| BigTrucker |
Long story short, my idiot buddy decided that his v6 mustang was a race car today and decided to fly down the Anthony Henday at 152km/h. Lucky for him there was an officer waiting and pulled him in.
So I get a call from him all hysterical that on his ticket it says he has a mandatory court date and yada yada. Whatever, he deserved it.
So, what should he expect at his court date? He told me he was going to call 'POINTS' and get their help but I'm pretty sure he is fucked either way. Is the judge gonna tear him a new one, take away his license or what?
I'm not really looking for help for him I just want to know what is going to happen so I can rub it in his face for being such a dumbass. |
|
|
| NESTLE |
tell him to call points, and half the time you wont even have to go to court nor the points guy. i think they talk to the prosecutor or something, cause when i got a stunting ticket i paid 400$ for points to take action and i or him didnt even have to go to court.
it got dropped to 0 demerits and a 115$ fine
but with the new demerit law, he might be fuckt |
|
|
| TrevorK |
People on the boards have claimed to still be able to drive after the mandatory court appearance (50 over) ticket because of a good lawyer.
Personally, I'd tell your friend the best advice; to take responsibility for his actions. But that's just my opinion... |
|
|
| GT34 |
| Maybe your friend should stop breaking the law. That's just my adivce. Its cheaper that way |
|
|
| 92_WhItE_H23 |
quote:
Originally posted by GT34
Maybe your friend should stop breaking the law. That's just my adivce. Its cheaper that way
thank you jesus..however i think he stated that his friend has ALREADY broken the law and is now seeking advice on the issue at hand.
tell your friend he needs to get a lawyer or someone from an establishment like points. pretty much at his court date they are going to decide wether or not his offense warrants a liscense suspension, so pretty much he needs to go and make sure he has legal counsel to help him out. |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
152 on the anth, eh? that's pretty quick.
he has to go in for a plea as per his ticket. then the case will be adjourned until a later date, at which point the officer will be testifying against your friend. he then gets to cross-examine the officer to make sure there's enough evidence to prosecute him. if there isn't, then he's off...
my only suggestion is to find the officer's notes, the original (and hopefully only copy) and burn them... |
|
|
| RS13 |
I have one like that comming up. only 67 over. It would not be a problem but i already have quite a few demerits
Call a lawyer, they are worth while in this situation. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by RS13
I have one like that comming up. only 67 over. It would not be a problem but i already have quite a few demerits
Call a lawyer, they are worth while in this situation.
Only? Guess you guys haven't seent he commercials. Let me summarize. "Speed kills." |
|
|
| ehos |
One month suspended lic coming up.
Tell him to take his license to the court appearance. It's kinda neat how the judge will ask him to come to the bar and leave it with him :)
Good humor value at least! I personally saw about 11 people get the same punishment. They all had their lame excuses and their lame lawyers. The judge gave them all the same exact thing. 1 month suspended + $750 ticket.
* I'm not 100% sure of the 750, but it was up there. It might have been more actually. |
|
|
| 92_WhItE_H23 |
| it will depend on your driving record. ive seen a few people get off with just an expensive ticket. if youve had speeding tickets before or other traffic violations you will get a suspension |
|
|
| blam |
I was going to laugh at you if this was your ticket. since it's your friend I'll let you go this time...haha
but like the otehr said...ticket lawyers |
|
|
| BigTrucker |
quote:
Originally posted by 92_WhItE_H23
it will depend on your driving record. ive seen a few people get off with just an expensive ticket. if youve had speeding tickets before or other traffic violations you will get a suspension
Haha, I don't bother driving like an idiot anymore since I need my license to work. |
|
|
| RS13 |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Only? Guess you guys haven't seent he commercials. Let me summarize. "Speed kills."
Only. I know speed kills. I was driving to my buddies and saw some nice curvy roads come up and gave her. It was during the day, fields on each side of the road and not another car to be seen (except for an intrepid in my rear-view)
He was also amazed i could go that fast around a corner.
AND back on topic
The lawyer is pretty sure he will get this down to a fine. No liscence suspension for me. I love it when one of the cops starts harassing you. Get pulled over and given 6 tickets. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
| I thought they where starting that deal where if you get a ticket for whatever with say 6 demerits, there's no pleading as registered owner and just getting the fine, you either get off 100% or eat the fine and the demerits... |
|
|
| r0meo |
this wouldnt be the same idiot a few weeks back who was caught going somethin like 150/170 southbound on henday....
then caught again like 10 mins later NORTHBOUND, by the SAME cop, doing nearly the same speed?
man i saw that and nearly died laughing |
|
|
| matt608 |
quote:
Originally posted by r0meo
this wouldnt be the same idiot a few weeks back who was caught going somethin like 150/170 southbound on henday....
then caught again like 10 mins later NORTHBOUND, by the SAME cop, doing nearly the same speed?
man i saw that and nearly died laughing
Ya I saw that on the news I think, I was wondering what kind of car it was and than they said it was some truck accutally. |
|
|
| notaturbotalon |
For the record I was in court last thursday, and they were still doing the bargaining thing for a few peoples tickets.
Anyone know what the biggest possible speeding ticket is? Is it 50+, then wrecless driving, or is there something bigger? My last ticket they're trying to sentence me to jail time. Didn't even know you could get prison for speeding. People don't even get jail for running people down in crosswalks and street racing anymore. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
quote:
Originally posted by notaturbotalon
For the record I was in court last thursday, and they were still doing the bargaining thing for a few peoples tickets.
Anyone know what the biggest possible speeding ticket is? Is it 50+, then wrecless driving, or is there something bigger? My last ticket they're trying to sentence me to jail time. Didn't even know you could get prison for speeding. People don't even get jail for running people down in crosswalks and street racing anymore.
50+ is the ticketable allowance as you know exceeding 50 + will land you in court. It is all subjective at that point. If you were doing 190 on the QEII you would probly be slapped with a hefty fine and possibly a suspension. Now if you were doing 102 in a 50km school zone with pedestrians on the side walk you will certianly get a wreckless driving, a hefty fine and mandatory suspension (min 3 months).
SO the moral of the story, if you speed prepare to pay.
:D |
|
|
| ohboyitsme |
| Actually 71 over is the highest they can write on a ticket. I unfortunatley know form first hand experience. |
|
|
| Tech2 |
Jail time???
What's the long version of that story? There must be some other history if they're trying to throw you in the slammer. |
|
|
| notaturbotalon |
quote:
Originally posted by Tech2
Jail time???
What's the long version of that story? There must be some other history if they're trying to throw you in the slammer.
"Accused" of doing 200 in an 80. Went to the mandatory appearance, plead not guilty, set a court date, then the prosecutor covered his mic with his hand and told me to tell my lawyer he's going to try and have me thrown in Jail. That's the whole story, no ommisions, or extra charges. And it was on a country road. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
quote:
Originally posted by notaturbotalon
"Accused" of doing 200 in an 80. Went to the mandatory appearance, plead not guilty, set a court date, then the prosecutor covered his mic with his hand and told me to tell my lawyer he's going to try and have me thrown in Jail. That's the whole story, no ommisions, or extra charges. And it was on a country road.
Were you lasered or radared in any way??
Or was it estimated... getting tossed in the slammer for speeding is shit... ask them to suspend your Class 6 and see if you can keep your Class 5 license or something. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
quote:
Originally posted by ohboyitsme
Actually 71 over is the highest they can write on a ticket. I unfortunatley know form first hand experience.
Good try buuuuuuut no ;)
Speaking from Actual Law Enforcement you can write what ever speed over on the ticket, however anything over 50kms over the speed limit cannot be dealt with by monetary payment. You must go to court and explain yourself in front of a judge. Believe me i caught a Crotch rocket on Lazer radar 150km's in a 50 zone, thats 100km over and that landed him a 6 month suspension and a $1000 hit to the pocket book.
As for Jail, yes you can go to jail if there are aggrivating factors however it is rare. Now if your caught speeding like that with a suspended licence for speeding, Bend over and grab the soap.
Cheers |
|
|
| Tech2 |
quote:
Originally posted by notaturbotalon
"Accused" of doing 200 in an 80. Went to the mandatory appearance, plead not guilty, set a court date, then the prosecutor covered his mic with his hand and told me to tell my lawyer he's going to try and have me thrown in Jail. That's the whole story, no ommisions, or extra charges. And it was on a country road.
F-ing lawyers man. :dunno: |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
quote:
Originally posted by stybscelica
Now if your caught speeding like that with a suspended licence for speeding, Bend over and grab the soap.
...and say hello to your cell mate, Jamal. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by notaturbotalon
"Accused" of doing 200 in an 80. Went to the mandatory appearance, plead not guilty, set a court date, then the prosecutor covered his mic with his hand and told me to tell my lawyer he's going to try and have me thrown in Jail. That's the whole story, no ommisions, or extra charges. And it was on a country road.
Wow. You sure pissed him off. Or someone peed in his cornflakes, or something. Unless you have a history of reckless driving or some type of record that makes you seem to "habitually" act with complete disregard for the law and safety, I don't think you need to worry about jail.
That may be the whole story of your day in court, but there's got to be more. No one would ask for jail time for 50km/h over the limit unless there was something else. Jails are too full and it wouldn't be worth their time to push for it. I'm not saying you're a bad apple and have something on your record or attitude, but if that's not it, the lawyer has some things going on in his personal life that are affecting him.
Or, maybe he's just trying to shake you up. "teach you a lesson." |
|
|
| notaturbotalon |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
...Or, maybe he's just trying to shake you up. "teach you a lesson."
That's what I'm guessin, hopefully he is trying to scare the crap out of me, to keep me legal till my court date, next June. It's working, after thinking I could go to jail for speeding, haven't done it since. |
|
|
| midnite |
quote:
Originally posted by RS13
I have one like that comming up. only 67 over. It would not be a problem but i already have quite a few demerits
Call a lawyer, they are worth while in this situation.
I believe your license is reinstated with 7demerits after a suspension. |
|
|
| Jord@n |
I got a 60 over ticket, went to court and talked with the Crown Prosecutor beforehand. The ticket was reduced to a $350 fine and 4 demerits, which I believe is speeding up to but not exceeding 50. I believe they can restrict or take away your license for anything over 50 over the limit, if they see it fit. I think for over 50 their is also a $500-$2000 fine (judge's discretion).
This was my first speeding ticket, or any ticket for that matter. If you plan on going this route, show up early, dress nice (not jeans and a t-shirt) and speak with the Crown Prosecutor. Don't give him excuses, he's heard it all, just tell him you regret what you did and you've learned from your mistake. Own up to it, nothing pisses him (or me) off more then people who don't take responsibility. Depending on which CP you get, their mood, and previous tickets, you may get off lucky or you may not.
You could also get a lawyer (such as POINTS) and hope they can get you off the hook, but that could cost you more in the end then it's worth. Then again, it's your license and depending how important that is to you, you might not want to take any chances.
Hope that helps and good luck in court. Oh yeah, don't speed anymore!!!
-Jordan |
|
|
| RedDirtRoad |
quote:
Originally posted by r0meo
this wouldnt be the same idiot a few weeks back who was caught going somethin like 150/170 southbound on henday....
then caught again like 10 mins later NORTHBOUND, by the SAME cop, doing nearly the same speed?
man i saw that and nearly died laughing
Yeah thats pretty hilarious. Sad thing is he's a good friend of my bro's... He was pretty rattled about that... and he always speeds... my bro was driving around with him before that and he was doing 110 in a 50 zone... aparently his family is fairly well to do so the ticket price was pocket change... but having his licence taken away was fairly rattling to him. |
|
|
| Tech2 |
| If that's the case, the liscence should be gone. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by RedDirtRoad
Yeah thats pretty hilarious. Sad thing is he's a good friend of my bro's... He was pretty rattled about that... and he always speeds... my bro was driving around with him before that and he was doing 110 in a 50 zone... aparently his family is fairly well to do so the ticket price was pocket change... but having his licence taken away was fairly rattling to him.
I see. You'd think the chance that he could kill people would be rattling. Losing a licence is nothing. It's a slap on the wrist. In fact, I know a guy who was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Always thought it could never happen to him, he was too good a driver, he was always careful and made sure it was safe...and he honestly didn't care what happened to him after because nothing, not even jail, would ever compare to the guilt he'd have to live with for the rest of his life.
Too bad there's no way to pass other people's hard learned lessons on to others. And nothing ticks me off more than people who's biggest concern is what punishment they receive. Fines, suspensions, etc, they shouldn't have to exist. The risk of what could happen should be enough. But obviously people are too selfish to consider that the might ruin the lives of so many others. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
I see. You'd think the chance that he could kill people would be rattling. Losing a licence is nothing. It's a slap on the wrist. In fact, I know a guy who was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Always thought it could never happen to him, he was too good a driver, he was always careful and made sure it was safe...and he honestly didn't care what happened to him after because nothing, not even jail, would ever compare to the guilt he'd have to live with for the rest of his life.
Too bad there's no way to pass other people's hard learned lessons on to others. And nothing ticks me off more than people who's biggest concern is what punishment they receive. Fines, suspensions, etc, they shouldn't have to exist. The risk of what could happen should be enough. But obviously people are too selfish to consider that the might ruin the lives of so many others.
Ya know I used to be an ass like what you say here, street race, speed, whatever.... I made it from WEM to Millbourne mall taking the 66st exit on the whitemud at 3:00pm on a weekday down the mud.. 6minutes.
Ya now FnF 1 where at the end of the race where he "looses" his car and slides to a stop, I've done that to avoid cars(without the spinning around part). I used to have the 18/19yr old invincability complex, then I had a few way too close calls, like above, if I didn't stop I woulda slammed into 2 cars at an intersection, or for the lack of a better word drifting around the corner of jasper and 124th going way to fast(rear tires sucked and it was a fwd, hense the drift) Luckily I was able to hold the drift, had I lost complete control I woulda caused a good 15 car pile up.
I'm not bragging, just stating shit like that effectively sobered me up. In those situations I probably woulda got away with minor injuries, maybe a couple broken bones. It was the what if somebody else got hurt that got to me.
I was behaving doing 52/53 in a50 zone, just putting along, and a pedestrian ran out in front of me(not in a cross walk), wrote off my car, didn't kill him, but he didn't walk away, he died a year later(this was in 99) doctors say it was other causes, but his family is still trying to pin his death on the accident, and that sucks enough, it would be so much worse if it had been caused by my stupidity. |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
I was behaving doing 52/53 in a50 zone, just putting along, and a pedestrian ran out in front of me(not in a cross walk), wrote off my car, didn't kill him, but he didn't walk away, he died a year later(this was in 99) doctors say it was other causes, but his family is still trying to pin his death on the accident, and that sucks enough, it would be so much worse if it had been caused by my stupidity.
holy crap...a pedestrian wrote off your car? what were u driving? a saturn? |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
I see. You'd think the chance that he could kill people would be rattling. Losing a licence is nothing. It's a slap on the wrist. In fact, I know a guy who was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter. Always thought it could never happen to him, he was too good a driver, he was always careful and made sure it was safe...and he honestly didn't care what happened to him after because nothing, not even jail, would ever compare to the guilt he'd have to live with for the rest of his life.
Too bad there's no way to pass other people's hard learned lessons on to others. And nothing ticks me off more than people who's biggest concern is what punishment they receive. Fines, suspensions, etc, they shouldn't have to exist. The risk of what could happen should be enough. But obviously people are too selfish to consider that the might ruin the lives of so many others.
yessir...i agree. i know a lady (she's ~40). she hit a pedestrian in st. albert...a 10-yr old girl who failed to observe a traffic control device. st. albert rcmp didn't even consider pressing charges (on the driver) because it was clearly a pedestrian fault collision, however, this lady, who is a good friend of mine, still lives with the guilt associated with sending a 10-yr old kid to the hospital with serious injuries. doesn't matter if you're at fault or not. you still live with the guilt. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Vive le Quebec
holy crap...a pedestrian wrote off your car? what were u driving? a saturn?
This happened in 99, the car was a 93 Swift GS with some custom work, Mangled my front bumper that was a stock custom modified and molded to the car, bent the upper rad support, wrecked the hood, knocked off the hood scoupe, damaged the custom intake under the hood scoupe, shattered the windshield and buckled the roof. was well over $5000 damage.
The pedestrian, got torn ligamiments in his knee(from the bumper) Bruised hip and shoulder(I think his shouldis what took out the hood scoupe), he got minor bleeding on the brain from the windshield... but I think the scoupe slowed him down for the windshield.
Neither of us was fined/charged. I explained my side of the story after the cop talked to all the witnesses. I got caught in the parking lane sluch and suched towards the curb(towards the side of the street he was crossing to, I was sliding right, he was still on my left) I told the cop every option I thought of to either try to stop or avoid, or to minimize impact.. the cop said I did everything I could, but since the witnesses where crap, all they saw was the after impact, the cop said it would probably be 50/50 he wasn't in a cross walk.
But is does stay with you.. about a year later I was on whyte ave in a mini truck, I saw a lady get hit by a car, pretty decently too... I blacked out or something, cause all I remember is her flying through the air kinda cartoonish like ass first, next thing I remember is being a black back knocking onthe window of a cop car...
I got back to my truck... doors where unlocked, but closed, e-brake was on, it was out of gear, hazzards where on.... And both Hazzards and E-brake on this truck wheren't easy to turn on...
After the adrenalyn(sp) stopped surging I was a little sick to my stomach..... |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Only? Guess you guys haven't seent he commercials. Let me summarize. "Speed kills."
Hi Bigtrucker,
I hope your friend learned a valuable lesson with this. As it has already been mentioned tell him to call points, or if he has the cash, a really good lawyer. However he should just suck it up and take responsibility for his actions.
dtjohnst,
I beg to differ. Speed does not kill. The commercials are propaganda aimed at weak and uneducated minds. Perhaps the people that thought of the commercial need a lesson in Physics. A vehicle traveling at a constant or continous rate of speed will not kill someone. Take that same situation and have the vehicle suddenly come to an abrupt rest, all that energy and inertia needs to go somewhere, and be transfered to another object. With out the proper use of saftey devices and a sudden hault in momentun one can be killed in the event of such a transfer of energy.
Define Speed? Is 60km/hr in a 60 km/hr Zone or 100km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone Speed? Can someone be killed in a vehicle travelling at 60km/hr and have an abrupt stop with out any saftey devices just as easily as they are travelling at 100km/hr?
So the moral of my story is Speed does not kill, Physics kills.
This is no way shape or form aimed at you or your intelligence. Just a friendly opposing view to a common misunderstanding amoungst the population. This is just a pet peeve of mine. I do not endorse speeding, excessive speeding, or wreckless driving.
Mike Nikolai |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
| ^---- Kinda like the saying, it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the bottom. |
|
|
| 95EagleAWD |
Whenever I read your posts, Mike, I always envision you pecking away with two fingers.
Your posts are always so clear and concise.
:thumbup: |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
Hi Bigtrucker,
I hope your friend learned a valuable lesson with this. As it has already been mentioned tell him to call points, or if he has the cash, a really good lawyer. However he should just suck it up and take responsibility for his actions.
dtjohnst,
I beg to differ. Speed does not kill. The commercials are propaganda aimed at weak and uneducated minds. Perhaps the people that thought of the commercial need a lesson in Physics. A vehicle traveling at a constant or continous rate of speed will not kill someone. Take that same situation and have the vehicle suddenly come to an abrupt rest, all that energy and inertia needs to go somewhere, and be transfered to another object. With out the proper use of saftey devices and a sudden hault in momentun one can be killed in the event of such a transfer of energy.
Define Speed? Is 60km/hr in a 60 km/hr Zone or 100km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone Speed? Can someone be killed in a vehicle travelling at 60km/hr and have an abrupt stop with out any saftey devices just as easily as they are travelling at 100km/hr?
So the moral of my story is Speed does not kill, Physics kills.
This is no way shape or form aimed at you or your intelligence. Just a friendly opposing view to a common misunderstanding amoungst the population. This is just a pet peeve of mine. I do not endorse speeding, excessive speeding, or wreckless driving.
Mike Nikolai
Well, I do see your reasoning, Mike, however, I will beg to differ from your prognosis.
Speed is not an arbitrary carte blanche for any type of movement faster than walking. What speed in those ads is referring to, is our culture of always rushing. Just watch those yellow lights and watch how many people press the accelerator to try to make it through before "running a red". I'm guilty of this as are many others. But it's exactly this type of speed that kills. You're driving 100 km/h and the speed limit is 100 km/h...this seems fine, until you factor in that it's a fresh coat of freezing rain on the road, and near whiteout conditions from the wind blowing snow everywhere, you can't see the road, yet you're barreling ahead at 100. This is the kind of speed that kills. You're going to fast for the conditions. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
Hi Bigtrucker,
I hope your friend learned a valuable lesson with this. As it has already been mentioned tell him to call points, or if he has the cash, a really good lawyer. However he should just suck it up and take responsibility for his actions.
dtjohnst,
I beg to differ. Speed does not kill. The commercials are propaganda aimed at weak and uneducated minds. Perhaps the people that thought of the commercial need a lesson in Physics. A vehicle traveling at a constant or continous rate of speed will not kill someone. Take that same situation and have the vehicle suddenly come to an abrupt rest, all that energy and inertia needs to go somewhere, and be transfered to another object. With out the proper use of saftey devices and a sudden hault in momentun one can be killed in the event of such a transfer of energy.
Define Speed? Is 60km/hr in a 60 km/hr Zone or 100km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone Speed? Can someone be killed in a vehicle travelling at 60km/hr and have an abrupt stop with out any saftey devices just as easily as they are travelling at 100km/hr?
So the moral of my story is Speed does not kill, Physics kills.
This is no way shape or form aimed at you or your intelligence. Just a friendly opposing view to a common misunderstanding amoungst the population. This is just a pet peeve of mine. I do not endorse speeding, excessive speeding, or wreckless driving.
Mike Nikolai
By your logic, physics doesn't kill. Physics is merely a theoretical and practical science aimed at researching and understanding the way our world works with respect to force, motion, matter and energy. And a science of any kind is merely a body of knowledge and does not act out in our world. Science merely attempts to explain our world, it studies things. It doesn't cause things.
I wasn't attempting to provide a thesis worthy of a Ph.D. in my one sentence. If you want to be technical- fire, loss of blood and blunt force trauma kill. In fact, even that isn't true. Lack of oxygen and nutrients to the brain kill, nothing else. In other words, the events which physics study cause the key factors that result in death, and one of the biggest factors in those events is speed. Afterall, how do you calculate energy when dealing with a moving object? KE=1/2(mv^2). v being velocity or speed. And you yourself admitted that energy was one of the principle players in death during collisions.
Objects don't calculate formulas and work out probabilities when they're moving, therefore physics has nothing to do with it. The laws physics studies are the factors when determining causality of death.
Define speed? Sure.
quote:
Physics. The rate or a measure of the rate of motion, especially:
(a)Distance traveled divided by the time of travel.
(b)The limit of this quotient as the time of travel becomes vanishingly small; the first derivative of distance with respect to time.
(c)The magnitude of a velocity.
It has nothing to do with a posted limit. What the slogan "speed kills" means, plain and simply, is that the greater a velocity a vehicle is travelling, the greater chance there is that a fatality will result should a collision occur. Period. Facts and figures back that up, and I doubt even you can deny that.
Get in your car, drive 10 km/h and hit a person. Will they live? Maybe. Do it at 30km/h, 50 km/h, 100 km/h, 300 km/h. What do you think the chances of survival are? Bingo, the faster your going, the less chance they have to live. Does that mean someone will definately die at 300 km/h but definately live at 10 km/h? Not at all. Someone can be hit at excessive speed and survive or be hit with slow speed and die. But we're talking in the long run over a larger sample population.
Now try doing that same experiment crashing into walls. The driver has a better chance to survive at a slower speed. As you said, simple physics. Lower velocity results in a lesser amount of energy being transferred from the colision into the bodies that are in motion.
Not only that, but check your reaction and handling at these speeds. You'll stop faster and corner sharper the slower you're going. Basic physics would dictate that this means you can reduce your chances of being in a colision, which reduces your chances of dieing even further. You can't die from a collision if you never crash.
The fact is, driving a car at any speed, from 1km/hr to 300km/h involves risk. however, the more speed you carry (or to be less accusative, the more speed other vehicles are travelling at), the greater chance a fatality will result from a collision. Hence, "speed is a major factor in the chance of survival in a collision", or in a shorter version, "Speed kills." It makes perfect sense and is completely true. In fact, it's more correct than physics kills, since on no level is that statement correct at all.
I find it interesting you think the general public thinks speed, as a factor in and of itself, kills. Most people I meet share your view, that speed can't do anything. Like the old addage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Time and time again I find I have to explain, as I have above, the speed does, in fact, kill. Perhaps not on a 100% literal frame of view, but then, if you want to get completely literal, we have no idea what kills. We can't define or determine consciousness. Can we say for certain that because brain waves cease that a person has ceased to exist? We can't. We enter a realm based on superstition, belief and religion. And therefore, we can't even say people ever fully die, or what would cause such an event if we could determine it.
"Speed doesn't kill" is as silly a thing to say as "Weed isn't bad because it's all natural." You wouldn't smoke hemlock or poison ivy which are all natural, and common sense dictates slower is safer (unless you're driving 30 on the highway and a semi can't stop in time and you get crushed, but again, common sense."
NOTE: I'm not trying to begin a debate on the pros or cons of marijuana, and I have not stated my opinion on weed. I've merely stated that the 1 argument mentioned on why weed isn't bad is a poor one. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
Hi dtjohnst,
Interesting post but I still do not buy into the whole "Speed Kills" Theory. Perhaps it would be more acceptable to me if it was coined "If you travel at a high velocity with out the use of proper saftey equiptment, your chances of survival are reduced greatly if you are involved in a collision and your momentum is stopped in a short distance". But really, who would put that on an advertising campaign. :lol:
"It has nothing to do with a posted limit. What the slogan "speed kills" means, plain and simply, is that the greater a velocity a vehicle is travelling, the greater chance there is that a fatality will result should a collision occur. Period. Facts and figures back that up, and I doubt even you can deny that"
I think one critical factor you are forgetting is driver error or lack of judgement.
"Get in your car, drive 10 km/h and hit a person. Will they live? Maybe. Do it at 30km/h, 50 km/h, 100 km/h, 300 km/h. What do you think the chances of survival are? Bingo, the faster your going, the less chance they have to live. Does that mean someone will definately die at 300 km/h but definately live at 10 km/h? Not at all. Someone can be hit at excessive speed and survive or be hit with slow speed and die. But we're talking in the long run over a larger sample population."
We are comparing apples to oranges here. You do the math. You walk out infront of a bus doing 20 or 30 km/ hr you may or may not get killed. You have more energy behind the bus than you would lets say a dodge neon. If you are refering to pedestrians mowed over by vehicles, then yes, I agree. The survival rate of the pedestrians is reduced. If you are refering to a vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to object crash and the proper safter devices are in place and fully utilized, then the risk of becoming "killed in a crash are reduced" Of course dependant on how fast one is actually travelling in their vehicle, and if the saftey devices are used.
"Now try doing that same experiment crashing into walls. The driver has a better chance to survive at a slower speed. As you said, simple physics. Lower velocity results in a lesser amount of energy being transferred from the colision into the bodies that are in motion."
Thank you for proving my point. This does not prove speed kills. This merely proves that the faster or slower you travel, it will increase the damage, or decrease the damage from traveling a certain velocity to zero velocity with in a few seconds upon impact.
"Not only that, but check your reaction and handling at these speeds. You'll stop faster and corner sharper the slowing you're going. Basic physics would dictate that this means you can reduce your chances of being in a colision, which reduces your chances of dieing even further. You can't die from a collision if you never crash"
Some people have much faster reaction times than others and depending on how one sets up their vehicle, braking distance, and handeling can be improved with a few minor modifications with in the the same amount of reaction time.
I agree 100% with your statement that "You can't die from a collision if you never crash". How does this prove speed kills. If you are clocking 130 and never crash, does speed really kill? I think it would be more of the case of the driver that made and error, caused the vehicle to crash traveling at a high rate of speed, and the sudden deceleration of that vehicle as it impacted with an object and the transfer of energy is what killed the person.
In laymens terms, the driver was the instigator, the vehicle was the accessory, speed was a by product of poor judgement from the driver, and the sudden deceleration of the vehicile and forces at work killing the driver is the end result. In otherwords, Darwinism at its finest.
"I find it interesting you think the general public thinks speed, as a factor in and of itself, kills. Most people I meet share your view, that speed can't do anything. Like the old addage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Time and time again I find I have to explain, as I have above, the speed does, in fact, kill. "
Is this not what the advertising campaigns are leading us to believe? You infact said it your self. "Speed Kills". If you read the paper, you will find and article about a crash and "Speed was a factor".
"Perhaps not on a 100% literal frame of view, but then, if you want to get completely literal, we have no idea what kills. We can't define or determine consciousness. Can we say for certain that because brain waves cease that a person has ceased to exist? We can't. We enter a realm based on superstition, belief and religion. And therefore, we can't even say people ever fully die, or what would cause such an event if we could determine it."
I agree with you 100% on this fact. That is a whole different debate. :lol:
For myself, I am not influenced by advertising and fear mongering. I never have been and I never will be. I believe maybe 1/2 of what I see and hear in the news and from people. I am a skeptic. Statistics can be skewed for results in favor or against an idea. Do not believe me, pick up a newspaper, watch the news. Take a look from the other side.
I see where you are coming from and respect your opinions. From what you have said in this post and other posts I would place you in the category of Law Enforcement or somewhere close to that and with exposure to this. I know exactly what you are saying, but is strikes a nerv with me when people say "Speed Kills". :D
Mike Nikolai |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by GOT BOOST
Hi dtjohnst,
Interesting post but I still do not buy into the whole "Speed Kills" Theory. Perhaps it would be more acceptable to me if it was coined "If you travel at a high velocity with out the use of proper saftey equiptment, your chances of survival are reduced greatly if you are involved in a collision and your momentum is stopped in a short distance". But really, who would put that on an advertising campaign. :lol:
If I were to say to you "Shorten what you just said", you would eventually arrive at, "Speed kills." Is it a slogan? It sure is. Is velocity itself extinguishing life? Of course not, I already stated that such a thing is only accomplished by lack of oxygen to the brain, there's no need to reiterate that. You're being a stickler here. For some reason you don't like expressions and sayings. Why is beyond me. My point was simply that you say speed doesn't kill, physics kills, because you're being a stickler for technicalities, however "speed kills" is much more correct that "physics kills". A body of knowledge cannot kill. "Speed" can be a major factor, and therefore, from a metaphorical point of view, speed DOES kill.
quote:
"It has nothing to do with a posted limit. What the slogan "speed kills" means, plain and simply, is that the greater a velocity a vehicle is travelling, the greater chance there is that a fatality will result should a collision occur. Period. Facts and figures back that up, and I doubt even you can deny that"
I think one critical factor you are forgetting is driver error or lack of judgement.
Where did I say speed was the only factor? Lack of judgement is definately a factor in accidents. One of those lacks of judgement is driving at an excessive rate of speed. One of many. Driver error is also a factor, certainly. But there are also many others. The condition of the driver. The proper use of safety equipment. And others. But the ads in question are dealing only with 1 factor: speed. There are other ads to deal with other factors. "Buckle up." "Friends don't let friends drive drunk." In other words, I don't see how this argument has any bearing on things. Facts still show that the greater the speed, irellevant of the posted limit, the greater the chance of a fatality in a collision.
quote:
"Get in your car, drive 10 km/h and hit a person. Will they live? Maybe. Do it at 30km/h, 50 km/h, 100 km/h, 300 km/h. What do you think the chances of survival are? Bingo, the faster your going, the less chance they have to live. Does that mean someone will definately die at 300 km/h but definately live at 10 km/h? Not at all. Someone can be hit at excessive speed and survive or be hit with slow speed and die. But we're talking in the long run over a larger sample population."
We are comparing apples to oranges here. You do the math. You walk out infront of a bus doing 20 or 30 km/ hr you may or may not get killed. You have more energy behind the bus than you would lets say a dodge neon. If you are refering to pedestrians mowed over by vehicles, then yes, I agree. The survival rate of the pedestrians is reduced. If you are refering to a vehicle to vehicle or vehicle to object crash and the proper safter devices are in place and fully utilized, then the risk of becoming "killed in a crash are reduced" Of course dependant on how fast one is actually travelling in their vehicle, and if the saftey devices are used.
No, I'm comparing apples and apples. The ad doesn't say "speed kills you" or "speed kills drivers". Pedastrians are valid. And definately a larger vehicle will have greater energy and greater inertia and that is also ANOTHER factor in accidents. But again, these ads deal only with speed. As you say yourself, speed is a major factor, though not the only one.
quote:
"Now try doing that same experiment crashing into walls. The driver has a better chance to survive at a slower speed. As you said, simple physics. Lower velocity results in a lesser amount of energy being transferred from the colision into the bodies that are in motion."
Thank you for proving my point. This does not prove speed kills. This merely proves that the faster or slower you travel, it will increase the damage, or decrease the damage from traveling a certain velocity to zero velocity with in a few seconds upon impact.
Would you not agree that an increase in damage increases the likelihood of fatality? That proves my point. Speed increases the chance you will die. It increases the chance that your brain will cease receiving sufficient oxygen and stop functioning. The reduction of velocity in a short variation of time and the transfer of energy that occurs is merely another FACTOR in the chance of survival. Again, speed is another, and a major one, and therefore, speed increases the likelihood that you will die. Let me ask you this. Would you say "shark bites kill"? Because they do sometimes. And sometimes speed is the chief factor responsible for a death. All other factors being equal, a slower speed may have preserved life. Therefore, speed does kill. It seems you are proving my point, not vice versa.
quote:
"Not only that, but check your reaction and handling at these speeds. You'll stop faster and corner sharper the slowing you're going. Basic physics would dictate that this means you can reduce your chances of being in a colision, which reduces your chances of dieing even further. You can't die from a collision if you never crash"
Some people have much faster reaction times than others and depending on how one sets up their vehicle, braking distance, and handeling can be improved with a few minor modifications with in the the same amount of reaction time.
Agree. A 100% true statement. There are many factors. Regardless, whether skilled or unskilled, the same driver in the same vehicle will always be able to stop faster and turn sharper at a slower speed. You can introduce other factors too. Tell you what, let's take your driver and blindfold them. Then what? WHO CARES!! We're talking about 1 factor and 1 factor only: speed. Other things may influence survival, other things may raise or reduce the chance of death. I agree with you, and the ad never once says "Speed is the only thing that kills". You're introducing things which have no place, they are irrelevant and have no bearing on what is being discussed.
quote:
I agree 100% with your statement that "You can't die from a collision if you never crash". How does this prove speed kills. If you are clocking 130 and never crash, does speed really kill? I think it would be more of the case of the driver that made and error, caused the vehicle to crash traveling at a high rate of speed, and the sudden deceleration of that vehicle as it impacted with an object and the transfer of energy is what killed the person.
The point was, which you seemed to ignore, driving slower reduces the chance of a collision. it isn't the only thing that reduces that chance of collision, but it certainly does. In the scenario you meantion, driving 130 and not crashing, is speed killing? Nope. But then, the ad isn't "speed always kills". You're making very unfounded assumptions about what the slogan says. Again, the transfer of energy didn't kill the person. Since you're analysing deeper, it can always go deeper still. Lack of oxygen killed them. Or lack of proper functioning of the brain caused by lack of oxygen. Or improper functioning of cells in the brain cause by lack of oxygen and nutrients. We can always break it down deeper.
I concede, and always have, that blunt force trauma caused by rapid deceleration and transfer of energy in a collision kill. But that doesn't invalidate the statement "speed kills". Speed does kill. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
In laymens terms, the driver was the instigator, the vehicle was the accessory, speed was a by product of poor judgement from the driver, and the sudden deceleration of the vehicile and forces at work killing the driver is the end result. In otherwords, Darwinism at its finest.
Who said speed has to be the result of poor judgement? If the speed limit is 50 and you drive 48 on a perfectly lovely summer day one a 100% bare/dry road surface with perfect visibility, would you say that's poor judgement? And yet, despite all that, if you're in a collision, you may die, even though had you been driving at 10 km/hr you may have survived. In this case, speed was still a factor. And it is possible, all other factors being equal, that speed might even be THE determining factor. Therefore, the act of speeding, killed you. Or maybe there were other important factors.
The key here is, since you're taking a very scientific and mathmatical approach to this, is that speed need only be THE determining factor in 1 fatal accident to be able to say 100% correctly that "speed killed". And if speed killed, it is mathmatically possible that it may kill again. It would, therefore, be 100% correct to say that speed kills. So the question is, do you honestly believe there are no cases where speed was THE determining factor in a collision? Was speed bad judgement? Maybe. but regardless of what caused the speed, speed was the factor.
The problem is, you see, you seem to not want to let go of the notion that speed cannot kill, that speed must be the result of something else. And yet, as I have said, you can always go further back should you chose to. You say poor judgement? Ok, so poor judgement kills. But then someone could say "Now wait. Poor judgement is always caused by something. So we have to say improper education which resulted in poor judgement kills. Or being dumped by your girlfriend right before getting in the car kills. But then, maybe it's cheating on your girlfriend that kills. Or maybe it's women being desirable. And then, I suppose, since God created women, God kills."
We could do this all day. The worst part is, you seem to want to say "being in a collision kills", only with more words because you feel everything must be worthy of being scientific without any need to extrapolate meaning, but if that's the case, why have such a beautiful language full of adjectives and the like? It's prose man, not a thesis for a physics class. It's a catch-phrase designed to remind the masses that excessive rates of speed can be the difference between dieing and living in a collision. Why be such a stick in the mud? Who or what do you hate so much that you have to pick something apart, and replace with something equally untrue in a purely empirical way?
quote:
"I find it interesting you think the general public thinks speed, as a factor in and of itself, kills. Most people I meet share your view, that speed can't do anything. Like the old addage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Time and time again I find I have to explain, as I have above, the speed does, in fact, kill. "
Is this not what the advertising campaigns are leading us to believe? You infact said it your self. "Speed Kills". If you read the paper, you will find and article about a crash and "Speed was a factor".
Well, seeing as how no one I've ever met actually believes that a velocity, devoid of any variation and simply as a number in a mathmatical formula, is actually murdering people, I'd say no, that's not what the campaign is leading anyone to believe. In order to lead people to believe something, some people must actually think it's true. True, you will find in the paper that it will say "speed was a factor", or "police suspect speed was a factor." You will also read that Fran and Jim are getting married. What's your point?
quote:
"Perhaps not on a 100% literal frame of view, but then, if you want to get completely literal, we have no idea what kills. We can't define or determine consciousness. Can we say for certain that because brain waves cease that a person has ceased to exist? We can't. We enter a realm based on superstition, belief and religion. And therefore, we can't even say people ever fully die, or what would cause such an event if we could determine it."
I agree with you 100% on this fact. That is a whole different debate. :lol:
For myself, I am not influenced by advertising and fear mongering. I never have been and I never will be. I believe maybe 1/2 of what I see and hear in the news and from people. I am a skeptic. Statistics can be skewed for results in favor or against an idea. Do not believe me, pick up a newspaper, watch the news. Take a look from the other side.
Fear mongering? Good lord, how is "speed kills" fear mongering? Why do you chose not to believe something that you yourself have admitted to be true? Whether you want to accept it or not, saying that speed is a factor in fatalities in a collision is saying "speed kills". "Dogs eat" can also be written "dogs can eat". Not "dogs always eat". I had a dog who spent lots of times doing things other than eating. I don't think you can accuse an ad of "fear mongering" for making a statement that driving faster WILL increase your CHANCE of dieing IF a collision occurs. They merely want people to realize it, since so many people don't and drive excessively fast.
In fact, let me go one further. If you understand and realize that speed can be a major factor in collisions, the ad was not directed at you, and you can therefore disregard the whole thing and cease being upset at it.
quote:
I see where you are coming from and respect your opinions. From what you have said in this post and other posts I would place you in the category of Law Enforcement or somewhere close to that and with exposure to this. I know exactly what you are saying, but is strikes a nerv with me when people say "Speed Kills". :D
Mike Nikolai [/B]
Uhhhh. ok. How does what area I have, or may have worked in, influence my opinion? You're talking science and linguistics. I have joined in that debate. Where I work, how I work, what my experiences are, have no bearing whatsoever. Incidently, my "other posts" have made it quite plain that I used to be a police officer, so it should be fairly simply to deduce that. I'm sorry a correct and true expression strikes a nerve with you. I see what you're trying to argue. But unfortunately, you don't have a problem with the message, you have a problem with the semantics. Unfortunately, we all have different ways of speaking. You can't expect the add to say things like "The likelihood of death caused by swelling of the brain, larcerations resulting in blood loss and internal bleeding, directly caused by blunt force trauma or incision by objects resulting from transfer of energy caused by the rapid change in inertia, and therefore velocity, is increased when you navigate your motor vehicle in such a manner as to increase said inertia by maintaining a greater rate of speed." Firstly, it's too hard to fit on signs. Secondly, what 16 year old will understand that?
It's an add for the masses. Rocket scientists, infanteers, pilots, mechanics, riggers, the unemployed, the uneducated, etc all need to be able to understand it. But the worst part is, you DO understand it. You agree 100% with the exact message it's saying. You agree that excessive speed can be the determining factor, and is often one of many factors, of whether or not people live or die in a collision. You agree and admit to that. Your beef is that it isn't scientifically and empirically correct? Come on man, seriously, give it up.
"Can't beat the feeling." Boy, coke sure got that one wrong. I'll take an orgasm over coca-cola anyday.
"Can't get enough of that golden crisp." Man, after 4 or 5 boxes of that stuff, I wouldn't be able to cram down another bite.
"Boundless." And yet AT&T still has no way for you to call up an astronaut.
"It's good to talk." Unless the only other person around is someone you can't stand with terrible bad breath.
"Nick is kids." No it's not, it's a TV station. Actually, Nickelodean is the station, Nick is a nickname for a TV station, among other things, all of which must be named to satisfy your arguments.
"The first network for men." I'm pretty sure most networks have some programming aimed at men. And I'm almost certain that ESPN and TSN, which were around before Spike TV, were also aimed mostly at men.
"The battery you dream about." I've never had a dream about duracell.
"The most human handset." Must I really critique that one on a scientific level.
My point is, they're ads. Some are just catchy phrases, some have some actual meaning, some are true if you take the proper point of view, some are half truths, and some are 100% accurate. "Speed kills" is accurate, unless you warp and twist and insist that every add and slogan mention all factors as well as all root causes to the tiniest level. Which isn't going to happen. I'm sorry that peeves you. But to say "No, dtjohnst, you're wrong. Speed doesn't kill, physics kills" is complete rubbish. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
Hi dtjohnst,
Essentially we agree on the same facts, just not the slogan. If you read between the lines of my posts and what I am actually saying, you would have arrived at that point along time ago. However you are insistant on proving the slogan that speed kills.
It seems that you are quite adamant on proving me wrong and appear to be taking this quite personally. If that is your objective then fine. You will not change my mind. :D
Look at the facts here.
1) Speed as an element on its own DOES NOT KILL! (which we happen to agree with after sifting through your posts" Ie) the slogan Speed Kills is rubbish.
2) Speed plus another factor such as a COLLISION with another object can fatally wound some one. Proving speed as a contributing factor, but not the end all be all. The Slogan Speed Kills strongly implies that speeding will kill you.
3) I agree, the faster one travels, the more likely that they are to become involved in a collision, which would result in a sudden deceleration of the vehicile.
I am not angry at anyone. I am stating facts. I love technicalities, and catching these finer points of advertising.
We can agree to dissagree on the slogan, and advertising campaign.
Mike Nikolai |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
Again, something you have failed to touch on which I have mentioned several times, is that the slogan doesn't say "Speed by itself with no other factors will kill you." You claim the slogan should say "speed combined with other factors can increase your chance of death." You're adamant that one cannot extrapolate the meaning that speed increases the risk of a fatality should a collision occur.
And yet, despite the fact that you refuse to read between the lines of the slogan, you constantly read between other lines. "Speed kills" is different from "speed alone kills". You're simply chosing to read between the lines in the way you want to and refusing to extrapolate the data they are making clear.
You are stating some facts, but neglicting others that I point out. I said it before, I'll say it again, you're arguing semantics, but I can't even agree on you semantically speaking because your arguments are based on manipulation to suit your own ends.
It's clear to me that you have 100% agreed with the slogan. You're only argument against it is that it is claiming speed as a sole proponent of death. The fact that you said "physics kills" proves that semantically speaking you're basis has no footing. You agree with the very semantics the used since you used the exact same one.
I am, therefore, forced to conclude what I have said in previous posts. For some reason you have something against the people who put out the ad and are adamant that they're wrong.
You say I've taken this personally and imply I may be upset. Quiet frankly, the only personal things in here are things you brought up, when you mentioned I must work in Law Enforcement, which had no bearing on the debate, so I have no idea what would make you think it's personal.
It's a debate, nothing more. I don't get upset about typing words, even if they are blatant attacks, which this wasn't. Feel free to think what you want, I could care less, but I love to debate and think I'm educated enough to engage in discourses in many fields of study, so if I disagree with something, I debate it. |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
Hi dtjohnst,
Interesting post, yet still no dice for me.
"Again, something you have failed to touch on which I have mentioned several times, is that the slogan doesn't say "Speed by itself with no other factors will kill you." You claim the slogan should say "speed combined with other factors can increase your chance of death." You're adamant that one cannot extrapolate the meaning that speed increases the risk of a fatality should a collision occur."
Correct me if I am wrong but the slogan does read "Speed kills" You even posted it your self many times. I think it is the most absurd slogan. Basically what I get out of it is obey the speed limit you may die.
"And yet, despite the fact that you refuse to read between the lines of the slogan, you constantly read between other lines. "Speed kills" is different from "speed alone kills". You're simply chosing to read between the lines in the way you want to and refusing to extrapolate the data they are making clear."
True, and I see you doing the same.
"You are stating some facts, but neglicting others that I point out. I said it before, I'll say it again, you're arguing semantics, but I can't even agree on you semantically speaking because your arguments are based on manipulation to suit your own ends."
Again, True, and I see you doing the same.
"It's clear to me that you have 100% agreed with the slogan. You're only argument against it is that it is claiming speed as a sole proponent of death."
The actual slogan no, the idea that if you are travelling fast and hit somethig yes. To me the whole slogan comes accros as that. I can travel as fast as I want assuming I do not get any tickets. Yes, the chances of me colliding with something increases due to driver error or road conditions, if I wipe out and do not hit something I am failing to see how speed will kill me. If I hit something at 100km/hr and am not wearing my seatbelt, my body is still in motion and I will more than likely fly through the windshiled and become sprawled accross the road and more than likely die. Was the "Speed" I was travelling at help contribute to this, yes. But it is not the end all be all factor.
As for the original post. His friend was travelling at 50+ over the limit. Did he die...no.... Did he collide with anything.... no.... He may die financially due to the fall out.
But you and I agree that speed + IMPACT can = death.
Speed is not the only factor. I see what you are saying and agree with some of your points but not all.
"I am, therefore, forced to conclude what I have said in previous posts. For some reason you have something against the people who put out the ad and are adamant that they're wrong."
Alright, you got me there. I think that the whole slogan was put together by blind and uneducated monkeys who insist speed kills with out other factors. The whole advertising thing gets on nerves. I do not need to be bombarded with this stuff day in and day out, is really quite annoying.
"You say I've taken this personally and imply I may be upset. Quiet frankly, the only personal things in here are things you brought up, when you mentioned I must work in Law Enforcement, which had no bearing on the debate, so I have no idea what would make you think it's personal."
I see my point about this was taken the wrong way. It was more of a compliment to you, your facts, your knowledge and they way you write. Nothing else was intended by it. Infact I did not read all your posts as you have implied. I have only read a few of them I have come accross in my surfing. I did not even know you had been in law enforcement prior to this conversation. This is something I was able to put together from reading your posts. I appologise if it came accross that way.
"It's a debate, nothing more. I don't get upset about typing words, even if they are blatant attacks, which this wasn't. Feel free to think what you want, I could care less, but I love to debate and think I'm educated enough to engage in discourses in many fields of study, so if I disagree with something, I debate it."
You and I see very differently on the same issue. I understand where you are coming from, yes perhaps I am a stick in the mud on the some details.
I am not the type of person to buy into hype, slogans or take in what has just been feed to me.
I found it quite amusing about your statement about 16 yr olds not comprehending the full statements, so it needs to be shortened. Most of them have the attention span similar to the life span of a nat.
I would be very interested to see some statistical data showing the number of vehicles crashes that resulted in fatalities. More specificially, how many of those fatalities were a result of "speed, or should I say speeding" and those that were at or below the speed limit.
I know I will not change your perspective on this as you will not change mine.
Mike Nikolai |
|
|
| Inzane |
Mike, this is at least twice in two days that we agree on something. :D
I find the slogan "Speed Kills" offensive personally.
And I find those news ads/reports that site solely "speed was/wasn't a factor" infuriating.
Jouralists and/or law enforcement never seem to cite:
- visibility (dusk? dawn? headlights ON?)
- road conditions
- distractions (cell phone? rowdy passengers?)
- vehicle equipment (tire tread?)
- other traffic infractions (tailgating? use of turn signals?)
etc.
in the same context. Speed they'll mention. Drunk driving they'll mention. But that's generally it. WHY?? When I read again and again that speed was/wasn't a factor I'm left wondering... so? :dunno: Tell me what ELSE that could be RELEVANT and was a factor in the accident.
:mad: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
This debate has become complete dumbassery. You keep providing the same tired paragraphs, rephrased, saying nothing new, and not debating the key point.
You say the slogan implies there are no other factors, only speed. It isn't that precise. And yet, you criticise the slogan for not being precise. how can you interpret things it doesn't say due to being imprecise, and then claim it should be more precise? Chose one. It's either literal, or interpretational. If literal, it doesn't say speed is the only thing that kills, merely that it is one of the major factors in fatalities in collisions.
But then you claim I do the same? Can you back that up? I accept it's imprecise, and I use common sense AND the rest of the ad to determine what it means. You just toss in what you want to make it sound retard. "Hey, it doesn't say balogna doesn't kill, what a dumb slogan. How dare it imply balogna can kill you. See how imprecise it is?" Congratulations, you can twist things. That doesn't prove your point, it proves you refuse to acknowledge what everything else you've said does: you agree. Speed increases your risk of death, therefore from a certain stand regarding semantics, you agree "speed kills", literally and as a slogan. Everything else is you trying to use smoke and mirrors.
As for "why is it only speed and alcohol?" It isn't. I've read about not wearing seatbelts, I've read about weather. Do you want every article about an accident to take up 3 pages? "There may have been an attractive woman on the street that distracted the driver" "The front left brake rotor may have been warped and affected handling" It would take PAGES to cover EVERY factor in an accident.
Not only that, but in almost every single collision involving a fatality, not in the odd one, what's one thing that might have avoided the collision or lessened the damage and saved a life? Reducing speed. If one of the drivers was drunk, alcohol as well. If one wasn't wearing a seatbelt, that's another. A warped rotor means nothing if you're going slow enough to stop and control your vehicle. And if you CAN'T control it well enough due to problems with the vehicle, guess what? YOU'RE DRIVING TOO FAST.
This thread has been hi-jacked long enough. Mike, debate semantics all you want, but your arguments make no sense. Like I said, you felt "Physics kills" was valid, which pretty much invalidates anything you want to say. If a body of knowledge can kill, a number on a spedometer can kill, and so can care bears and rainbows and tea pots. I refuse to debate anymore since you fail to address points and merely agree with everything except the perfect valid words on the basis that you read some things into it, but refuse to read others in. Reply if you want, I will no longer engage in this discussion with you in this thread.
Speeding endangers your life more than obeying posted limits will. Period. That was the point. If you need to come here and argue semantics when people are driving 50-100km/hr over the speed limit, go right ahead. But do it in your own thread.
Those of you curious about what happens when you drive 50 km/hr over the speed limit, you risk killing people, maybe yourself. you risk doing a lot of damage to your vehicle and property. you risk large fines and even jail time. If you think all that is worth it, just tear up your licence now and do the world a favor. Those of you who do it, I hope if something does happen no one dies, even though I think you might stand to learn a valuable lesson from the guilt.
EDIT:
By the way, if you had full access to a police report, you would be able to read all the factors. Police name the important ones, or the press conference would take hours. If you want to see just how in depth things get, join the force. If you think you can do a better job than police/writers, go do it. But good luck writing your article on an accident in the 2 paragraphs your editor allows and naming every single factor that existed.
EDIT2: You wanted some figures. THis should keep you busy for awhile.
http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/sk1.htm#intro1 |
|
|
| GOT BOOST |
Hi dtjohnst,
I have decided to edit my post no longer continue this conversation.
Big Trucker,
No disrespect meant by hijacking your thread! :D
Mike Nikolai |
|
|
| Mobius |
Now that was a lot of writing to argue the semantics of "Speed Kills." :dunno:
Does it not all boil down to interpretation? |
|
|
| stybscelica |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
Mike, this is at least twice in two days that we agree on something. :D
I find the slogan "Speed Kills" offensive personally.
And I find those news ads/reports that site solely "speed was/wasn't a factor" infuriating.
Jouralists and/or law enforcement never seem to cite:
- visibility (dusk? dawn? headlights ON?)
- road conditions
- distractions (cell phone? rowdy passengers?)
- vehicle equipment (tire tread?)
- other traffic infractions (tailgating? use of turn signals?)
etc.
in the same context. Speed they'll mention. Drunk driving they'll mention. But that's generally it. WHY?? When I read again and again that speed was/wasn't a factor I'm left wondering... so? :dunno: Tell me what ELSE that could be RELEVANT and was a factor in the accident.
:mad:
I love your post but coming form a collision investigator your above factors are ALL mitigated by speed,
Visibility poor SLOW DOWN then it won't be a factor.
Road conditions poor, Slow down then again not a factor
Distractions, pull over as driving at any speed while being distracted is too fast.
Vehicle equipment (brakes, tires) slow down, then not a problem
Tailgating, slow down then your not tail gating, then of course no problem.
Speed Kills does not equate to speeding over posted limit kills. Any speed is a contributing factor to every collision.
Cheers |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by stybscelica
I love your post but coming form a collision investigator your above factors are ALL mitigated by speed,
Visibility poor SLOW DOWN then it won't be a factor.
Road conditions poor, Slow down then again not a factor
Distractions, pull over as driving at any speed while being distracted is too fast.
Vehicle equipment (brakes, tires) slow down, then not a problem
Tailgating, slow down then your not tail gating, then of course no problem.
Speed Kills does not equate to speeding over posted limit kills. Any speed is a contributing factor to every collision.
Cheers
I DO agree with everything you just said.
I was sort of taking the counterpoint that IF you mitigate a lot of other factors you could try to make the argument that speed (as in "speeding") alone will not necessarily result in a crash.
I'm not going to argue physics (I know kinematics quite well, I'm an Engineer).
And I'm not going to argue RISK. Risk and Loss Management is part of my business. An assessment of risk takes into account impacts (or consequence) and probabilities (or frequencies). I know full well that "risk" increases as speed increases.
But you could take a "speeder", in the act of "speeding", and in the ABSCENCE of:
- faulty equipment
- poor road conditions
- bad visibility
- high traffic volume
- disparity in speeds between vehicles
- idiots (sorry, people) who aren't aware of their surroundings
- etc.
The likely result --> no accident.
I know.... that's a lot of IFs.
But in that scenario above, with a high performance car, in a well-maintained state, on an empty highway (posted limit 100-110 km/h) no cars in sight, in daylight with perfect visibility for miles, perfect road conditions, and so on. They decide to go for a quick blast in the 150-200 km/h range.
In the risk equation, admittedly the impact side is very high. The impact (or consequence) of something going wrong at those speeds is definitely high (this is where you bring in the physics - force, energy, momentum, velocity). However the probability of something going wrong is not very high, given the scenario described.
A high impact and a low probability do not necessarily equal a "high" risk, but that depends on how you choose to quantify low, medium and high risk.
But, introduce any of those OTHER factors and then suddenly the probability (given the higher speeds) does become higher. In a risk matrix, a high impact combined with a high probability definitely arrives at a high "risk".
BUT the kicker is... and the basis supporting the justification for speed enforcement, and this "speed kills" ad campaign... is that in the real world, you can't 100% eliminate all of those other factors. |
|
|
| SilverNeonRacer |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
I DO agree with everything you just said.
I was sort of taking the counterpoint that IF you mitigate a lot of other factors you could try to make the argument that speed (as in "speeding") alone will not necessarily result in a crash.
......
And here I thought your other post was getting at they say there was an accident blah blah speed wasn't a factor, but they never say what was, ok so he wasn't going at an unreasonable rate for the conditions...... so what happened? He fall asleep, misjudge? Attempted Vehicular suicide? what |
|
|
| Inzane |
quote:
Originally posted by SilverNeonRacer
And here I thought your other post was getting at they say there was an accident blah blah speed wasn't a factor, but they never say what was, ok so he wasn't going at an unreasonable rate for the conditions...... so what happened? He fall asleep, misjudge? Attempted Vehicular suicide? what
But I was getting at that too.
dtjohnst's point about accident reports being too lengthy and detailed to describe in full is valid sure. But it still seems that all too often speed and drunk driving are the only two items mentioned (on local tv, radio, or in the paper) with any regular frequency. If those are absent from a given accident, surely there's still a top 2? a top 3? of other factors... Does it really take that long to mention a couple of these "other" factors?
Its a limited focus if you leave it at "was he speeding?", "was he drunk?" And of limited value, IMO. |
|
|
| stybscelica |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
But I was getting at that too.
dtjohnst's point about accident reports being too lengthy and detailed to describe in full is valid sure. But it still seems that all too often speed and drunk driving are the only two items mentioned (on local tv, radio, or in the paper) with any regular frequency. If those are absent from a given accident, surely there's still a top 2? a top 3? of other factors... Does it really take that long to mention a couple of these "other" factors?
Its a limited focus if you leave it at "was he speeding?", "was he drunk?" And of limited value, IMO.
Granted and i agree with you totally but you have to remember how police come to discover mitigating factors. Speed can be easily determined through witnesses, Inertial impact of the Speedometer needle on the Guage face. tells the truth everytime in high speed impact colisions, And alcohol can be redily determined by breath samples, presence of alcohol in the vehicle etc. Now ask a police officer to determine if the vehicle mal functioned, bad tires etc. and your gonna have to wait for interviews of the driver which is usually impossible when deceased or unconcious. Vehicle repair can only be done by a mechanical inspection, Usually takes a few weeks. Speed and alcohol can be determined on scene where every other facter is not immediatly apparent. Now with impatient Media that what answers now those are the only two facters on scene police can divulge. So you are correct in saying other facters aren't commented on and the sole reason is they are usually yesterdays news.
Cheers |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Inzane
I like this one better:
http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm
Ahh, I'm well aware of those statistics. unfortunately, driving slower reducing the number of collisions was a point I made, not the slogan. The discussion was IF there's a collision, faster will increase risk of death. How many of the "slowest 30%" that are at greater risk have fatalities in their collisoins? Doesn't say. How many of the 90th percentile do? Doesn't say. But I venture a guess there are more fatalities in that 90th percentile than in the bottom 30%.
One other point to consider, those statistics involve the speed at point of impact. Most people break before colliding, therefore after slowing down, the speeders are now in the bottom 30%. Of course there are less crashes at 15-20km/hr above the limit, most people are going slower than that before they hit the brakes and collide.
It's a matter of statistics. That page wants to let people speed and get rid of photo radar because it costs people money. The stats about speeding kills wants to save lives. Which do you think is a less selfish aim and therefore most likely not to twist facts as much?
quote:
But you could take a "speeder", in the act of "speeding", and in the ABSCENCE of:
- faulty equipment
- poor road conditions
- bad visibility
- high traffic volume
- disparity in speeds between vehicles
- idiots (sorry, people) who aren't aware of their surroundings
- etc.
The likely result --> no accident
Agreed. 100%. Since you're a scientific person with a solid grounding in risk management and assessment this should be simple to explain.
Take all the factors you mentioned and make them constants. Now vary the speed at impact under those identical, unwavering conditions. What do you notice? Faster means greater risk of death. THAT's why speed kills. If we were discussing all other factors, I'd love to debate them.
But the post is about driving WAY over the limit. 50km/h over the limit is A TON of inertia and momentum. What if the roads are slippery you ask? What if they aren't is my response. What if the driver is an excellent driver you ask? What if he isn't is my response. To every factor you name, I invalidate it. Why? The subject at hand is speeding, and that's the factor I'm isolating.
Now, put yourself in the role of a PR guy working for a police department. You have an accident report in front of you. It has a brief description of the accident, how many fatalities/casualties, where it was and at what time. The weather is listed and there's a bunch of blanks. one says "speed", another says "alcohol", another says "tire condition", yet another says "braking condition" and on and on. But they're all blank except speed and alcohol (which are determined almost immediately) because results haven't come back yet, or maybe they have, but you're just PR, you take a backseat to actual enforcement personel.
The press files in and says "So what's with the accident?" You read the synopsis to them. "Around 3PM at the corner of Whyte Ave and Calgary Trail, a late model pickup ran a red light and collided with mid-size passenger car, killing both occupants. The driver of the truck is in critical condition. Any questions?" Press says, "Why did the truck hit them?" The weather synopsis says "clear sky, good vis, dry roads." So you say "All I can tell you right now is that speed and alcohol weren't a factor." Why? Because you don't know anything else.
And by the time the details are released to the press, they don't care anymore, they've moved on to a missing child, or a government scandal, or some other such nonsense (not that missing children are nonsense, the government wasting our money is).
Usually the only time you'll find out is if the man gets off, because then the press wants to rally the people for a lynch mob (cause that sells papers), at which point the police release that there was debris on the road which caused the front right tire to blow out and he swerved uncontrollably into the other car. It was beyond the drivers control, could happen to anyone, no charges are laid, the man feels bad for what happened, the family of the deceased don't want to press charges. That sort of deal.
Hopefully that answers your questions. It's unfortunate, but the press are pushy people, always going on about the public's right to know. And as much as I partly disagree with that, I kinda do agree at the same time AND it's the law in Canada. So you have to tell them what you know in as timely a fashion as possible as long as it doesn't damage the integrity of the investigation or endager the suspects right to Sub Judice. So the 2 biggest factors, which also can be determined on the spot in most cases, are mentioned. Like I said, weather is listed, so you often hear weather being named.
But, if vis was poor, speed may be a bigger factor, if one party was driving too fast for conditions. The weather didn't kill anyone, it was a cause of the accident. Had the driver been driving at a reasonable speed, there may have still been an accident, but likely not a fatality. There was a collision, that can't be changed, would clear visibility have changed the outcome of that collision? No, but speed might, though it's generally not mentioned if the speed was reasonable. If weather is a major cause of why the collision happened, that will usually be mentioned as well. If it wasn't, it's generally not mentioned, because the press knows what the weather was like last night, why does the police force have to tell them?
Even in the case I mentioned above as my sample with the blown tire, had the driver been going slower, would a fatality have resulted? The chance of survival for at least one of the persons in the other car would certainly have been higher. So even if the speed was resonable, reducing that speed may have saved a life. Keeping the road clean might have as well, but those details aren't known until after the fact, and the fact that roads littered with sharp objects which can blow tires kills doesn't invalidate the fact that speed also kills. I agree with both statements, they are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
| RedDirtRoad |
| People might think that they need to get places fast, speed but you know if you speed you might not ever arrive there. I had a friend die in that accedent outside of Sherwood Park 2 yesterday... and she had been in the car that was speeding. Two people are dead from that accedent... and the driver was the only survior... which is a disipointment because he killed two of his friends and he's gonna be able to tell everyone about it. The prices of these tickets are high but how much would you pay to know that the streets are safe, and that you can not worrie as much. |
|
|
| nismo |
quote:
Originally posted by RedDirtRoad
People might think that they need to get places fast, speed but you know if you speed you might not ever arrive there. I had a friend die in that accedent outside of Sherwood Park 2 yesterday... and she had been in the car that was speeding. Two people are dead from that accedent... and the driver was the only survior... which is a disipointment because he killed two of his friends and he's gonna be able to tell everyone about it. The prices of these tickets are high but how much would you pay to know that the streets are safe, and that you can not worrie as much.
I would much rather be killed in the accident than have to live with the guilt of killing my 2 friends, or 2 people period for the rest of my life. But that's the easy way out, and believe me, this kid will learn from his mistakes. |
|
|
| Vive le Quebec |
i feel bad enough for the driver...
a) he had no itention of killing anyone
b) the people that died as a result of his actions were probably near and dear to him...
he has to live with that guilt for the rest of his life...and it's not something he will forget about in a few weeks time, even a few months. it's something that will live with him forever. no fine, no amount of punishment will ever be able to erase the guilt he will live with. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by Vive le Quebec
i feel bad enough for the driver...
a) he had no itention of killing anyone
b) the people that died as a result of his actions were probably near and dear to him...
he has to live with that guilt for the rest of his life...and it's not something he will forget about in a few weeks time, even a few months. it's something that will live with him forever. no fine, no amount of punishment will ever be able to erase the guilt he will live with.
Aside from the tragic loss of life, the most upsetsetting things about all this is that he knew beforehand the risk he undertook but likely thought he was too skilled a driver or it couldn't happen to him, and the fact that other who think they drive too well or it won't happen to them won't learn anything from it.
I'm sorry for your loss RedDirtRoad. |
|
|
| DaffyDuck |
| What would happen if you get caught doing 250km/h on a 110km/h road out of the city? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by DaffyDuck
What would happen if you get caught doing 250km/h on a 110km/h road out of the city?
You'd probably lose control and kill yourself and/or someone else before you got caught.
Otherwise, y | | | |
