If you do 65 on the freeways you are a traffic hazard. Yep, I get about 30mpg in my Saab travelling steadily at 100-110mph, amazingly it only gets about 28 at 55-60. |
|
The Car & Driver article about speed said something like the biggest problem was cars that don't move at similar speeds--one guy going 75 in 45mph traffic causes a problem whereas if everyone was moving 70 or 75, it's no big deal. I think freedom-fighter has his head screwed on straight. Simple tag lines are a cover for an agenda that has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with control and revenue generation. |
|
Quoted: Speed does not kill. Even cell phones have little effect on accident rates. ( i have never written a TC report where the primary collision factor or even a contributing factor was talking on the cell phone). What does kill? Um..Driving while very drunk, such as .15 and above. Driving while under the influence of OTC antihistamines, Rx & street narcotics, & hallucinagenics. Driving while very tired. Guys driving home after a midnights shift kill ALOT of people. Eating while driving & putting on makeup while driving. Driving a poorly maintained car. I've worked a couple of MVAs where cell phones were a contributing factor, so, based on limited empirical evidence, I'll respectfully disagree with you on that one. A biggie that you left out is teen age drivers with other teenagers in the car. When I think about the absolute worst accidents I've seen, the top 4 involved teen age drivers and friends. |
|
Teenaged drivers are a serious hazard. Combine inexperience with a sense of invulnerability and the mistaken idea that they actually know what they are doing, and you've got a serious recipe for disaster. Teenage drivers tend to drive faster, introduce more complications and distractions in their driving environment and engage in riskier behaviors such as binge drinking and taking party drugs. Around where I live, we have this road called Route 2. In the western stretches of the road, it narrows down to a two lane highway (one lane in either direction) and it is the major road out to a big college area. We get lots of accidents out here when some idiot kid thinks that they can pass a line of four vehicles in front of them (including a tractor trailer truck at the front of the line), going uphill, with five people in the car. Someone ends up dead from this harebrained behavior about once a month. In one fairly recent case, the car a group of girls were in was passing a line of cars and hit a truck head on. All the girls in the car were killed as their car disintegrated around them taking large chunks of their bodies with them. A lot of folks say the road is dangerous. The road isn't dangerous, it's well paved, well marked and everyone knows what it is. The problem is that the folks driving on it are morons incapable of driving the conditions as they exist. The road can carry the traffic load without significant traffic jams, so long as someone doesn't cause a crash. So it doesn't need to be widened. People just need to slow down and accept the road as it is. Fast driving, in and of itself, doesn't kill people. It is mercilessly unforgiving in the event of something unexpected though. High speed autobahns only work if everyone does what they are supposed to. All it takes is one person who zones out or does something idiotic to cause a serious wreck. With the HUGE numbers of people on the roads in the US, the chances of being on the road when someone does something stupid, are VERY high. At a slower speed, you have much more time to react, and so does everyone else. One other thing to keep in mind. Most general purpose tires sold in the US are speed rated to about 90 MPH. Go over that and the heat generated by friction could cause damage to the tire over a long period of time. If you insist on entertaining your Jeff Gordon fantasies behind the wheel, invest in some high-grade performance tires that are speed rated appropriately. |
|
So how come nearly head on collisions going 180mph into an unforgiving concrete wall is survived weekly by the boys on the racing circuits? SAFETY EQUIPMENT! If the speeds on America's highways were 100mph or higher I would have a 5 point harness in driver and passenger seat of my WRX. 1" of slack in your seatbelt equates to something like 3" of movement of your upper body in a head on collison going 35mph. Or somthing like that....some people leave 2-3" of slack in the belt. Which equals head hitting the sterring wheel in over 35mph or higher incidents. No seatbelts = death. Dancing with 18 wheelers and cutting them off, etc, or riding in their blind spots, is tempting fate. Rather play powerball than "Semi-Bingo". Differential in speed kills, not speed itself. See the 7th post in this thread....mine about differential in speed. Ed |
|
Unfortunately, we can't even get most people to use the safety equipment they already have (seat belts). Have any of you seen the footage of the Air Force guy who invented seat belts...? He strapped himself into a good harness system and pulled a 30G (or somewhere around that) collision on a rocket propelled sled... for something like .3 of a second. His retinas detatched from his eyeballs, he had massive internal injury from his organs bouncing around inside, but he lived. Now, if you go get a NASCAR grade safety system (including the vehicle itself, not just a seat belt), and actually USE it... It doesn't make you any safer for the person you run into, now does it? Not to mention, you still will have severe injuries. it's the force exerted on you that will injur/kill you... speeding will raise the amount of force, as well as decrease acceptable reaction time, but it in and of itself is just the cause, not the reason. |
|
Speed perpetuates a higher degree of injury. The body can sustain some pretty major damage and bounce back to 100% or close to it. I'm not too concerned about the other numbnuts as long as my ass is coming out alive. (Assuming it isn't my fault the accident happened to begin with...) I'm sorry some people won't wear their seatbelts....that's just plain idiotic. I do, and as I said, if the speeds were higher 100mph+ I would get 5 point harnesses AND USE THEM, and would really consider a non-intrusive roll cage/impact cage. If you choose to drive around/buy cars that get subpar safety ratings they will always make cars with subpar ratings. Stop buying the "INSERT UNSAFE CAR NAME HERE" and start buying the Volvos or Mercedes or whatever is getting the highest marks. They catch on faster than they used to. Witness the WRX and EVO coming over to the US. Ed PS----What a shitty 666th post......should have paid more attention I would have posted some porn or something. Damnit.... |
|
Quoted: So how come nearly head on collisions going 180mph into an unforgiving concrete wall is survived weekly by the boys on the racing circuits They are not hitting a wall head on at 180. The nose of the car may be hitting the wall, but the car is already sliding sideways, thus not a sudden stop at 180. If they were actually hitting head on and stopping, there would be very few survivors. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: So how come [size=6]nearly[/size=6] head on collisions going 180mph into an unforgiving concrete wall is survived weekly by the boys on the racing circuits They are not hitting a wall head on at 180. The nose of the car may be hitting the wall, but the car is already sliding sideways, thus not a sudden stop at 180. If they were actually hitting head on and stopping, there would be very few survivors. Yep, I understand the physics of it....please see the highlighted word above. Assuming travel in the [b]proper[/b] direction down a highway, likely the only perpendicular to the roadway impediments you will encounter will be bridge supports. Low % of occurence based on total billions of man/miles traveled and low % of occurence on total millions of miles of road in the US. But you likely knew what I meant but posted anyway. Ed |