^^^^ The problem with that is it fails to take into account the increase in reaction time due to
hangover
bogan
don't care
asian tourist looking at flowers
euro in wicked camper singing and chatting
oldies in a daze
..... and that seems to be half the traffic on this particular road. I'd prefer switched on, fully rested, sane people in modern cars doing 120kph any day.
The physics is complex but I vaguely recall the inverse square rule applies. The difference in energy from a 30 km crash verses a 90km crash isn't a factor of three, its actually nine times. So dropping 10km down from 110 has a far greater effect than dropping it from 60 down to 50.
Rod - a head on crash at 110km/hr isn't an immediate death sentence, not by a long shot, but fark me, give me the choice between a head on at 110 or 100, I'll take the lower speed. I might just survive it, I'll take the might even it it only increases my chance of survivability by 5%.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
^^^^ The problem with that is it fails to take into account the increase in reaction time due to
hangover
bogan
don't care
asian tourist looking at flowers
euro in wicked camper singing and chatting
oldies in a daze
..... and that seems to be half the traffic on this particular road. I'd prefer switched on, fully rested, sane people in modern cars doing 120kph any day.
Well you hold the other variables constant when looking at the sensitivity to the variable of interest. It doesn't invalidate your conclusions concerning that variable. Yes fully rested and switched on people will pass by without incident at 120kph. But when that fully rested person doing 120kph strikes a problem with one of the others you mention, they're going to wish they were doing 100kph.
Select to expand quoteChris6791 said..
The physics is complex but I vaguely recall the inverse square rule applies. The difference in energy from a 30 km crash verses a 90km crash isn't a factor of three, its actually nine times. So dropping 10km down from 110 has a far greater effect than dropping it from 60 down to 50.
Rod - a head on crash at 110km/hr isn't an immediate death sentence, not by a long shot, but fark me, give me the choice between a head on at 110 or 100, I'll take the lower speed. I might just survive it, I'll take the might even it it only increases my chance of survivability by 5%.
Yep... just like the wind. (See, it is a windsport thing 
)
No... getting hit at 110 maybe isn't a death sentence. You might live. (People have lived from crashes faaar in excess of 110 - Richard Hammond at 460 odd? )
Its still a might & a maybe... taking chances with the end result of something that was avoidable.
If you'd rather have the head on at a lower speed... why not 80? or 60?
I get the physics. But I purposefully left out all the variables like braking distance, reaction time (bogans, drunks, wobblies, vehicle age, ABS, Asians, Oldies, fatigued etc) to concentrate on speed (because that is the ONLY thing the Govt is really doing) relative to the outcome of the crash.
Lewis Hamilton in his brand new AMG doing 100 (who with his amazing mad skills brings his car to a stop) is still going to be just as dead when the hungover bogan in his ****box 4" lifted patrol with paddle tyres for Lano has a micro sleep and drifts onto the wrong side of the road.
Honestly you could leave speed as fixed and play with the rest of the variables to conjure up any scenario you liked. Your survivability could be down to any other number of other variables (Car age, roadworthiness, where the car was hit, where you sat, Takata airbag, just plain old bad luck, etc etc etc).
All the other factors, are more important because they increase the potential of the crash.
Anyone who has had any exposure to heath and safety knows that the crash is the LAST thing - everything else is a leading indicator. Given that everyone on here has an anecdote or 3, observing the behaviours that lead up to a crash on just that road alone. The commonality of the observed behaviour would suggest that speed, is not the main factor.
Personally I would rather have a 98% chance of never having an accident, rather than debating the >5% chance I might live, because on that road, we know its going to happen.
If the govt was serious, I mean actually really serious, about reducing the death toll they wouldn't mess around with just dropping 10.
But its the only factor that they can control by putting a cash collector on the side of the road.
I've done the OSH thing too, improving the road will engineer out some of the idiot decisions made on the road up there but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. It'll cost too much money, probably need many more deaths before the political and public will is there to spend $100 million or more. We''l probably get the new road when they forward budget for the desal plant I think will go in south of Ledge Point at Breton Bay - the'll need a wider road to get the oversize loads in; so you'll get the road you want, with the trucks you don't.
Coincidentally, crashes on the Forrest Highway were unexpectantly high when they opened up that beautiful, straight dual carriage way. People got so fkn bored with such a straight, monotonous road they simply fell off it (it's still happening). At least a rollover is a better option than a head on I guess...
Select to expand quoteChris6791 said..
I've done the OSH thing too, improving the road will engineer out some of the idiot decisions made on the road up there but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. It'll cost too much money, probably need many more deaths before the political and public will is there to spend $100 million or more. We''l probably get the new road when they forward budget for the desal plant I think will go in south of Ledge Point at Breton Bay - the'll need a wider road to get the oversize loads in; so you'll get the road you want, with the trucks you don't.
Coincidentally, crashes on the Forrest Highway were unexpectantly high when they opened up that beautiful, straight dual carriage way. People got so fkn bored with such a straight, monotonous road they simply fell off it (it's still happening). At least a rollover is a better option than a head on I guess...
^This is what I'm talking about.
Although I would rather they "engineered" the clowns off the road 
Just for ****s and giggles I've been reading up on crash metrics.
50g seems to be a fatal "dose" of what the body can handle within itself within the time of a crash pulse (ie not taking into account secondary impacts etc.)
My long winded point being...
Yes; the slower you go, the lower the forces, BUT over a certain speed (that is still a long way below 100) it becomes largely irrelevant. You don't get any less dead from reducing 120g to 50g.
I think this has been plotted the wrong way round but you get the idea...
Select to expand quoterod_bunny said..Chris6791 said..
I've done the OSH thing too, improving the road will engineer out some of the idiot decisions made on the road up there but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. It'll cost too much money, probably need many more deaths before the political and public will is there to spend $100 million or more. We''l probably get the new road when they forward budget for the desal plant I think will go in south of Ledge Point at Breton Bay - the'll need a wider road to get the oversize loads in; so you'll get the road you want, with the trucks you don't.
Coincidentally, crashes on the Forrest Highway were unexpectantly high when they opened up that beautiful, straight dual carriage way. People got so fkn bored with such a straight, monotonous road they simply fell off it (it's still happening). At least a rollover is a better option than a head on I guess...
^This is what I'm talking about.
Although I would rather they "engineered" the clowns off the road
Just for ****s and giggles I've been reading up on crash metrics.
50g seems to be a fatal "dose" of what the body can handle within itself within the time of a crash pulse (ie not taking into account secondary impacts etc.)
My long winded point being...
Yes; the slower you go, the lower the forces, BUT over a certain speed (that is still a long way below 100) it becomes largely irrelevant. You don't get any less dead from reducing 120g to 50g.
I think this has been plotted the wrong way round but you get the idea...
Fair enough, but one of the variables that you've kept constant is that the brakes are never applied. Although that's often true apparently, maybe even for both vehicles? It's when you allow for some braking that the differences are huge. No one was hurt in this video, the truckie is thankful he didn't have an extra 5 kph of speed.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Fair enough, but one of the variables that you've kept constant is that the brakes are never applied. Although that's often true apparently, maybe even for both vehicles? It's when you allow for some braking that the differences are huge. No one was hurt in this video, the truckie is thankful he didn't have an extra 5 kph of speed.
Because in some cases they aren't. Asleep, distracted, a bunch more other variables pre crash.
Plus when the brakes were applied but:
worn tyres
worn road surface (There is a roughness standard)
wet, gravel,
overloaded.
only one person brakes.
In the vid.. a near miss. Who knows what speed the truck was doing. The limit? 10 under/over?
What if:
The kid, ran out 0.5 sec later, or zigged instead of zagged.
The truck driver was checking his GPS.
The camera op didn't honk his horn.
We had a truck vs. house battle today for a change
www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/careless-driving-truck-crashes-into-wanneroo-home-20171114-gzkyna.html
Truck won from the looks of it.
To show that above a certain speed*, it becomes irrelevant what the speed is.
