₦airaland Forum

Whizpeter:
Thanks for this... But it's scarce oo, making me feel like this one was probably converted...

All the same, thanks for the heads-up

They are imported from other markets - not the US

http://forum.mpvclub.com/viewtopic.php?t=21036&sid=4860efc96da74d58da6656dc6f359e29

nurey:
There are some cars that shouldn't be considered for transportation business. I think the Mazda is pushing the limit. What happened to the popular ones used, am guessing price isn't your problem, after all you can get a Sharan, galaxy or the seat variant for way less than the mpv

Don't they use it in Ibadan? A lot I hear? As well as Kwara?

Well haven't been there, it is all hearsay!

Whizpeter:
Meanwhile is it safe to assume that the MPV you saw is 2001-2003? Cos I know that the Mazda MPV 2001-2003 model don't have a manual transmission..

If that's the case, ensure the car have a good service history with low mileage, if not you may be changing your transmission soon enough...

Ensure you service the transmission regularly too..


Or you can avoid the Mazda all together...

https://www.nairaland.com/1514591/2000-mazda-mpv-auto study the pictures carefully, there is indeed a manual MPV 2000-2001, but it is an i4 not a v6 as falsely described in the ad

delete those pictures or obfuscate those numbers if you don't want to lose the airtime to some fraudulent smart ass and then you will cry even more!

Proverbs 15:1, 2, 4

1. A mild answer turns away rage, But a harsh word stirs up anger.  

2. The tongue of the wise makes good use of knowledge, But the mouth of the stupid blurts out foolishness. . .

4. A calm tongue is a tree of life, But twisted speech causes despair. . .

18. A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, But one who is slow to anger calms a quarrel. . .

Proverbs 16:18, 19 , 21 - 25

18. Pride is before a crash, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

19.  Better to be humble among the meek Than to share the spoil of the haughty. . .

21. The wise in heart will be called understanding, And the one kind in speech adds persuasiveness.

22.  Insight is a fountain of life to those possessing it, But fools are disciplined by their own foolishness.

23.  The heart of the wise one gives his mouth insight And adds persuasiveness to his speech.

24.  Pleasant sayings are a honeycomb, Sweet to the soul and a healing to the bones.

25.  There is a way that seems right to a man, But in the end it leads to death.



Many sellers here are stupid, foolish, bigoted and not worth dealing with.

People who really have the money, never act that way.

People who think they have money, because they are amazed at the kind of sums that they handle, sums they never dreamed they would handle

Can no longer contain themselves, effectively putting a glass ceiling on their growth.

A post above has mentioned names, I will not mention names... but everyone knows who (and they are many of them) were are talking about, nearly all of whom I have interacted with...

How I wish I could send some people back to school - the school of human relations

People have died for this, people have killed for this, people will still kill for this

Never make enemies you can avoid...because you never know when it will all come back to haunt you

How can someone be so senseless as to plot his or her own fall?

The picture speaks for myself

when I was in Nigeria, I used to do it every night I would go out

in a Ford Fusion

What about you?

Long ago,

I swear to God Almighty that FRSC officials on Ajaokuta Expressway - that bad portion of the road if you are traveling to the East, at least three of three strategically arranged themselves to the left and right and the front of a vehicle I happened to be traveling in and picked up stones and aimed at the windshield of the vehicle when they thought that the driver was faking the attempt to park but really intended to make a run

The driver of the unfortunate vehicle and the other drivers are simply venting pent up frustration from these kinds of excesses - I wished to God that we had a dash cam in the vehicle, their careers would have been destroyed that day.

My point is - the story is not without merit.

Don't be quick to believe the official story line - they have got to protect the jobs and careers of their friends and associates

it's your life

Don't let someone else live it for you

They can suggest, and you must consider

ULTIMATELY, YOU DECIDE, BECAUSE YOU WILL LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES NOT THEM!

How old are you?

Finally, please follow your heart, try what you love, if it fails, you can always change course, many roads lead to the same venue, and you have said you don't love to work for someone else nor do you really care about further education at the moment!

Hope that helps

Kashif:
They do, but now have transmissions from other suppliers.

In which models if i may ask?

It’s like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack, only these needles possess the power to kill.

Of the roughly 70 million vehicles recalled for potentially deadly Takata airbags, Honda vehicles make up over one-seventh of the total. Certain Honda models have been listed as the most dangerous of the group, but, at around 15 years of age, the vehicles are now at the bottom of the automotive food chain, far from dealer lots and manufacturer oversight.

In its quest to rid the marketplace of dangerous Honda models, the automaker has already gone to unusual lengths to find the vehicles. Now, it’s going even further.

To weed out the vehicles, Honda has tapped a company that provides software to 22,000 independent repair shops. With the automaker’s help, CCC has developed a program that flags an affected Honda or Acura vehicle, should one roll into the shop.

According to Automotive News, the program is already on the hunt. Called True Recall, the program allows service technicians to see that an open recall exists for the model. Once it has notified the customer, the shop could help arrange the recall service with a dealership. (They’re encouraged to do so.)

Honda compensates CCC for each vehicle found through the program. Vehicle identification numbers entered into the program as part of the normal repair process are then matched with a database of vehicles provided by the automaker. By providing access to the places where the affected vehicles are most likely to be found, the program gives Honda it a leg up in its race against time.

The U.S. recently saw an 11th confirmed Takata airbag-related death. The victim, a 50-year-old California woman, died after her 2001 Honda Civic rear-ended another vehicle in October. Hers was one of 313,000 high-risk vehicles identified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. According to the NHTSA, the airbag failure rate of the group of 2001-2003 Honda and Acura vehicles could be as high as 50 percent.

Honda has reportedly searched used car lots and recycling yards across the country, purchasing thousands of older vehicles in order to keep them away from unsuspecting owners.

source: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2016/11/honda-pulls-stops-find-deadly-used-cars/

Can you imagine this?

Holy Island in Lindsfarne is a place in ENGLAND just sort of off the Northeast coast. When it is high tide you get this, when it is low tide you probably walk it.


https://www.facebook.com/yahoonews/videos/1329125453788249/

Scary right?

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fyahoonews%2Fvideos%2F1329125453788249%2F&show_text=1&width=560" width="560" height="400" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

Kashif:
Yes about Honda engines, but not transmissions. Some established shops wont touch them. They have now started using transmissions made by OEM suppliers, because of reliability issues.

Honda no longer building transmissions in-house?

tinutunde:
I read it on this forum that you have link in licensing office Abuja.. please can you connect me..God bless you

PM replied.

Respond so we can conclude.

tinutunde:
please I need your help... it's about my license renewal..

How can i help? What do you need?

Can I use Money Transfer Agents to send money from the US to a company account in Nigeria? Or does it only support person to person accounts?

Please kindly advice me.

Anyone faced this dilemma before?

tumababa:
Be careful when you transfer funds to any naija account and describe the payment as "dollar transactions ". Cbn don vex oooo. Even if na 10$ payment, na wahala

bros

wetin de happen

spill beans abegi

platinumricky:
Another W222 S63 AMG Rival.. BMW should do a limited production run of an M7 with a retweaked 6.6 V12 Biturbo engine and see how it does in the market as a feasibility test... just to give the Mercedes S65 AMG a run for its money. The board members should stop whining like little girls and take a leap since the price of oil has crashed now..

Love that line, the bolded I mean

mandmis007:
Roger that. That lame excuse is what I can't comprehend even now. Cldnt get to terms with the issue.
Will tow Saturday

if you own a premium vehicle, you need a driver who can do more that take it from point A to B

You need a driver who understands the cockpit instrumentation and how to respond to its issues and warning

I cannot say how painful this story is at $1=N430

Hope he doesn't get to take the pilot seat anymore once this is sorted out (in fact hope he is sacked)

FYTnRUN:
Very stupid comment. You are what you eat. And All you who is twisting definitions asif you dunno its the outcome of speeding that's the issue here and not the word 'speeding' are just plain ignorant if not foolish. So are you telling me its going slowly that will now kill you?! You talk about actions that can increase the probability of accidents because it reduces the time a driver has to react and that's where speeding becomes a less desirable act. Even if another road user makes the error that could put you into danger, going with speed would leave you with less option to react to avoid such road users and not to mention how speeding could make you mono-log and loose concentration for everything else. Nonsensticals(allow me).

The Facade Crumbles

Stanley A. Erichson, Jr.

The last shred of pretense that speeding laws contribute to safety on the highways has just been tossed in the trash can of scientific balderdash. There are theories around about how driving slower gives a driver more time to stop, so less accidents will happen. This sounds like it might be true, like most balderdash. Unfortunately for the proponents, every scientific measurement made showed the opposite.

There were three pillars of faith that the believers in this little bit of alchemy used to cite. One was the fact that speeders had more accidents. Collecting the data on this was easy, and it could be done for any state and any time. You just look at accident reports, and see if people who had accidents had more speeding tickets than drivers who didn't have any accidents. They do. This piece of science was based on the premise that if two things occur together, one must cause the other or be caused by the same thing. It's pretty hard to see how having a ticket could cause an accident or how having an accident could cause getting a speeding ticket, except for the accidents in which one of the drivers was cited for speeding as a cause of the accident. Statistical analysis shows that people who drive the most miles have the most tickets and the most accidents. That makes sense, as the more hours you spend on the road, the more likely it is that you will be victimized by the highway patrol, and the more likely that you will be in an accident. Speeding by itself has no connection.

The second pillar was accident statistics themselves. Don't accidents on a road occur more to those who are speeding? Wrong again. A comprehensive review of accident studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration showed exactly the opposite. Fast drivers had fewer accidents than slower drivers. On a freeway, the safest speed found was 10 mph over the average traffic speed. That's over the speed of the traffic, not over the speed limit. Traffic speed is already aver the limit, and maximum safety occurs faster than that. Why? Accidents happen to people who drive their cars into something. Those people who are good at driving, drive fast. Those who are poor drivers, drunk, drugged, inexperienced, drowsy, slow-witted, nervous, scared, or otherwise impaired, drive slower. Their slowness does not save them. The slow drivers have about 10 times the accident rate of the fast ones.

The third pillar was the nationwide experiment that started when President Nixon cut the national speed limit to 55 to save gas. Accidents, injuries, and fatalities went down. This seemed to prove that slower speeds were safer. The only unsettling thing was that within two years, the rate of accidents went back to the same trendline that it had been following for the previous decades. Recently, the inverse experiment was done, when many highways had their speed limits raised to 65. Paradoxically, the accident, injury, and fatality rate continued to follow the downward trendline.

This means that the entire program of speeding tickets is nothing more than a sham. It does not reduce accidents or save lives. It makes work for the highway patrols who would otherwise be unemployed or directed into more dangerous tasks like catching crooks. It brings money into depleted municipal and state coffers, usually more than offsetting the costs of these bandits' salaries. It also has the advantage of raising the profits, through surcharges, of the automobile insurance companies. Charging high premiums to the country's safest drivers is one of those "free lunches" that there aren't supposed to be any of. So now that the scientific cards are on the table, let's just see how long insurance PAC money can keep the speeding ticket program in place, as more and more drivers realize that they have been had.

Source: May/June 1993 NMA News

cardoctor:
It makes a lot of sense. Simple.

Physics disagrees, watch video!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I7vkiHi2I8

flowjoe:
to a driver speed kills
to a pilot #speedislife

Speed kills? Or does it?

You have heard it so many times from the government, police, and the insurance industry:
"SPEED KILLS."
"Speed is a direct cause of almost all fatal or major accidents."
"Speed limits exist for a reason."
"We should target all sorts of aggressive/dangerous driving, including speeding."

Not surprisingly, according to the 1996 Ontario Road Safety Annual Report, 449,508 speeding tickets were convicted, accounting for 60% of all Highway Traffic Act related offences. If we estimate a 90% conviction rate, close to 500,000 speeding tickets were handed out in Ontario during the year 1996.

But have you ever wondered why almost nobody obeys the speed limits, we haven't yet all died of motor vehicle collisions? Maybe they lied to us?

Not quite. They are just very good at manipulating and twisting the meaning of the term "speeding", and use it to their maximum advantage to hit home their propaganda. They even managed to do it so subtlely that the masses get brainwashed into thinking that speeding really kills.

First, let's clarify what I mean by "speeding", and later we will see how this gets twisted so subtlely that you don't even notice at first sight.

"Speeding" is defined as driving a motor vehicle in excess of the posted limit by 1km/h or more. This is a fact and a law. If you are caught driving 61km/h in a 60km/h zone, you are speeding and it is illegal. Following me? Ok, read on.

"But driving 61km/h in a 60km/h zone isn't necessarily dangerous," you may wonder. That's right, any competent driver knows that the maximum safe speed at which one can drive is affected by a number of factors:

the road condition (dry, wet, snowy, icy etc.)
the vehicle's mechanical condition (drive-train, tires, brakes, steering etc.)
the driver's ability (fatique, age, emotion, mind concentration, drug influence etc.)
the traffic condition (dense, moderate, light)
visibility (day, night, fog, snow storm, heavy rain etc.)

These conditions change every minute and a fixed speed limit sign is hardly useful. Collisions occur because drivers fail to heed one or more of the 5 factors above, not solely because a magic number painted on a white sign is exceeded.

Now this is the catch. When they tell you that speed kills, the term "speed" really means "too fast for conditions", which is precisely why collisions occur. But perhaps more than 98% of the "speeding" tickets are cited for "too fast for speed limit", rather than too fast for conditions. When the police say they want to target dangerous drivers (including speeders), what they really do is they setup a speed trap on an open highway on a warm and sunny day (the least dangerous condition to go fast), perhaps with a bit of stealthy tactics too so that it is always too late to slow down!

This is how the government, police and insurance industry so subtlely manipulate the meaning of "speed" to get you to buy in to their propaganda.

When we already have careless driving to cover the "too fast for conditions" situation, it becomes obvious that there is absolutely no legitimite or ethical need whatsoever to have another "too fast for speed limit" offence.

In addition, the insurance companies intelligently use this double meaning of "speeding" to charge otherwise safe speeders extra premium while assuming no risk. They don't even bother to make the distinction between different levels of speeding. A 1km/h over ticket has absolutely the same effect as a 40km/h over ticket. If you are caught speeding 1km/h over twice in three years, you are a dangerous high risk driver and the insurance company can refuse to insure you, and can refer you to the Facility Association, which is the high risk insurance group. The premiums there are outrageous.

So the government, the police and the insurance industry have made it look like "speeding" is a really bad thing. If slow is what they believe to be safe, then how can they explain the use of unmarked patrol cars? Isn't a marked police patrol car more effective than an unmarked one? When motorists see a marked patrol car, they will voluntarily slow down. Then isn't the goal already achieved? What is the purpose of using unmarked cop cars anyway? Deliberately setting the speed limit too low, and then sending a cop out in an unmarked vehicle to sneak behind motorists, is highway robbery disguised as traffic safety enforcement. When you have been given a speeding ticket, you have been robbed. The robber is the plaintiff and the victim is the accused. In other words, the robber who robbed you blind is the one charging you with an offence!

Why does Ontario disallow the use of radar detectors? Ask any radar detector user in the U.S.:
"What will you do when the detector sounds an alarm?"
"SLOW DOWN."
Isn't the "safety" goal already achieved? But they don't want this to happen, because they want you to pass that speed trap at an illegal speed and therefore hit you with a ticket. It almost makes you forget that speed limits were for safety! Repeat after me: speed limits have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

In fact, incorrect speed limits are even detrimental to safety. For the past 60 years, every known qualified traffic engineering report had proposed that speed limits should be set at the 85th percentile speed of free flowing traffic under good conditions. That is, 85% of the population will travel at or below that speed during light traffic and clear weather, without enforcement presence. The upper 15% is defined to be excessive. The 85th percentile speed is also the safest speed to travel, below or above which the risk curve starts to rise. But most speed limits in Ontario are found to be posted between the 30th to 50th percentile, with the 400-series highways as low as 10th percentile. With speed limits this low, they allow the police to pull over anyone, anytime they want, as evident in the maximum production, tag-team speed traps often found on Highway 401 and 417 during long holiday weekends. Don't these ludicrous limits make you wonder what their purpose is when they define 90% of the population as offenders?

The government might be telling you that almost all accidents are due to driving in excess of the speed limits so and so, and they have statistics to prove that. This point is moot because if the speed limits are set too low then no wonder why all accidents happen at above them. Imagine if all speed limits are 1km/h, then all accidents will have to be due to driving in excess of speed limits. This tells you absolutely nothing useful because some other factors such as alcohol might be related, but they put the blame on speed instead. One can interpret statistics by correlation in anyway they wish. If I say 99% of the drivers who are involved in accidents did not wear rocket ship underpants (Calvin and Hobbes), then should the Government make a law and require all motorists to wear such underpants while driving? This is also a perfectly valid correlation, albeit a ridiculous one.

According to the same 1996 Ontario study, this correlation is not even true. Of the 384,453 vehicle collisions involving property damage, personal injury and fatality, only 25,943 were deemed to be speed related. That's a whopping 6.7%. Other major factors include following too closely, failure to yield right-of-way, inattentive driving and so on. Yet, 60% of all the Highway Traffic Act convictions were for speeding! It seems like they are targeting the wrong group of people. If we leave out the equipment violations, administrative tickets such as vehicle registration and other non-moving violations, 4 out of 5 traffic tickets were speeding tickets. And they keep telling us that speeding tickets were for safety! And that they only target the "dangerous drivers who jeopardize the safety of our kids and other road users".

Now you know that those safety bureaucrats are just a bunch of liars, but they are really honest when they told you that "speed limits exist for a reason". They didn't provide you with a clear answer, but it is pretty obvious: it is a healthy source of revenue. Let's take a look at the 449,508 speeding tickets convicted in 1996. 241,831 of them were convicted for 15km/h or less over. If the average fine for those tickets was $80, while the remaining 207,677 tickets carry an average fine of $150, we are looking at a whopping 50 million dollars, and this does not include other traffic offences and parking tickets. Keep in mind that a speeding fine of $150 is a very conservative estimate.

If you think the amount of money reaped from traffic fine is tremendous, then the money the insurance companies can exploit will be staggering. It is not a one-time penalty upon conviction, but an increased premium you pay for at least three years. No wonder in the US, the IIHS, Insurance Institute for Higher Surcharges, ur, I mean Highway Safety, lobbied so hard to get speed limits reduced. And no wonder why insurance companies give away radar guns and laser guns, worth thousands of dollars, to police agencies, in the name of "safety". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the more tickets the police write, the more surcharges the insurance companies can put on their clients. Now it becomes clear that these "free" radar guns and laser guns are more than paid for in a short time. Remember even the traffic fines are split among different government entities and court personnel, while insurance surcharges are pure profit for the insurance companies. Not surprisingly, this Facility Association thing is setup so that everyone can obtain insurance, including bad drivers, as long as they have very deep pockets.

When so much money is at stake here, it becomes clear why the government, police and the insurance industry all collaborate their efforts to rationalize and legalize this blatant extortion. How do they do it? The following is a few simple steps:

Underpost all speed limits. Bureaucrats, instead of qualified traffic engineers, take control.

Distort statistics and use false correlation to get you to think that speed really kills.

Pass enough laws to punish speeding.

Remove as much due process protection as is legally possible.

Adjust speeding fines to be just below the motorists' tolerance (above which most people will start to fight their citations aggressively where most profit is gone).

Catch speeding drivers in a sneaky manner, i.e. by using unmarked patrol cars, instant-on radar, hiding in bushes etc.

Charge convicted drivers extra premium on their insurance policies, while taking no significant extra risk.

When the lies of "speed kills" are starting to expose, they start to coin other terms such as "dangerous/aggressive driving", "road rage" and associate them with "speeding". Then, mix in with a bit of emotional tactics too such as "it's for our kids".

Now when you have understood the truth behind "Speed Kills" and the purpose of speed limits, please don't further support this highway robbery by sending in the fine without first fighting it. When you fight your ticket you are making them work for your money. Court costs are tagged onto your fine whether you fight it or not, so there is no reason for you to just pay up. The majority of tickets are paid by mail and credit card charges without the trials actually happening. And you get to pay your own postage too when you send in your payment. So I don't know how most of the "court costs" are spent when processing a payment only takes a few minutes of a court clerk's time. This speeding ticket system is not only the most legalized crime in the country, it is also a multi-million-dollar business.

If we take the profit out by fighting every ticket, the system will automatically collapse. The moment you plead not guilty to the ticket, the moment the ticket will become a net cost to the province. It's always a win as far as frustrating the system is concerned. Trials slow down the cash flow as well as cost the province a great deal of money. They have to pay the clerks who handle the ticket and the trials. They have to pay the prosecutor to prosecute you in the trial. They also have to pay the judge who preside over the trial. And in some cases, they have to pay the cop overtime for coming to the court to testify. If you know how much money a typical government employee makes this is no surprise courts take great pains to inconvenience the defendants. The profits of the system is established by keeping a disproportionately large number of people who contribute payments quickly. If you create enough problems for the court, or if the court feels that your case has become "too expensive" to prosecute, they will often let you go and try to harass other defendants who are not as persistent. The system will come to a screeching halt if enough people fight it. Here are a few things you can do to sway the balance in our favour:

Fight every speeding ticket, obviously. Be persistent. Don't be discouraged by the court's effort to intimidate you. Hit them where it hurts them the most - in the pocket book.
Use what they use best against you: intimidation. You are going to intimidate them the same way they intimidate you: PAPERWORK. Cops hate paperwork. Handling paperwork is definitely not the reason why they are in the police force. But you are going to bombard them with requests of disclousre and discovery, and hold them responsible if they fail to honour your requests.
Frustrate the legal process as much as you can, and hold the province responsible for giving you a timely trial.
Boycott any insurance companies who put surcharges on speeding drivers. Not just the company who surcharged you, but ANY insurance companies you know who surcharges speeding convictions.
Write to your local MPs to voice out your concern.
Pass the word to everyone you know.

Together, we CAN make a difference.

POSTCRIPT

The 1999 Ontario Road Safety Annual Report has been released. There were 592,827 speeding offences convicted in 1999, an increase of 143,319 from 1996, now accounting for 64% of all Highway Traffic Act related convictions, or 82% of all moving violations. Yet, fatality rate continue to decline, and speed (including Speed Too Fast and Speed Too Fast For Conditions) now only accounts for 5% of all collisions involving fatality and personal injury.

Less people are dying on the highways, speed continues to be a very minor factor, and they have written MORE speeding tickets. And it's 143,319 tickets more.


SOUCE: http://fyst.ca

AMKAG66:
Road safety authorities always give caution with the phrase"SPEED KILLS"
Do you think they are mad when they rhetorically lay emphasis on speed..
Besides they are actually referring to over speeding

Why do the Police keep insisting speed kills?

Yet again the Police are in the media claiming that speed kills.

It doesn’t.

There are literally thousands of race car drivers who are still alive who can attest to the fact that speed doesn’t kill.

What kills is stupidity, and sudden stops into hard objects.

But the Police keep on insisting speed kills.

When you look at their examples too you find that in one of them that speed didn’t kill, in fact the driver is still alive.

One man was detected driving 240kmh on the Waikato Expressway before he was pulled over.

“This speed is simply reckless,” said Grace.

She said that at that speed it would take 12 seconds and 450 meters to stop – given that the vehicle was in good condition of course.

“If you are travelling at this speed, and something untoward happens up to 450 meters in front of you – the chances of you being involved in a collision are high.”

And the police mislead with those statistics…that is their calculation…what they don’t say is what sort of car it was, what sort of brakes and neither have they even tested to see if that is realistic, it is simply their guess. I’d like the Police to show me the statistics that show if you drive fast then you are more likely to be involved in a collision. I bet they don’t even have those statistics and are just making it up.

Needless to say though is that speed didn’t kill that driver.

In all the other instances they cite as examples there is no evidence that “speed kills”.

A man was killed in the Eastern Bay of Plenty when the car he was travelling in collided with a milk tanker at the intersection of SH2 and Wilson Rd near Paengaroa.

The car come out of Wilson Rd and turned right to travel north onto SH2 and collided with the tanker which was travelling south on SH2.

An intersection huh? Unlikely speed was a factor there…more like stupid decision to pull out in front of a 50 tonne milk tanker.

A 22-year-old Chinese student died on Saturday afternoon after the car he was driving collided with a campervan at Five Rivers, Southland, on Friday.

A camper van at speed? Come on…no one is going to believe that. Again no indication of “speed killing”.

A man died after a head-on collision near Tauranga the same day and a person was electrocuted following a crash in North Canterbury on Saturday.

No evidence of speed killing, and in one case it was fallen power lines that killed him not speed.

The final nail in the coffin of the Police efforts to slow everyone down…an increased road toll. It seems lack of speed kills not the other way around.

Last year 246 people were killed in road accidents. This year there have already been 285 deaths and with the New Year celebrations about to start, police hope that figure will not grow.

It will grow, because the Police are not focussing on the real issues…instead constantly claiming “speed kills”.

Forty more deaths than last year and a crack down on speeding running all year. I wonder if any real media will start joining dots and calling the Police on their bullshit.

Source: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz

They Say Speed Kills - We Ask "How Do You Know?"
An excellent article by Car & Driver written by automobile racing driver and journalist Patrick Bedard

Speed kills. Everybody knows that. We hear it so often. Like those slogans hammered into the popular culture on TV - "Reach out and touch someone" and "Don't leave home without it" - everyone has heard "Speed Kills" eleventy-dozen times.

It's always said in such reproachful tones, too, the ones reserved for lectures on racial equality and wife beating. "Speed kills." You're supposed to hang your head when someone says that to you.

Moreover, we hear "speed kills" in highly specific detail. From sources thought to be infallible. The Wall Street Journal, in an article by Christina Binkley on April 10, 1996, said, "There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about speeding, which causes nearly 20 percent of automobile deaths in the U.S., according to the National Safety Council [emphasis added]." Even more damning, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in a document specifically approved by its chief, Dr. Ricardo Martinez, said, "In 1992, speed was a contributing factor in approximately 32 percent of all fatal crashes."

Thirty-two percent? One out of every three? That's a body count that demands attention.

Body count? Said in those terms, we are reminded of another time, the Vietnam War, when the federal government cooked the numbers so as to manage the public's response. One in three highway deaths. That's a staggering indictment of speed, so disturbing that we must ask, of NHTSA and of the Journal and of everyone else who says, "Speed kills," how do you know?

How do you know speed kills?

In the case of Binkley's writing in the Wall Street Journal, she's simply wrong. She misquotes her source. The National Safety Council doesn't say that speed causes even one fatality. Quite to the contrary, what it actually says carefully avoids simplifying crashes down to an identifiable cause. "In most motor-vehicle accidents, factors are present relating to the driver, the vehicle, and the road, and it is the interaction of these factors which often sets up the series of events that results in an accident. The table below relates only to the driver, and shows the principal kinds of improper driving in accidents in 1994. Correcting the improper practices listed below could reduce the number of accidents. This does not mean, however, that road and vehicle conditions can be disregarded."

The table is titled "Improper Driving Reported in Accidents, 1994" and associates 19.5 percent of all fatal accidents with "speed too fast or unsafe."

The same table appears each year in the council's annual Accident Facts. Speed's share of the improper driving in all fatal accidents in the 1990s has ranged from 16.5 percent in 1992 and 1993 to 24.9 percent in 1990. The source of the information is always attributed to "state traffic authorities," though the number of states reporting each year has varied between 11 and 17.

Now that we've taken a closer look, we can see that Binkley's source has delivered with numerical precision a fact of ambiguous value; it has only quantified one factor in a group of interacting factors. So Binkley writes out the ambiguity. She makes the numbers mean what she wants them to mean. She says speed causes these fatals, even though the council meticulously avoids saying that.

NHTSA didn't say speed causes crashes, either, though readers may interpret the message that way. The agency said "speed was a contributing factor in approximately 32 percent of all fatal crashes." What does this terminology mean, exactly, and how does the agency know that information? To find out, we must dig into the agency's data-accumulation system.

What we find is a database of secondhand information known as the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS). FARS started in 1975 and collects data from all motor-vehicle crashes on public roadways that result in the death of a person within 30 days of the incident. Its two-decade history, together with its nationwide coverage, makes it the country's most comprehensive database on fatal crashes.

It's important to remember that FARS is not a primary investigation. FARS analysts don't go to the crash scene, and they don't talk to witnesses. Instead, they rely on police reports, DMV records, and other public databases for information as they fill out standardized forms to produce a four-level analysis of each crash: accident level, vehicle level, driver level, and person level. A 467-page manual tells how to fill out the forms.

The speed-as-a-contributing-factor data are entered on the driver-level form. They're the last items, after 20 questions of pure fact, about the licensing of this driver; about the charges filed against him (alcohol or drugs? speeding? reckless driving?); about the driver's previous record (accidents? suspensions? violations? convictions?). The related-factors section asks, in effect, what else--in the opinion of an analyst who has never been to the crash scene--might be involved in this crash.

The menu of acceptable answers is in the manual, 94 different items along with a two-digit numerical code for each: "Driving too fast for conditions or in excess of posted maximum" is code 44; "Drowsy, sleepy, asleep, fatigued" is code 01; "Broken or improperly cleaned windshield" is code 75. The form offers spaces for three different two-digit codes. The analyst's obligation is extremely flexible in this section. He may enter the code for one related factor. Or two. Or three. Or all three can be left blank.

We've all heard about "garbage in, garbage out." This flexibility in the inputting of related factors isn't the same as garbage, but it does allow a certain imprecision in the database.


In FARS, a crash or a fatality is "speed related" if code 44 is entered on the driver-level form for even one of the drivers involved in that event. Regardless of fault. Regardless of how many other factors may have been entered.

Consider this example: Car A is traveling at 50 mph in a 45-mph zone. As it passes through an intersection, it is T-boned by Car B, which ran a stoplight.

According to FARS, this is a speed-related crash because Car A was speeding, even though the accident was caused entirely by Car B.

nedu2000:
the need to reduce speed should be at the discretion of the man behind the wheels not some machine

“Speed has never killed anyone. Suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you.”
― Jeremy Clarkson

A mathematical analysis of the "speed kills" arguments

ABSTRACT:

There seems to be a universal belief, reflected in the current speed limits, that "speed kills", and that, as someone in this newsgroup said recently, "it does not take a rocket scientist" to figure out why. Ever since I got my first speeding ticket, I was trying to to just that - understand in a rational way what are the speed-related driving risks, and is there an optimal driving strategy that minimizes those and other driving risks. Perhaps my "rocket scientist" background (I do theoretical physics for a living) has made this analysis more complicated than it should be, but I hope the conclusions would be of interest to everybody here. In short, I argue that while increased speed is obviously a risk factor, there are other factors that can compensate that risk and are almost always more important. I propose a quantitative model to assess the speed-dependent risks, and use it to discuss the optimum driving strategy.

LONG TORY:

To analyze the "speed kills" argument quantitatively, let us consider the speed dependence of your chances to get killed or seriously injured in an accident. Let us call this number R. As in many other areas of science, this probability can be represented as a product of several factors:

R = S*E*A*K
S stands for "skills" and includes factors such as driving skills, vehicle capability, how much you concentrate on your driving, etc - everything that is speed-independent. It is just a constant number that is different for different drivers and different cars, but is not very important for our analysis of speed-dependent risks.
E means "exposure". This is an extensive (means it accumulates as you keep on driving) factor that should reflect your exposure to various driving hazards. For example, it can be simply proportional to the number of miles driven. We will discuss a model for the exposure factor below.

A stands for the probability of getting in an accident at any given time. It is an "intensive" quantity (does not accumulate as you keep on driving). It is obviously dependent on speed as well as some other factors that we discuss below. It can be thought of as "risk rate": total risk is your risk rate times exposure. Let's call it "accident rate".

Finally, K is a "kill factor": the conditional probability of getting killed or seriously injured provided you got in an accident. It will depend on speed.

There are of course many unknowns involved in each of those factors, so it is impossible to give an absolute number for R (like "you will get killed every 125,000 miles on average". However, it is possible to analyze how the risk depends on speed by making some reasonable assumptions about the risk and exposure factors.

Let us start with the simplest case: no traffic. You have an empty highway in front of you, and you need to cover L miles going from point a to point b - what can we assume about the above risk factors?

E: exposure will be simply proportional to L (miles driven). Think of it this way: there is a certain chance to encounter a road hazard (a pothole, a deer, a slick spot) per every mile, so the more you drive, the more likely you are to encounter something you'll have to avoid. Exposure here is speed-independent.

What is speed-dependent is the accident risk, A. Your ability to avoid a hazard will be reduced at higher speeds. To a good approximation, A will simply be proportional to the speed, v: A = c*v, where c incorporates road conditions. The argument is simple: if you go twice as fast, you will have twice less time to react to a hazard that doubles the chances of an accident (same goes for veering off the road in a turn - the risk is also proportional to v). More realistic models of the accident risk should allow for rapid increase in A at speeds above the mechanical limit of the vehicle. I will disregard this effect here because I believe most cars still behave quite competently at 80 mph which is the highest traffic speed I will dare to consider.

Now the "kill factor", K. It is a chance to get killed or gravely injured in an accident when we already know the accident occurs. This is the quantity crash tests attempt to measure. It is a number that varies between zero and one, like all probabilities. It obviously grows with speed, but the important thing here is that it cannot exceed one: to put it another way, if you crash at 200 mph, you will be just as dead as if you crashed at 100 - doubling the speed does not double the kill factor. This factor should grow with speed at low speeds, but once you are over a speed where almost any accident results in severe injury or death, the kill factor levels off and gradually approaches one. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use the following functional form for K:

K = 1 - exp(-v/30 mph)
This function grows linearly with v at low speeds (below 30 mph), and approaches one as you go above 30 mph. It DOES NOT mean you get killed if you crash at 30 mph: it gives a 63% chance of injury or death for a 30 mph crash, a 73% chance for 40 mph, an 86% if you crash at 60, and a 95% chance to get killed in a 100 mph crash. I think this is reasonable, but there is room for debate here.
So, what does it give us for the risks of driving down an empty highway?

R is proportional to : E*A*K = (exposure proportional to L)*
*(accident rate proportional to v)* the kill factor =

= L*v*(1 - exp(-v/30)

per mile driven: R/L ~ v*(1 - exp(-v/30))
It is a growing function of v and, I think, the cornerstone of the "speed kills" ideology. It tells you that, if you take the risk at 50 mph as a reference of 100, your risk at 10 mph is 7, at 30 mph it is 48, at 60 mph it is 130, and at 90 mph it is a whooping 212. So, you are half as likely to get killed if you go 30 than if you go 50, and you are more than twice as likely to get killed if you go 90.
The conclusion that risk is a monotonously increasing function of speed is, however, valid only for the specific conditions (empty highway) which very few of us actually encounter in real life. The presence of traffic makes a major difference here. Let us try to incorporate the effects of traffic on the driving risks in our model.

E: exposure to driving hazards should grow with traffic density. You still have the above-discussed road-hazard component of exposure that is simply proportional to miles driven (L), but in the presence of traffic we should also add exposure to traffic hazards. This is proportional to traffic density which we will characterize by a factor, d (e.g. the number of cars per mile of highway), and to TIME you spend in the traffic: E = L + d*T . L and T are related, L = vT, so if we want to calculate risk per mile driven we should rewrite it as: E = L( 1 + d/v). It is very important to note that now exposure is speed-dependent, in fact it DECREASES with speed. The reason it decreases is simple: if you go faster, it takes you less time to go from a to b so you have less time to get in trouble (though the accident rate may increase with speed). I have never seen a discussion of this point but it is very important: every second you spend on the highway with traffic around you adds to your risk exposure, if you spend less time there by going faster, you DECREASE the exposure.

A: accident rate will still have a component that is simply proportional to v. However, the presence of traffic means that it should also depend on your speed relative to other cars, and on the traffic density. The simplest way to incorporate such dependence is to add a "traffic" component to the accident rate that has a minimum at the average speed of traffic, u (although Rahul may disagree, there is such a thing as the flow of traffic: u can be defined as the average speed of cars in your immediate vicinity). The simplest function with a minimum is the parabola, so let's write:

A = c*v + d*(v - u)^2
the relative balance between the first (obstacle avoidance) and second (traffic) components of the accident rate can depend on road conditions which can again be taken into account by varying c . This functional form provides for a rapid increase in accident rate when you deviate from flow of traffic, just as it is in real life. I am tempted to make this adjustment asymmetric by making it more dangerous to go slightly below the flow of traffic than to go slightly above, but that would be beyond the accuracy of the model.
K: it seems reasonable to assume that the kill factor does not depend much on the presence of traffic: once you got in an accident, you will or will not get killed according to your speed. This may be an oversimplification, but let's leave it at that.

So, in the presence of traffic our risk becomes:

R [per mile driven] ~ (exposure )* (accident rate) * ( kill factor)

= (1 + d/v) * (c*v + d*(v - u)^2)* (1 - exp(-v/30))
This now depends not only on your speed, but also on the density and speed of traffic. Anyone with a graphing calculator can have some fun plotting this function for various values of the parameters. Let me just verbally summarize the main features of such plots:
1) even in a modest traffic (low d), it becomes extremely dangerous to deviate from the flow speed, either above or below.

2) in moderate and heavy traffic, if you go with the flow (v = u), the increase in accident rate due to higher speeed (c*v in second term) is largely offset by the DECREASE in exposure (d/v in the first term), so the product (the total risk) would remain independent of speed.

3) The increase in the flow speed (which is what speed limits attempt to regulate) does increase the risk even if you go with the flow. E.g. if the flow speed increases from 50 to 90 (for the sake of argument), the risk increases by 17% due to the last term, the kill factor. However, the increase is much less than what we had on an open highway, where the same increase in speed led to risk increase of 112%. This is again because of decreasing exposure at higher speeds.

4) Any attempts to obey the speed limit when the flow is substantially faster are suicidal, according to this model. Doing 55 when everybody else is doing 70 can increase your risk by more than a factor of 100!

5) It also appears that "traffic kills" rather than "speed kills": traffic density d is the single most important factor that affects the total risk. Doubling the traffic density approximately doubles the risk and makes it twice as dangerous to deviate from the flow.

In conclusion, this analysis corroborates what most of us already know from experience: the safest thing to do is to go with the flow and screw the speed limit. Contrary to what the insurance industry wants us to believe, the increase in flow speed DOES NOT lead to proportional increases in death risk. The decrease in exposure to traffic hazards resulting from spending less time on the road (that's why everybody wants to go faster in the first place) largely offsets the increase in accident rate at higher speeds. Finally, it appears that a good way to decrease your risk is to try reducing the local density of traffic around you - avoid traveling in "platoons" even if it means momentarily increasing your speed to get away from the pack.

I fully realize that many assumptions made here are debatable, and I would appreciate suggestions and criticisms, especially statistical data that could help improve this model. I believe that trying to understand the complex phenomenon of auto accidents on the basis of rational analysis is a better way to deal with it than just cry "speed kills" every time a drunk ends up wrapped around a pole. I hope this contribution has been constructive, inspite of its length.

Jan 3, 1996
by Alex Kuznetsov,
alesha@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu

Don't most accidents on Nigerian highways occur when someone left his lane with an under-powered car and could not complete his overtake and return to his lane before he was crushed?

That will be the next topic of my research with nairaland graphic accidents as my research source

NHTSA says speeding is not a major cause of road accidents

According to the results of a 2 and a half year study


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2vw1BjFgAM

More crashes are caused by crossing the center line

If speeding is involved it is never the single factor, it is always in combination with other factors, so why do they keep singling out speeding

BBC Top Gear Disagrees

Speed does not kill

Politics is being played with road traffic enforcement even in UK

just the same way as politics is being played about road traffic enforcement

even in the UK ONLY 7 PERCENT OF ACCIDENTS WERE CAUSED NOT BY SPEED BUT EXCESSIVE SPEED



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvtvfSJi2fg

Kashif:
Speed does not kill. Over speed does.

You will love this article!

In one sentence it says, you are right because the current limit is arbitrary and fails to recognize road conditions!

Society of Automotive Engineers Report

that says
Highway Speed Limits Should be set to the 85th Percentile Speed.

WARRENDALE, Pa., Feb. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- The following was released by the Society of Automotive Engineers:

Can lowering speed limits increase accidents and accident severity? And raising them have little or no effect? A recent study performed to investigate the relationship between speed limits and accident rates found that in the case of Interstate Highways, the answer is yes.

These and other results of the study will be presented by George Z. Libertiny, Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) from 2-2:30 p.m., Tuesday, February 27 at the 1996 SAE International Congress and Exposition, Room D3-28, Cobo Center, Detroit.

On any given road, 85 percent of drivers travel at a speed that they find appropriate to the road, regardless of the posted speed limit. Some states use this "85-percentile" average speed in setting their speed limits. Yet, according to a Federal Highway Safety Administration report " ... the majority of speed limits are posted below the average speed of traffic."

When drivers encounter speeds they find unreasonably low, some will travel at the lower speed. But if most stay at higher speeds, faster moving cars are constantly overtaking and passing the slower-moving ones. This increases danger to both vehicles, since danger increases as the speed difference between vehicles increases.

Furthermore, if highway speed limits are set unreasonably low and are enforced through tickets to speeders, more motorists opt for secondary local roads with similar speed limits. These roads may be more convenient, but they have an accident rate nearly twice as high and an accident-fatality rate between two and three times that of the Interstate Highways.

Thus, the net effect of reducing speed limits may actually increase the number of speeding drivers and serious accidents on all roads.

On the other hand, while rural-interstate speed limits have been raised to 65 mph and traffic density on those roads has increased, the fatality rate on these roads has actually decreased. And according to a separate Federal Highway Administration study, raising speed limits does not increase speeding or the number of accidents.

The study suggests several ways that accidents can be reduced: 1.) interstate express roads should have speed limits representing road and tire design limitations; 2.) speed limits on these roads should be set by individual states and should reflect the effects of local traffic conditions and road quality; 3.) separate speed limits should be set for nighttime and wet roads; 4.) emergency services to rural roads should be improved to decrease the time it takes to get an accident victim to the hospital; 5.) seat belt laws should be strictly enforced; and 6.) laws regarding alcohol and other drug usage should be strengthened and diligently enforced.

For further information on the SAE International Congress and Exposition, which runs February 26-29, contact Sandi Kline at 412-772-8547.

CO: Society of Automotive Engineers
ST: Pennsylvania, Michigan
IN: AUT

One more video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szF7dZoZKnk

timifakay:
For me- speed is subjective, let's be more watchful and note how many commercial vehicles are able to overtake private vehicles at speed of 100kmph. Most times, what commercial vehicle drivers do is just to accelerate terribly, causing a lot of noise and the high amount of drag due to open windows in most cases gives a perception of high speed, but then they hardly ever clock speed of over 100kmph.
They are reckless, intoxicated and capable of lots of other vices, but their vehicles rarely have the capability to move at break neck speeds (for me that's over 140kmph) and most roads in this country don't have long enough stretch for you to move at such speed for over 5km without an obstruction in form of Potholes or ditches or congested traffic.
Here's a scenario of conversation I feel birthed the speed limiter device idea. Politician: There are lots of terrible roads but we can't afford to fix them because we have party convention coming up and my kids college funds all have to be paid in advance amongst other things, all I want now is how to avoid repairing those roads...
P.A: Those drivers too are very reckless, they don't use common sense, and hardly slow down enough at the bad patches.
Businessman: I heard of a device that can limit speeds oh, if FRSC can enforce vehicles to install them and I get contract to supply the device, you get 2% on every sale.
Politician: *calls FRSC oga at the top who happens to be his godson* hey man, I've found the solution to your accident problems, present before the Senate and assembly a law to limit speeds of vehicles... Do your home work and do the presentation well oh, I'll make some calls so you have support of some people before you talk sef, I have a friend who manufactures them in China and is ready to ship a million units in, your work will be easier and everyone will praise you for introducing the device, and you will smile to the bank my son...
*calls his lawmaker friends* FRSC will propose a bill soon, accept it for the good of our party... We'll talk more about it when we see...
The above illustration is how most of our policies sound to me- like parlor ideas enforced by power drunk politicians only after their personal interests.

The realities of the device
1. Everyone has to purchase an aftermarket tuning device at a cost to self
2. Even in circumstances such as terrorist attack, medical emergency and robbery the final outcome is not in your hands as all efforts have been pegged by a dummy device.
3. The government won't be held accountable for not providing car worthy roads, but taxpayers' cars have to be limit to be worthy of the unworthy road (no pun intended)
4. In a situation the limiter fails and makes the maximum speed lower the time taken for a journey and fuel consumed will be a liability of the vehicle owner.

Speed limiting is unheard of and unreasonable, first fix roads and study the dynamics, then recommend speed range on various roads and probably have regular law breakers install the device on their vehicles, not just have a blanket covering on all vehicles.

Receive your Awards my oga!

Here comes a guy who understands how the system works beneath the scenes.

A true insider or a knowledgeable outsider who does not take things at face value.

Some others believe the news without questioning and scrutiny

You belong to the elite class of critical thinkers - who ask why? Why not? If not? and challenge the status quo.

May your days be long.

The internet has helped change bad government policy.

When our leaders see comments like yours, they know we are watching, we understand, and take caution and correct their glaring faux pass

menxer:
Did I say speed kills?
What warrants your outburst on my mention?

You said:

I concur with you, "speed kills" must be defined.

I think it is losing control of a moving car irrespective of high or low speed that causes crashes, resulting in death.

High speed if anything thrills, until one loses control of the car.

Driving within the speed limits you can control the car and not endanger others or break traffic laws is the key.

Am agreeing with you!

Sorry for any and all unintended offense(s)

Hope all is good now?