Tornique
Well-known member
Wasn't Me I swear! lol
Street racing. Up 42% this long weekend compared to last year.
- Thread starter SunnY S
- Start date
Wasn't Me I swear! lol
Your brother was not one of them. He was doing 41 km/h over the posted limit; just a large ticket at that point, not HTA 172. I'd fight the open alcohol as well, unless he was driving the boat at the time of the infraction?
I usually refer to it as "failure to turn."
I know that much. I'm wondering about accidents in general. I looked up US stats and it looks like, rear and t-bones are most common. I can see why both accidents may occur due to speed, but I have a feeling a large percent of those accidents happen at slow speeds rather than someone going at 200km/h.
Define what you mean by "accidents in general".
Single vehicle loss of control is something like 40% - 45% of total motorcycle fatalities, which doesn't leave much room for any single other type of multi-vehicle collision to be more than that.
The car turn left in front of bike scenario is the most common scenario when a motorcycle is involved in a multi-vehicle collision.
In the Hurt report, which is 1980 statistics but it's the best we've got to work with up until now, the median pre-crash motorcycle speed was 27 mph (about 45 km/h) i.e. half of fatal motorcycle collisions involve a pre-crash speed lower than that, and the one in a thousand pre-crash speed was 85 mph (about 140 km/h).
Single vehicle loss of control is something like 40% - 45% of total motorcycle fatalities, which doesn't leave much room for any single other type of multi-vehicle collision to be more than that.
The car turn left in front of bike scenario is the most common scenario when a motorcycle is involved in a multi-vehicle collision.
In the Hurt report, which is 1980 statistics but it's the best we've got to work with up until now, the median pre-crash motorcycle speed was 27 mph (about 45 km/h) i.e. half of fatal motorcycle collisions involve a pre-crash speed lower than that, and the one in a thousand pre-crash speed was 85 mph (about 140 km/h).
Got it, never drop below 140km/h and I'm good.
So if a bunch of accidents are being caused at low speeds vs high speeds, why the hell is the government focusing on giving people with high speed tickets? I thought the idea was to minimize accidents and fatalities
Therein lies the problem.
Make sure you grasp the concept of "cause and effect". Just because collisions involving very high speeds are comparatively rare, doesn't mean it's a good idea to go that fast everywhere. It just means that the circumstances that result in collisions more commonly involve low speeds (i.e. city traffic with lots of intersections).
It does mean that it's misguided to focus on the circumstances that are comparatively rare in reality (high speed collisions) as opposed to circumstances that are relatively common (right-of-way violations at "normal" traffic speeds). It perhaps at least partially (probably largely) explains why there has not been a reduction in motorcycle fatalities since the "street racing" legislation took effect.
Make sure you grasp the concept of "cause and effect". Just because collisions involving very high speeds are comparatively rare, doesn't mean it's a good idea to go that fast everywhere. It just means that the circumstances that result in collisions more commonly involve low speeds (i.e. city traffic with lots of intersections).
It does mean that it's misguided to focus on the circumstances that are comparatively rare in reality (high speed collisions) as opposed to circumstances that are relatively common (right-of-way violations at "normal" traffic speeds). It perhaps at least partially (probably largely) explains why there has not been a reduction in motorcycle fatalities since the "street racing" legislation took effect.
油井緋色;1652693 said:
Well, it's kind of not as easy to ticket (and collect ....) the roots of low speed collisions. I mean they are the ones the law enforcement doesn't typically try to do much about. It's much easier to setup a radar trap or send a plane out. It's not always about lowering collision numbers .... we already have one of the safest hwys in NA (already had before the whole HTA172 non-sense started).
invictus43
Well-known member
油井緋色;1652693 said:
You generally have a higher chance of being decapitated in a crash if you're going 200kmh versus 5kmh..just saying..
Last edited:
When were collisions ever studied in high school? Also, the reason why I never stated anything about fatality rates is because you can argue them either way without statistics. Use your brain, thought God gave you one.
invictus43
Well-known member
油井緋色;1653189 said:
Elastic versus inelastic collisions?? I don't think you can argue that two object in collision at a closing speed of 200kmh will contain significantly more energy than a closing speed of 60kmh..
Last edited:
....I thought you had to take a stats course regardless of your program, or is that something new?
Well, since you clearly haven't taken stats or know how to use your brain....let me help you.
Yes, it's obvious that something going at a higher speed has a higher fatality rate than something going at a lower speed and impacting an object. However, statistically, what ends up costing more money? This is why we need stats and why I do NOT believe high speed collisions are the root of all evil. Unless somebody has some solid findings, all we can do is speculate the following:
#1. Collisions at higher speeds have higher mortality rates (DUE) [Expanded on this is that they're always on the newspaper, news, or something, sooo....]
#2. Lower speed collisions are much more common.
If we start looking at the number of collisions that happen based on the two categories above, which one ends up with more fatalities? As a percentage of itself, #1 will beat out #2, but what if we are looking at them as pure numbers.
So I'll say it again, this has NOTHING to do with physics and more with common sense. I don't see the need to bring in the fact that you took physics in high school (it's not even required anymore last time I was there). If you feel the need to flaunt your e-peen by insulting "kids" or "new university grads" or whatever to make yourself feel bigger, then keep doing it; guess you don't get enough love in the real world.
Well, since you clearly haven't taken stats or know how to use your brain....let me help you.
Yes, it's obvious that something going at a higher speed has a higher fatality rate than something going at a lower speed and impacting an object. However, statistically, what ends up costing more money? This is why we need stats and why I do NOT believe high speed collisions are the root of all evil. Unless somebody has some solid findings, all we can do is speculate the following:
#1. Collisions at higher speeds have higher mortality rates (DUE) [Expanded on this is that they're always on the newspaper, news, or something, sooo....]
#2. Lower speed collisions are much more common.
If we start looking at the number of collisions that happen based on the two categories above, which one ends up with more fatalities? As a percentage of itself, #1 will beat out #2, but what if we are looking at them as pure numbers.
So I'll say it again, this has NOTHING to do with physics and more with common sense. I don't see the need to bring in the fact that you took physics in high school (it's not even required anymore last time I was there). If you feel the need to flaunt your e-peen by insulting "kids" or "new university grads" or whatever to make yourself feel bigger, then keep doing it; guess you don't get enough love in the real world.
Last edited:
After 88 MPH you also have a higher chance of time travel. Keep you flux capacitors for the track days guys!
invictus43
Well-known member
But where am I gonna get ONE POINT TWENTY GIGAWATTS!!! ONE POINT TWENTY ONE GIGAWATTS!!! We need a bolt of lightning!!
invictus43
Well-known member
...
Last edited:
Two vehicles travelling at 100 Kmh in opposite directions, then hitting each other, is the same as one travelling at 100 Kmh, then hitting a bridge abutment. No real difference, according to Newton.
invictus43
Well-known member
Absolutely. Let me rephrase..hitting an immoveable object at 200kmh will cause significantly more damage than hitting it at 60kmh.
