5km/h slower and he'd only have a bruised leg

[malazn mafia]

... but 5km/h faster or more and the car would have passed before he crossed the street

Do you agree/disagree with this statement?

This is probably more a philosophical question, like who came first.. the chicken or the egg.

[uranium_death]

We don't know...
That's the thing about "**** happens"...
What if I am travelling at 105km/h and at exactly the spot where I would have been had I been going at 100km/h, a tree had fallen?

The argument is too open-ended...

[Krytox]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

the chicken or the egg.

The mountain came before the egg in monkey magic. :P

[g220ba]

Perhaps if he'd looked before stepping onto the street there wouldn't be an issue?

[93EB_SXR6]

Originally Posted by g220ba

Perhaps if he'd looked before stepping onto the street there wouldn't be an issue?

This. I'm tired of bleeding hearts that award people for being stupid.
When I was old enough to walk, I was told to look both ways before crossing the road.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Professor_Evans

This. I'm tired of bleeding hearts that award people for being stupid.
When I was old enough to walk, I was told to look both ways before crossing the road.

Correct. The bleeding hearts have ruined society. People need to take personal responsibility.

[dylancox]

If the year was 1850 and the driver and pedestrian met, the pedestrian would have been bumped over by the horse, suffered grazed arms and knees, cursed and swore at the driver, then picked himself up and kept walking.

Our Australian government policy, road safety campaigns and EPA all point at one thing.. lets go back to the 1850s.

[Jim Goose]

Dunno about that, a horse can still trample someone to death!

Hind sight is always a wonderful thing however, I shoulda taken that first left, I shoulda slowed down, I shoulda paid my rego, I shoulda called a taxi....

Its like saying if i was doing 55kmh when i got to the lights and it turned yellow i coulda stopped in time, where as if you were doing 65kmh the lights wouldve been still green!!!

You cant predict what will happen.....

[fangq]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

... but 5km/h faster or more and the car would have passed before he crossed the street

Do you agree/disagree with this statement?

This is probably more a philosophical question, like who came first.. the chicken or the egg.

Firstly, you can not change what has happened in the past. Having said that, it doesn't stop the philosophers talking about the " what ifs". Jeez, I need more wine to continue this thread :-)

Steve

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

People need to take personal responsibility.

What kind of a fantasy world are you living in?

[dylancox]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Dunno about that, a horse can still trample someone to death!

Hind sight is always a wonderful thing however, I shoulda taken that first left, I shoulda slowed down, I shoulda paid my rego, I shoulda called a taxi....

Its like saying if i was doing 55kmh when i got to the lights and it turned yellow i coulda stopped in time, where as if you were doing 65kmh the lights wouldve been still green!!!

You cant predict what will happen.....

If there's such thing as fate, keep it guessing by being unpredictable.. vary your speed all the time. If I've been caught out at a set of yellows going red and need to stop, full throttle away at green will keep the next couple sets of light green for me (turbocharged car helps). Likewise if I'm a fair distance away from the next set of lights and they are green, I'll slow down as much as possible to avoid needing to wait at the lights Ever since I did this a couple of years ago (always drive different routes/different speeds when possible), accidents for me have decreased by 100%

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

... but 5km/h faster or more and the car would have passed before he crossed the street

Do you agree/disagree with this statement?

This is probably more a philosophical question, like who came first.. the chicken or the egg.

Egg.

You cant get a chicken without an egg, but you can get an egg from a duck, emu, turtle and a myriad of other critters.

Im not touching the other part of that question.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Egg.

You cant get a chicken without an egg, but you can get an egg from a duck, emu, turtle and a myriad of other critters.

Im not touching the other part of that question.

Who laid the Egg, kept it warm to stop it from dying of low temperature, and stopped the rat from eating it

[matty88]

If he travelled at 200km/h, he would have passed the pedestrian before he even left his house

[vztrt]

Maybe the guy should get his eyes tested seeing he couldn't see the daft bird crossing the street with no other cars in sight.....maybe he was to busy texting.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by uranium_death

What kind of a fantasy world are you living in?

I know, it's sad, hey?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

... but 5km/h faster or more and the car would have passed before he crossed the street

Do you agree/disagree with this statement?

This is probably more a philosophical question, like who came first.. the chicken or the egg.

While most comments here a made in jest, I feel many are not getting the message of the ad.

Yes fellas, you can wax lyrical about how if you were going faster your paths wouldnt have met etc(Im sure we all know its stupid logic), but do 5km/h less and if "s.... happens" the consequences will be a lot less damaging or there may not even be consequences.

But i suppose you are all going to tell me you are better than the average person and this doesnt apply to you because you have superior road craft, can predict the unexpected, superior reflexes and all of that, yada, yada.

[vztrt]

Didn't take long.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

While most comments here a made in jest, I feel many are not getting the message of the ad.

Yes fellas, you can wax lyrical about how if you were going faster your paths wouldnt have met etc(Im sure we all know its stupid logic), but do 5km/h less and if "s.... happens" the consequences will be a lot less damaging or there may not even be consequences.

But i suppose you are all going to tell me you are better than the average person and this doesnt apply to you because you have superior road craft, can predict the unexpected, superior reflexes and all of that, yada, yada.

And if all cars were electronically limited to 20km/h NO ONE would die on the roads ever!!!!


I'm not saying we should speed, that's not my point. My point is people should take responsibility for themselves. If a pedestrian stepped onto the road without looking.... well wake up, what do you expect. The pedestrian may not of been thinking properly, or they were distracted, but that shouldn't matter. They did the wrong thing, they put themselves in the path of a car no ones fault but their own.

I bet if a car is driving along obeying the law and an idiot pedestrian steps 5 metres on front of them, the car driver will get in trouble right???

It's all a load of crap. No one wants responsibility for anything. Especially not their own actions. How could we ask such a thing of people.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Professor_Evans

This. I'm tired of bleeding hearts that award people for being stupid.
When I was old enough to walk, I was told to look both ways before crossing the road.

I would like to subscribe to your magazine.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by sudszy

But i suppose you are all going to tell me you are better than the average person and this doesnt apply to you because you have superior road craft, can predict the unexpected, superior reflexes and all of that, yada, yada.

You better believe it.
I dont have a problem - everyone else does.

[2011G6E]

Remember the road safety advert where the showed different accidents happening? One of them was a woman walking along the footpath and stepping straight out from between parked cars to be nailed by a passing car. They ignored the fact that even if the driver had been doing 40kph instead of the legal 60kph when she stepped directly in front of it as shown, he still would have smacked her down, given normal human reaction times of a couple of seconds.

Another beauty was the speed camera one where a guy was driving long a country highway, and got flashed by a camera. The picture fades out and he is shown changing a cassette tape and drifting across a corner because he wasn't looking ahead, to have a head on with another car. Then he's shown in hospital and his angry wife hands him a speeding camera notice, and he starts tearfully saying "I'm sorry", and his lovely caring wife says "tell that to his children!".
Now, it only lasted a month or two, as most people picked holes in it straight away:
* If he'd been physically pulled over by a policeman instead of just having a photo taken, he would have been delayed, and not have been at the same place at the same time to collide with the other guy.
* How much longer after the photo was taken did he have the accident? I mean, he was shown just to keep on driving after the photo was taken, so he could have continued on happily speeding for hours before the accident.
* Even doing a legal 100kph, if you drift across the center line on a corner and hit another car head on, one or both of you are just as dead given the impact speeds.
* The infringement notice turned up a long time later...how is this an immediate deterrent like being pulled over in person by a cop and being given a stern talking to?
The list of nit-picking went on. People aren't idiots and can see when it's just plain propoganda instead of a real safety message.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

And if all cars were electronically limited to 20km/h NO ONE would die on the roads ever!!!!


I'm not saying we should speed, that's not my point. My point is people should take responsibility for themselves. If a pedestrian stepped onto the road without looking.... well wake up, what do you expect. The pedestrian may not of been thinking properly, or they were distracted, but that shouldn't matter. They did the wrong thing, they put themselves in the path of a car no ones fault but their own.

I bet if a car is driving along obeying the law and an idiot pedestrian steps 5 metres on front of them, the car driver will get in trouble right???

It's all a load of crap. No one wants responsibility for anything. Especially not their own actions. How could we ask such a thing of people.

We have relatively low limits in suburbia because ..... happens, people step on to roads and misjudge how fast cars are going, people somehow dont see the car and pull out into the intersection, whatever, that's why we dont have 100km/h speeds in the city!

[BradZ]

At 55km you may just miss t-boning the drunken driver who just ran a red, but at 65km, you nail him.

There's no clear answer to this, and you can never stop people from doing stupid things.
Theres a time where 55km will not avoid impact, theres a time where 65km will also not avoid impact.

But when it does happen, 55km usually limits the amount of damage, to a certain degree.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Remember the road safety advert where the showed different accidents happening? One of them was a woman walking along the footpath and stepping straight out from between parked cars to be nailed by a passing car. They ignored the fact that even if the driver had been doing 40kph instead of the legal 60kph when she stepped directly in front of it as shown, he still would have smacked her down, given normal human reaction times of a couple of seconds.

Another beauty was the speed camera one where a guy was driving long a country highway, and got flashed by a camera. The picture fades out and he is shown changing a cassette tape and drifting across a corner because he wasn't looking ahead, to have a head on with another car. Then he's shown in hospital and his angry wife hands him a speeding camera notice, and he starts tearfully saying "I'm sorry", and his lovely caring wife says "tell that to his children!".
Now, it only lasted a month or two, as most people picked holes in it straight away:
* If he'd been physically pulled over by a policeman instead of just having a photo taken, he would have been delayed, and not have been at the same place at the same time to collide with the other guy.
* How much longer after the photo was taken did he have the accident? I mean, he was shown just to keep on driving after the photo was taken, so he could have continued on happily speeding for hours before the accident.
* Even doing a legal 100kph, if you drift across the center line on a corner and hit another car head on, one or both of you are just as dead given the impact speeds.
* The infringement notice turned up a long time later...how is this an immediate deterrent like being pulled over in person by a cop and being given a stern talking to?
The list of nit-picking went on. People aren't idiots and can see when it's just plain propoganda instead of a real safety message.

Im sure you could find some fault in every ad ever done, yes nit picking is it. But from all of this "Its all bs, propaganda?" you reckon there are only telling you about people fall asleep at the wheel, have head ons and that is all faked and these accidents dont really happen and their real motive is to?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by BradZ

At 55km you may just miss t-boning the drunken driver who just ran a red, but at 65km, you nail him.

What so save the DD to kill some ones family?

[BradZ]

No, but what if you have your family in the car at the time?

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by BradZ

No, but what if you have your family in the car at the time?

Bit of a chicken and egg situation isn't it.

[78xcgxl]

I think that the the extra 5km/h does make a difference but i also think that the type of brakes the car has also plays a factor but either way you can't predict the future. Plus how could you live with yourself knowing that if weren't traveling that extra 5km/h you could of saved the life of the person you hit.
I've found the ad on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVeI6...eature=related

[BradZ]

Yeah all I'm saying is that neither speed will avoid every accident. There's always someone in the wrong place at the wrong time.