Speed kills

[akirby]

 

Agreed, but I'd say a similar analogy could be firearms. A responsible gun owner won't accidentally kill anyone, regardless of what weapons he owns, but an irresponsible one with a machine gun could kill a lot more than he could with a revolver.

 

Like guns though, I don't think any vehicles should be outright banned because they have potential to be dangerous, but I also wouldn't advocate gun manufacturers giving them away willy nilly either. Automakers should just keep in mind what they are putting into the hands of every day (and often really bad) drivers.

 

What you're advocating is that assault rifles with 30 round clips cause more deaths than handguns with 15 round clips, and that is patently absurd. In fact, it's easier to conceal a semi-automatic handgun with 50 or 60 rounds that is just as deadly as an AR-15 with the same amount of ammo.

 

Assault weapon bans won't stop murderers and criminals and won't reduce deaths due to murderers. Reducing vehicle power won't reduce traffic deaths or injuries.

[fordmantpw]

 

What you're advocating is that assault rifles with 30 round clips cause more deaths than handguns with 15 round clips, and that is patently absurd. In fact, it's easier to conceal a semi-automatic handgun with 50 or 60 rounds that is just as deadly as an AR-15 with the same amount of ammo.

 

Assault weapon bans won't stop murderers and criminals and won't reduce deaths due to murderers. Reducing vehicle power won't reduce traffic deaths or injuries.

 

And with a little practice, a skilled shooter can easily swap clips in a hand gun in a second or two (or even less).

[RichardJensen]

Ugh. Gun control arguments now?

 

Can we drag more internet quagmires into this thread?

 

Lizard People are running the government.

[fordmantpw]

Ugh. Gun control arguments now?

 

Can we drag more internet quagmires into this thread?

 

Lizard People are running the government.

 

We have reversed the course of global warming because of all the horsepower and torque available on cars today, we have altered the rotation of the Earth, therefore throwing off all the predictions made my those "in the know" about global warming.

[akirby]

Ugh. Gun control arguments now?

 

It's a fair analogy. In both cases the wrong causes are being blamed and therefore any action taken based on that will be ineffective and won't solve the problem. But hey - don't let that stop you!

[xr7g428]

The phrase a "contributing factor" comes from the math associated with the algorithm used to predict the likelihood of a fatal accident occurring. This algorithm looks at the area under the curve where the probability of an accident, and the probability of a fatality, intersect. Let me restate that: we are looking at two different things: the probability of an accident, and the probability that the accident is fatal.

 

To create the algorithm we would first need to identify the variables that can be correlated to the likely hood of an fatal accident. For the purpose of clarity, in every case the vehicles have to be in motion, so sitting in your car and being struck by a meteor is not a predictable event.

Some factors will weigh more heavily on the probability of an accident occurring, other factors may weigh more heavily on the probability of a fatality. Many, if not most, factors will effect both.

For example, inebriation would have a positive correlation, meaning that the more inebriated the driver was the value of this factor would increase. to a point. This value would have definite end limits. Since you can still be involved in a fatal accident, while totally sober, the lowest value would be 1. As inebriation increased the value would increase until the inebriation level crossed over into the area where the driver was too inebriated to start the car, where the value would be zero.

 

Some contributing factors may have negative correlation. For example air bags may have a negative correlation to the probability of a fatality, yet have no correlation to the probability of an accident occurring.

 

There would need to be a large number of defined contributing factors: The road: rural interstate to hilly, curvy, poorly marked two lane. Visibility: Dense fog at midnight to Kansas prairie at noon. Weather: white out to sunny dry and 72. and on and on.

 

Speed for its part, would have a starting value of zero since it would indicate the vehicle was not moving. (Multiply by zero and the probability is equal to zero...) The upper end limit would be defined as the highest speed the vehicle could reasonably attain. Since we are primarily trying to locate the probability of accidents that are fatal, we can factor in the increased force associated with greater acceleration. Ultimately, speed can be the sole factor in the fatality part of the equation even if it was not associated with the probability of the accident occurring. Speed may also be a used as a variable in describing the correlation of other contributing factors, for example, above a certain threshold an air bag will be inadequate to provide protection, on a curving two lane road

[xr7g428]

In any event speed is going to be a factor whether they check the box or not. A fatality requires a given amount of force, which os going to require a given amount of acceleration. Whether speed was the most important contributing factor, to both the probability of the accident occurring, and the fatality, should be what we are trying to determine, and I doubt that investigating officers are being trained to look for that particular set of circumstances at an accident scene.

[grbeck]

I attended a continuing legal education course on trends in Pennsylvania's auto insurance law yesterday. One of the speakers was an accident reconstruction expert who has investigated many accidents and testified in court many times. One thing that jumped out during his presentation:

 

"It's often very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the speed of the vehicles at the time of the accident."