Depends if you stop or just keep going after impact
I can't be expected to notice I've hit a pedestrian, so I'll be keeping going.
Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:46 PM
Depends if you stop or just keep going after impact
Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:16 PM
I can't be expected to notice I've hit a pedestrian, so I'll be keeping going.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:14 AM
The difference in time over a 25 K journey between 50 kph and 40 kph is less than 8 minutes. If that's a huge difference in your mind, you seriously need to slow down your life, man!
Posted 15 January 2013 - 08:59 AM
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:39 AM
If you slow traffic down so much that any brain dead half wit can drive in his sleep
you're bound to see a significant jump in the number of people who allow themselves to become distracted with phones, music, make-up, etc...
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:43 AM
What I'm reading here is a lot of deflection from the core issue. Physics, self driving cars and tinfoil hats but no real explanation of how a 50kph limit comes with a greater risk of a pedestrian being hit than 40kph does.
eseedhouse repeatedly states if a car hits a pedestrian, they stand a better chance if that car is travelling at 40kph than 50kph. I won't argue with that, but I am still unclear as to how the increased limit equates to a greater risk of the car hitting the pedestrian in the first place.
I know I keep asking that question, but let's move beyond the physics that take place once a car has left the road and is on a collision course with a pedestrian and instead focus on what causes the situation in the first place.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:44 AM
Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:18 AM
Back to basics: three words...driver reaction time
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:26 AM
B.C. Coroners Service report titled Analysis of Pedestrian Deaths 2009-2012 (YTD) that was sent to Commission members via email on December 6, 2012. Of the 221 traffic related pedestrian deaths, speed and alcohol were not big factors. Many of the crashes were at low speed, and involved turning drivers, poor pedestrian visibility, especially when dark, and/or distraction from both drivers and pedestrians.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:16 AM
This is such a bizarro argument. We have technology to be more efficient and move ourselves at a speed that wastes much less time in travel than 100 years ago.
And yet one man dies every four hours on the roads in Canada, while for women it's one every eight. And it is second only to suicides among the violent deaths.
Yeah man, our cars are so safe...
Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:23 AM
Back to the basics: three words...right of way
If everyone's paying attention and yielding the right of way properly, you don't have crashes.
Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:41 AM
And yet one man dies every four hours on the roads in Canada, while for women it's one every eight. And it is second only to suicides among the violent deaths.
Yeah man, our cars are so safe...
Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:44 AM
Yep, thats pretty much by definition. That doesn't really advance your argument that slowing down traffic will not help reduce crashes.
Edmonton's pilot project found driver speed was reduced by two to three km/h and did not lead to any statistically significant changes in the total number of collisions or severe collisions.
The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8 for the Phase I sites and in Table 9 for the Phase II sites. Based on the analysis, it appears that raising the limit from 90 km/h to 100 km/h resulted in a 12.9 percent reduction in crashes at the sites where speed limits were raised. The Phase II sites experienced an 8.6 percent reduction in total crashes. Both reductions are
statistically significant.
Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network
Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams
Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:02 PM
The reason we don't go down this crazy road
Posted 15 January 2013 - 10:12 PM
Eseed it appears you have a hate-on for anything with 4 wheels and an internal combustion engine and are grasping at anything to support your arguments.
Ah, well, I assumed that people reading this thread would be able to figure out the very simple google inquiry that lead me to this document. Apparently you chose not to do that.Please cite your sources when providing stats such as your last statement and also causes of said deaths
Strangely perhaps,I feel no need to justify a claim I never made.and how reducing the posted municipal speed limit to 40 will have an effect on the stats and the related study.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:22 AM
I think that your calling something you disagree with "crazy" doesn't make it crazy, and that your apparent need to use such adjectives suggest you really aren't so sure about your beliefs as you make out.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 08:33 AM
So instead of responding to any of the points you just avoid the argument entirely...
Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:18 AM
But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.
May I advise you to slow down and get yourself a life?
Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:20 AM
Well, if you could make your points without having to insult people who happen to disagree with you I might be interested. But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.
Of course I will admit it would be better for me to simply ignore you entirely. Alas, I still have many character failings.
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
Posted 16 January 2013 - 09:08 PM
Well, if you could make your points without having to insult people who happen to disagree with you I might be interested. But yeah, sorry, I don't feel like talking much to people who can't seem to write a civil message.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users