In order to demonstrate something or other about cars, you asked what damage a 1kg boulder can cause.
1kg cars don't exist.
Hope this helps.
Jeremy Clarkson... 'Road Tax??'
- Thread starter som3blok3
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
In order to demonstrate something or other about cars, you asked what damage a 1kg boulder can cause.
1kg cars don't exist.
Hope this helps.
Yeah and I bet he would never have dreamt that his theories would be being banded about on a tinpot cycling forum of a Monday night!
OP
OP
som3blok3
New Member
- Location
- Cobham, Surrey.
Wow, glad I watched TG last night, what have I started?? Although if it wasn't me I'm sure somebody else would have been on here within minutes opening the same can..........
At the root of it all, I was just saying that I think Clarkson should know the basic stuff, what with him being in the motor industry.
For a few seconds he wound me up, I normally laugh with him at others and for that moment I was being laughed at.
That was yesterday and 14 pages of posts later. I'll still be watching TG next Sunday, as I have done for too many years.
James May is a good bloke, met him at my sons summer fete last year, shook my hand and had his picture taken with me.
As for Hammond, he's still a cock. (Admin, thats a male chicken cock
)
At the root of it all, I was just saying that I think Clarkson should know the basic stuff, what with him being in the motor industry.
For a few seconds he wound me up, I normally laugh with him at others and for that moment I was being laughed at.
That was yesterday and 14 pages of posts later. I'll still be watching TG next Sunday, as I have done for too many years.
James May is a good bloke, met him at my sons summer fete last year, shook my hand and had his picture taken with me.
As for Hammond, he's still a cock. (Admin, thats a male chicken cock
)
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
no, bu not all cars have the same mass. not all drivers are car drivers.
not all cyclists are as irritating as you thankfully
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
the problem with the appropriate argument is that it relies upon the exercise of judgement whereas throwing the bullet merely relies on physics. it may be inappropriate for me to throw it, but I can't kill you by doing so. you hit me at 70mph wherever i am, trespassing on the motorway, or drunkely crossing the urban clearway, on our local bypass or down some cul-de-sac and I'm dead. Hit me at 20 and most likely I'm not.
The problem is, what one regards as an appropriate speed in a given set of circumstances can become shockingly inappropriate in an instant, and due to factors outside of one's control or which one failed to take into account when making one's judgement of appropriateness. Society calls these things 'accidents'. 3000 people die in them every year (actually on this point I agree with Clarkson - I'm gobsmacked it is only 3000 per year and not much higher but the emergency services are so gifted these days). that is condescending BS; listening to people witter on about appropriate speed covering up a cull of 3000 lives under the blanket of accident.
30mph in most urban environments is legal. I must therefore assume it is regarded by the powers that be, and the people that drive past my house, as appropriate. (I guess the ones doing 40 down our road think that is appropriate too and would view my objections as me being picky)
Hit a kid, or a cyclist, or a pensioner,crossing the road, with a car at a perfectly legal 30mph outside my house and most likely you get a dead person, at 20mph many survive, at 10mph nearly all do.
Which part of speed kills isn't working exactly?
The problem is, what one regards as an appropriate speed in a given set of circumstances can become shockingly inappropriate in an instant, and due to factors outside of one's control or which one failed to take into account when making one's judgement of appropriateness. Society calls these things 'accidents'. 3000 people die in them every year (actually on this point I agree with Clarkson - I'm gobsmacked it is only 3000 per year and not much higher but the emergency services are so gifted these days). that is condescending BS; listening to people witter on about appropriate speed covering up a cull of 3000 lives under the blanket of accident.
30mph in most urban environments is legal. I must therefore assume it is regarded by the powers that be, and the people that drive past my house, as appropriate. (I guess the ones doing 40 down our road think that is appropriate too and would view my objections as me being picky)
Hit a kid, or a cyclist, or a pensioner,crossing the road, with a car at a perfectly legal 30mph outside my house and most likely you get a dead person, at 20mph many survive, at 10mph nearly all do.
Which part of speed kills isn't working exactly?
ComedyPilot
Secret Lemonade Drinker
- Location
- The Kingdom of Yorkshire
People, physics has nothing to do with the driver's ability to maintain a safe distance and speed for the conditions. It only comes into play when they aren't looking, driving too close, too fast etc for the conditions. Speed compounds mistakes, the faster you go, the less time you have to react and deal with any eventualities.
It is not a cause, but a resultant factor of the outcome.
A solid object moving on wheels will hit something unless a braking/steering input is made.
That responsibility belongs to the driver.
Sadly, around 2-3000 people aremurdered killed on the roads every year because drivers are not willing to take care of themselves or others.
There'd be uproar if 2-3000 people were shot and killed every year.....so why is it so 'ok' for it to happen in a car 'accident'?
Not the best analogy to give, but people seem to excuse death on the roads as an 'accident'.
Would they shoot a kalshnikov in a crowded football stadium?
No
But the same person will happily jump behind the wheel of 2 tons of metal and drive at speed on a daily basis, too close to the car in front, in icy/foggy/wet/crowded road conditions, or down a suburban street at 40mph, whilst on the phone, applying make up, or looking in the glove box, and not seeing the small child that ran out for their ball......................
'Accident' my arse.
It is not a cause, but a resultant factor of the outcome.
A solid object moving on wheels will hit something unless a braking/steering input is made.
That responsibility belongs to the driver.
Sadly, around 2-3000 people are
There'd be uproar if 2-3000 people were shot and killed every year.....so why is it so 'ok' for it to happen in a car 'accident'?
Not the best analogy to give, but people seem to excuse death on the roads as an 'accident'.
Would they shoot a kalshnikov in a crowded football stadium?
No
But the same person will happily jump behind the wheel of 2 tons of metal and drive at speed on a daily basis, too close to the car in front, in icy/foggy/wet/crowded road conditions, or down a suburban street at 40mph, whilst on the phone, applying make up, or looking in the glove box, and not seeing the small child that ran out for their ball......................
'Accident' my arse.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
REALLY Well i never....
you changed a variable; mass.
now try again keeping the mass of the object constant.
what causes more damage to an unprotected human being a 500kg car at 10 mph or a 500kg car at 100mph?
(for objects for the same mass) speed kills
my last word on the subject before I say something inappropriate
OP
OP
som3blok3
New Member
- Location
- Cobham, Surrey.
Is this going to turn into a Monty Python sketch?
A swallow carrying a coconut.............
A swallow carrying a coconut.............
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
thats the operative word.
inappropriate.
a time and a place for things.
IMVHO 30mph is wholly inappropriate its far too much in a built up area.
couldn't agree more. but as a blanket statement then no speed kills is a feck off misnomer, but like somebody posted somewhere else Inappropriate speed kills is not quite as snappy.
inappropriate.
a time and a place for things.
IMVHO 30mph is wholly inappropriate its far too much in a built up area.
couldn't agree more. but as a blanket statement then no speed kills is a feck off misnomer, but like somebody posted somewhere else Inappropriate speed kills is not quite as snappy.
No, but it followed fairly logically from the analogy of the bullet.
Not many cars weigh a few grams, not many cars travel at 1000mph. But I think that almost everyone (else) understood the point that Greg was making, though, without the need of further explanation.
I understand Greg's point perfectly and agree violently.
My post was addressed to subaqua.
Cars don't weigh a kilo, above 20 mph the chances of serious injury or death increase dramatically, basic physics.
There is no excuse for drivers to treat roads as racetracks, there is no room for complacency with the carnage drivers cause on the roads.
Heard about the Zero Initiative?
The Swedish stated aim with regard to road safety is zero. No deaths. None.
They concede the aim may be unrealistic, but they've achieved spectacular results:
http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/Concept/
The Vision Zero approach to road safety is highly effective. Sweden has one of the world’s lowest traffic-related fatality rates - and the statistics clearly show that safety does not compromise mobility. On the contrary, increased mobility actually depends on effective road safety.
More traffic, fewer fatalities
Traffic volume and fatality rates are partly linked to changes in economic growth. But we can clearly see that road deaths have continued to decrease despite a steady rise in traffic. This chart shows the growth in traffic volume (blue) and recorded traffic fatalities (yellow) from 1950 to the present day.
Huge potential
There are other positive effects. Fatalities involving unprotected pedestrians in Sweden have fallen by almost 50% in the last five years. The number of children killed in traffic accidents has also been cut. In 2008 the first traffic death involving a child did not occur until 22 October that year. And yet, the untapped potential remains huge. In Sweden, we could cut the death toll by a further 90% if we could eliminate technical system failures, failure to wear seat belts, speeding and drink driving - from 5 deaths per 100,000 to 0.5. This is what the Vision Zero is about: looking forward and creating strategies to take safety to new levels.
My post was addressed to subaqua.
Cars don't weigh a kilo, above 20 mph the chances of serious injury or death increase dramatically, basic physics.
There is no excuse for drivers to treat roads as racetracks, there is no room for complacency with the carnage drivers cause on the roads.
Heard about the Zero Initiative?
The Swedish stated aim with regard to road safety is zero. No deaths. None.
They concede the aim may be unrealistic, but they've achieved spectacular results:
http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/Concept/
The Vision Zero approach to road safety is highly effective. Sweden has one of the world’s lowest traffic-related fatality rates - and the statistics clearly show that safety does not compromise mobility. On the contrary, increased mobility actually depends on effective road safety.
More traffic, fewer fatalities
Traffic volume and fatality rates are partly linked to changes in economic growth. But we can clearly see that road deaths have continued to decrease despite a steady rise in traffic. This chart shows the growth in traffic volume (blue) and recorded traffic fatalities (yellow) from 1950 to the present day.
Huge potential
There are other positive effects. Fatalities involving unprotected pedestrians in Sweden have fallen by almost 50% in the last five years. The number of children killed in traffic accidents has also been cut. In 2008 the first traffic death involving a child did not occur until 22 October that year. And yet, the untapped potential remains huge. In Sweden, we could cut the death toll by a further 90% if we could eliminate technical system failures, failure to wear seat belts, speeding and drink driving - from 5 deaths per 100,000 to 0.5. This is what the Vision Zero is about: looking forward and creating strategies to take safety to new levels.
subaqua
What’s the point
- Location
- Leytonstone
turnout,
the swedes aim for zero injuries with almost everything. company i work for is swedish and has a safety culture second to none, and it doesn't mean nannying of employees either. Its been discovered its all about education,in the case of road user this could be as simple as educating when use of speed is appropriate, but more importantly when it is most definitley INAPPROPRIATE.
Any traffic officer will tell you the same, and i consider myself lucky to have been taught to drive by police driving instructor after i passed my test. ( best friends dad, who said he didn't want to attend an RTI where he would see the Fire service washing his sdons friends off the road) Yes that means i will happily barrel along the motorway at 70 when the road conditions dictate it is appropriate. it also means I know what is inappropriate too. as i said earlier IMVHO the limit in built up areas where there are more vulnerable should be lowwer than 30 and outside schools etc should be lower still. I think you will find Clarkson has said this too. I could trail through all of the online stuff from the times website to find the quote but i really cannot be bothered that much
I would happily welcome the swedish system as it would make it safer for all.
the swedes aim for zero injuries with almost everything. company i work for is swedish and has a safety culture second to none, and it doesn't mean nannying of employees either. Its been discovered its all about education,in the case of road user this could be as simple as educating when use of speed is appropriate, but more importantly when it is most definitley INAPPROPRIATE.
Any traffic officer will tell you the same, and i consider myself lucky to have been taught to drive by police driving instructor after i passed my test. ( best friends dad, who said he didn't want to attend an RTI where he would see the Fire service washing his sdons friends off the road) Yes that means i will happily barrel along the motorway at 70 when the road conditions dictate it is appropriate. it also means I know what is inappropriate too. as i said earlier IMVHO the limit in built up areas where there are more vulnerable should be lowwer than 30 and outside schools etc should be lower still. I think you will find Clarkson has said this too. I could trail through all of the online stuff from the times website to find the quote but i really cannot be bothered that much
I would happily welcome the swedish system as it would make it safer for all.
MacB
Lover of things that come in 3's
- Location
- Farnborough, Hampshire
That's the real crux of it, I've yet to see an advocate of the 'it's not speed that's the problem but inappropriate speed' that doesn't also consider that they have superior driving skills. The amount of accidents where speed is a significant factor would indicate that this isn't the case. A persons superior driving skills, judgement and awareness are only superior until they're not. Whether it's over confidence, an off day, someone elses fault or an alien spaceship landing in front of them.
Now I know that all those muppets are not really good drivers and you're the real deal...but we only have your word and judgement on that and some would rather trust to speed limits than those.
Amen to that. There was a study a while back asking drivers about driving standards (I shall be spending some time on google trying to find it!). From memory, more than 90% of male drivers assessed their own driving standard to be above average and MacB is right, this is the problem. We're asking people who have an inflated view of their own ability to determine what is appropriate for them.
