nedu2000:
We are definitely not smarter than the manufacturers that extend speeds to as high as 220km/h!! The cause of accidents have nothing to do with speed,moving at +100km/h doesn't sign my death warrant same moving below 100km/h doesn't mean you'll never be involved in an accident! Afterall trailers/trucks which generally move at 60km/h are involved in rather spectacular and deadly accidents.
The problem isn't speed but rather poor decision-making by drivers

Still those that made car with high speed still regulate the speed they run on their sophisticated road.
If the whites with better road facilities can say speed kill, why can't we who buys the vehicle from them,
And with a dilapidated. Or sub standard, death trapped road.. pls speed kills.

Just enter a care and d driver running at 160km/h then u will knw speed kills. Remember anything like slop or any small chips u climbed on will cause accident.

Kylekent59:
Just enter a care and d driver running at 160km/h then u will knw speed kills. Remember anything like slop or any small chips u climbed on will cause accident.

Oga... you're wrong...

papadjaji:


I agree. Only if you have seen things I have seen and accidents I have been involved in, ur brain would have had a hard reset long time ago. No insult intended pls.

Then you've been a very bad driver and you've been unlucky to be driven by really bad drivers... And you've seen things because you're a very unlucky person...

papadjaji:
I still do not get the argument.
The video has around 40km/hr to 60 km/hr as speed limits.
Here in Nigeria, it's 100km/hr for non trucks n trailers.
I am wondering, someone driving at 200 km/hr and d guy doing 100km/hr, who has more time to make a decision on a road situation?
Whose car is likely to spin out of control?
Whose car is likely to be crushed if they both had 5 seconds before running into a park trailer?
Who will react better if a pot hole as big as a village well shows up in the middle of the express?
In Nigeria, speed kills is not an APC campaign. Its a fact seen over and over again.
My final comment, speed kills.

I concur


there is no need to argue any further with iPopAlomo.
He lack the proper skills to argue for or against a point raised.

iPopAlomo:



Then you've been a very bad driver and you've been unlucky to be driven by really bad drivers... And you've seen things because you're a very unlucky person...

you need to learn to counter a comment with valid points if you have.
And if you don't have valid points, please stop insulting other members here simply because you do not agree with the points raised by them.
It is very obvious here that you are the unlucky person...

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

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

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

MPVGoddess:
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

Bravo!

One bottle of malt for this guy

uboma:



you need to learn to counter a comment with valid points if you have.
And if you don't have valid points, please stop insulting other members here simply because you do not agree with the points raised by them.
It is very obvious here that you are the unlucky person...

I see you want to pick up a fight... a guy tells me my brain needs a reset... And tells me he's seen lots of accidents first hand... I wanted to say he's unfortunate but I felt it was very harsh... so I carefully chose the word 'unlucky' because that's the right thing to say...

I worked at the port for 11 years till I quit last year and I can't count how many times I had to ply a very dangerous road such as mile 2 to apapa facing one way on a bike... And I'm damn sure I haven't seen so much accident as your unlucky friend... papadjaji...

I've driven more cars than two of you combined... as a retired clearing agent... And I can tell you first hand... a faulty car, inexperience driver on an unfamiliar route, revving a bad engine, getting high on the wheel, distraction etc and before I forget... running out of luck would kill one before speed...

p.s..

the one time I had an accident... I was stuck in traffic... gear was in D... my legs on break and I slept off... leg slip off break and I hit the truck opposite me... need I mention... it was barely 10km/h...

chimauga:



Still those that made car with high speed still regulate the speed they run on their sophisticated road.
If the whites with better road facilities can say speed kill, why can't we who buys the vehicle from them,
And with a dilapidated. Or sub standard, death trapped road.. pls speed kills.

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

Kylekent59:
Just enter a care and d driver running at 160km/h then u will knw speed kills. Remember anything like slop or any small chips u climbed on will cause accident.

so as he drove at 160km/h did it kill you?...if he's on a freeway and is a good driver he can control that speed

iPopAlomo:


You know nothing...

I was making reference to this comment. Why attack him that he knows nothing? What do you know yourself? The man raised valid points and all you could spill was thrash. ...

iPopAlomo:



I see you want to pick up a fight... a guy tells me my brain needs a reset... And tells me he's seen lots of accidents first hand... I wanted to say he's unfortunate but I felt it was very harsh... so I carefully chose the word 'unlucky' because that's the right thing to say...

I worked at the port for 11 years till I quit last year and I can't count how many times I had to ply a very dangerous road such as mile 2 to apapa facing one way on a bike... And I'm damn sure I haven't seen so much accident as your unlucky friend... papadjaji...

I've driven more cars than two of you combined... as a retired clearing agent... And I can tell you first hand... a faulty car, inexperience driver on an unfamiliar route, revving a bad engine, getting high on the wheel, distraction etc and before I forget... running out of luck would kill one before speed...

p.s..

the one time I had an accident... I was stuck in traffic... gear was in D... my legs on break and I slept off... leg slip off break and I hit the truck opposite me... need I mention... it was barely 10km/h...

Keep your working experience to yourself.
I did not ask for it.
And stop sounding rude and arrogant.
A man with the years of experience you claim to have should be more discerning in his comments and actions.....
My advise to you still is, stop whining and learn to argue objectively.
Don't condemn anothers' opinion simply because you do not agree with it.
Bring out valid points to counter the opinion you do not agree with.....
Need I say more......
SMH!

uboma:



I was making reference to this comment.
Why attack him that he knows nothing?
What do you know yourself?
The man raised valid points and all you could spill was thrash. ...

Just in case you pretended not to see this post...

I see you want to pick up a fight... a guy tells me my brain needs a reset... And tells me he's seen lots of accidents first hand... I wanted to say he's unfortunate but I felt it was very harsh... so I carefully chose the word 'unlucky' because that's the right thing to say...
I worked at the port for 11 years till I quit last year and I can't count how many times I had to ply a very dangerous road such as mile 2 to apapa facing one way on a bike... And I'm damn sure I haven't seen so much accident as your unlucky friend... papadjaji...
I've driven more cars than two of you combined... as a retired clearing agent... And I can tell you first hand... a faulty car, inexperience driver on an unfamiliar route, revving a bad engine, getting high on the wheel, distraction etc and before I forget... running out of luck would kill one before speed...
p.s..
the one time I had an accident... I was stuck in traffic... gear was in D... my legs on break and I slept off... leg slip off break and I hit the truck opposite me... need I mention... it was barely 10km/h...

uboma:



Keep your working experience to yourself.
I did not ask for it.
And stop sounding rude and arrogant.
A man with the years of experience you claim to have should be more discerning in his comments and actions.....
My advise to you still is, stop whining and learn to argue objectively.
Don't condemn anothers' opinion simply because you do not agree with it.
Bring out valid points to counter the opinion you do not agree with.....
Need I say more......
SMH!

You did not ask for my working experience but you want me to argue based on objectivity and facts...

shallom nigga...

iPopAlomo:



You did not ask for my working experience but you want me to argue based on objectivity and facts...

shallom nigga...

Your comments, moniker and signature speaks volumes about you....
Now run along little boy.
Go and play with your mates.

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

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

uboma:


Your comments, moniker and signature speaks volumes about you.... Now run along little boy. Go and play with your mates.

Proper xtian you are... Keep on judging... Peace...

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:
We are definitely not smarter than the manufacturers that extend speeds to as high as 220km/h!! The cause of accidents have nothing to do with speed,moving at +100km/h doesn't sign my death warrant same moving below 100km/h doesn't mean you'll never be involved in an accident! Afterall trailers/trucks which generally move at 60km/h are involved in rather spectacular and deadly accidents.
The problem isn't speed but rather poor decision-making by drivers

if you study physics then you wouldn't have this opinion of yours. what's the consequence when you tryna break speed according to the law of inertia? and you know you just have to break speed sometimes because you not the only one on the road.

Again, according to the law of gravity, the heavier object during fall prior to momentum gets badly damaged and would damage anything on it's way while falling. i guess that's why trucks are death trap.

Just so you know, time is an illusion, go study Einstein time dilation and know more.

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

aaronson:
if you study physics then you wouldn't have this opinion of yours. what's the consequence when you tryna break speed according to the law of inertia? and you know you just have to break speed sometimes because you not the only one on the road.

Again, according to the law of gravity, the heavier object during fall prior to momentum gets badly damaged and would damage anything on it's way while falling. i guess that's why trucks are death trap.

Just so you know, time is an illusion, go study Einstein time dilation and know more.

You just took those words out of my mouth.. well said

aaronson:
if you study physics then you wouldn't have this opinion of yours. what's the consequence when you tryna break speed according to the law of inertia? and you know you just have to break speed sometimes because you not the only one on the road.

Again, according to the law of gravity, the heavier object during fall prior to momentum gets badly damaged and would damage anything on it's way while falling. i guess that's why trucks are death trap.

Just so you know, time is an illusion, go study Einstein time dilation and know more.

that's why I said it's more to do with decision-making

AMKAG66:


You just took those words out of my mouth.. well said

Thanks

nedu2000:
that's why I said it's more to do with decision-making

sir' what time do you have in making decision if the other driver is the one doing the speed and it's an on coming vehicle head on collision, needless to say, you would swerve the other way or speed right through him. either ways are dangerous so why risk safety?

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

to a driver speed kills
to a pilot #speedislife

'Speed doesn't kill'....'High speed prolly does'. Define 'speed'...juxtapose it with the definition of 'high speed' before further arguments. At what pace in a car's movement, can the commandeer be regarded as being on a 'high speed'..? I think there should be a range...e.g 100/120kmph.. After ascertaining this...we can now think of how much control such a commandeer can have on the vehicle...this would lead us to a rightful conclusion on the subject matter.