Graduate you say? Yeah...

Ok lets see, your great analogy, if you get rolled over by car doing 5 or 10 kmh doesnt matter your brain will still "splatter"...Thats the comparsion...

Some people just never get it. I'm giving up.




"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein

Can we close this please?

lol - If I was running with it, I would have to SLOW DOWN to get to 50kph..

Actually, that's a lie. I'd pull a hamstring in under 1/2 a km, and turn round and limp home.

Evidence that SPEED is the PRIMARY cause of the MAJORITY of accidents. You must have this surely, to have such a staunch and zero-tolerance view?

Getting hurt by a car does not immediately correlate with SPEED being the cause. Which was what MY statistical data showed - it is the PRIMARY cause in only 3-13% of serious accidents...the rest are caused by BAD DRIVING.

The reason the traffic agency like speed so much, is because of all the offences they can prove and prosecute on, this is the easiest. They can cast their net far and wide for little expense (cameras are cheap), and the definitions of criminality are black and white. It is the low hanging fruit.

Mobile phones cause more accidents than speed. Using a mobile phone while driving is worse than drink driving, in terms of driver performance. If you were the traffic agency, you'd want to prosecute this as a priority...but how?

Edit: When a driver is seriously injured in a "loss of control" incident, how does the agency prove negligence, or dangerous driving, or driving without due care? How do you prevent these accident happening in the future? They are by far the most numerous, and the most dangerous to the car occupants.

Interesting fact: 58% of pedestrian injuries are the FAULT of the pedestrian THEMSELVES. And as our plastic surgeon has noted, it doesn't take much - 3kph - to cause serious skull damage. So why the emphasis on the drivers speed? The fact the car is even moving at microscopic speed will still cause pedestrians to be injured. But again - how to prove the driver is at fault, when he - very likely - wasn't negligent in any way?

And what limit should we set, if 3kph is causing injury? 2kph? 1kph? ZERO???

From a legal point of view it's totally clear, the line is the speed limit plus the tolerance.

From a physical point of view, there's no such line because reasonable speed depends on countless variables such as weather, road conditions, visibility, type and condition of the vehicle, type and condition of the tires, driving skills, etc.
It's impossible to consider so many highly variable inputs to determine a reasonable speed limit. Therefore a speed limit is always an arbitrarily set compromise and one can't just say that driving below the speed limit is always safe and driving faster than the limit is always dangerous. (Of course that doesn't change the (il-)legality of it.)

BTW, speed does not kill - lack of distance does.

Only if the same driver, same tires, same road conditions, same slope, same load in the car, same reaction time, etc.

Totally unrealistic.

Tom

You absolut right,lets set the limit to 60 km/h and have the same argument 70,80or 100km/h

Kind of irrelevant to the important stuff, but the girl you're replying to is right. She clearly stated an assumption that the rate of speed reduction is constant. The factors you gave control the rate of speed reduction. So although you're right that it's unrealistic, she's right given her assumption.

Which is not to say I agree with her various bits of nonsense spouted through the rest of this thread.

Dude, seriously?? I am OF COURSE talking about the same car going at different speeds. The comparison should still be valid, right? How about you use YOUR common sense! Jesus Christ...

I just been hit for speeding at 56kph, minus my 5kph, give me the big total of 1kph over the limit, so i pay the fine. The law is clear and they even give you 10% tolerance, fine 1kph cost me Chf 40.--

There is a rule, a generous tolerance and i was over, it's irrelvant by how much, or at least up to 14kph in a built up area, afterwards it can get expensive !

As to all the discussions about speed and all that crap, i fully assure you whether i drive at 49,50,or 51kph and i hit you, you'll be needing a wooden box !

this is what we use in canada

Tell you what...that bathroom scene would certainly put a damper on my morning constitutional..

Is it allowed to se Tom Tom to warn of speed limits and camera traps ?

I am a outdoor`s person

Sorry, slipped, to use Tom Tom to warn of speed limits and radar traps ?

If the airbag has not exploded, you have zero whiplash claim.

No. You'll find that that feature is disabled for Switzerland on your device, though I've heard you can get around the block.

3kph over the limit, should have gone faster to make it worth while..........