Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176184)

Sorry, can't agree on this one. The natural extrapolation of that philosophy is to set all speed limits at 5 mph., or better yet just walk (across the country to LA) --it's "safer". Getting T-boned by an idiot running a red light isn't going to have a much different result at 45 or 55.
The speed limits are set by the nature of the road (width, divided or not, number of intersections and lights, presence of shoulder, etc.), and amount of traffic. Most interstates slow down to 55 in urban areas.
Route 44 is perfectly fine at 55, it's the idiot drivers that make accidents. But it does not make sense to change speed limits for a few accidents caused by idiots on a road otherwise appropriate for the existing speed limit. As Judge Judy says, "you can't fix stupid"

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1176230)

Not correct. Kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity. The difference between 55 mph and 45 mph is 50% more kinetic energy at 55 mph. With collisions, it is all about velocity.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1176230)

Not correct. Kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity. The difference between 55 mph and 45 mph is 50% more kinetic energy at 55 mph. With collisions, it is all about velocity.

Originally Posted by tomwed (Post 1176225)

Do you really think that's how the world works?

Lowering the speed limit to 45 is the beginning of a slippery slope that will eventually lead to a 5 mph speed limit all over the country.

When I taught one of my teacher observations said Tom occasionally whistled in class. This should stop because the students will start whistling and when they get in the halls everyone will also start whistling. The whole building will be whistling and we can't have that.
That person uses your kind of logic.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176251)

I think I'm pretty well versed in physics and mathematics, but thanks anyway. However, when it comes to personal injury from a MVA, at a certain point the extra kinetic energy doesn't matter. You're just as dead from a suicide vest as you are from a nuclear bomb.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176251)

I think I'm pretty well versed in physics and mathematics, but thanks anyway. However, when it comes to personal injury from a MVA, at a certain point the extra kinetic energy doesn't matter. You're just as dead from a suicide vest as you are from a nuclear bomb.

Originally Posted by photo1902 (Post 1176260)

Speeds above 50 mph, kinetic energy plateaus. 45/55 it's significant.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1176261)

So am I, thank you also. Statements such as 45 and 55 are about the same is just not correct as you don't know the critical speed where significant injury and death will occur. You may very well survive a crash at 45 but die at 55. The different in KE is significant.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176302)

You may be correct, I don't know the exact speed where it makes a significant difference, and there are a ton of variables. All I can say is my experience treating the victims of MVAs gives me the sense that 45 is frequently fatal.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1176306)

On ToTV, I have noticed that many people try to pass off opinions as facts.

Originally Posted by outlaw (Post 1176307)

In this case, I would lean toward mass (M) being much more important than the difference between 45 and 55 mph (V2). A dump truck is always going to win, even if it is in park. Much of the kinetic energy is not transferred to the smaller, lighter car. Otherwise, wouldn't the dump truck have had to come to a complete stop upon impact?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176308)

me too

Originally Posted by outlaw (Post 1176307)

In this case, I would lean toward mass (M) being much more important than the difference between 45 and 55 mph (V2). A dump truck is always going to win, even if it is in park. Much of the kinetic energy is not transferred to the smaller, lighter car. Otherwise, wouldn't the dump truck have had to come to a complete stop upon impact?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176310)

short answer---no

It's called momentum and is a product of mass and velocity. Which is why the dump truck loses to a locomotive

Originally Posted by outlaw (Post 1176311)

You two should join mensa.

Originally Posted by outlaw (Post 1176313)

So you're saying ALL the KE is transferred upon impact, even if the object is still moving?

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176312)

Although it would be nice---an interialess spacecraft would be a necessity for warp speeds!

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176316)

of course not

Originally Posted by outlaw (Post 1176318)

You lost me at interialess????

Originally Posted by outlaw (Post 1176311)

You two should join mensa.

Originally Posted by Retiring (Post 1176354)

I am a Mensa member, which only means when shown a picture of 3 rocks and a banana, I know which doesn’t belong.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176374)

depends. could be banana, bauxite, basalt and quartz.

Originally Posted by photo1902 (Post 1176378)

would be a good name for a band. Or a law firm.

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176379)

I can see the ads now----"Call us when you need rock solid representation":1rotfl::1rotfl:

Originally Posted by golfing eagles (Post 1176374)

depends. could be banana, bauxite, basalt and quartz.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 1176384)

OR...


Igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic and plaintains.

Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1175721)

Correct, there is no such thing as an accident. That word implies innocence.

Originally Posted by dave harris (Post 1176413)

accident:

"an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury."

"an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause."

Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1176441)

As we all...or at least the elite among us...know, there has never been a true "accident" in the history of the world.

Originally Posted by Polar Bear (Post 1176441)

As we all...or at least the elite among us...know, there has never been a true "accident" in the history of the world.

Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1176474)

I don't believe in fate or happenstance or magical thinking. Everything in this world has a natural cause. Typically by the hands of humans or animals or nature. Nothing happens by accident.

Originally Posted by RickeyD (Post 1176434)

Be that as it may if it makes you feel better. The fact is this, " accidents " occur because one or more parties to the " accident " did something STUPID. I prefer " crash " because that's what it is.

Originally Posted by tuccillo (Post 1176481)

You are driving along and and have a blowout that causes you to swerve into the other lane and hit another car. The tires are new and properly inflated. Nothing stupid was done. It was an accident.

Originally Posted by Marathon Man (Post 1176493)

For some reason the term 'accident' came to mean an auto collision with an object or another auto. A seperate meaning is something that happens out of anyone's control. I think that you are all correct.