Calls for 80k on highways.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

hmm, most highway roads in nz are undivided, and im pretty sure nz's road toll is lower per capita...

That's because most arent long enough to get upto 100 on...!

[nstg8a]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

That's because most arent long enough to get upto 100 on...!

lol, i was expecting something about sheep...


but i reckon it has more to do with the fact that some drivers in aussie get used to the feeling of 'safety' on multi lane divided highways, then turn to dithering morons when faced with just one lane, and traffic coming straight at them...

where as in nz everyone is used to undivided roads so dont 'panic' and are more able to drive safely.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

FFS, there is a HUGE thread on this. You are completely wrong. It has been proven mathematically, demonstrated using physics models and finally confirmed by testing authorities stating "we crash into a wall as that simulates a head on of two vehicles traveling at the same speed"

[flappist]

I have a really good idea. Instead of dropkicks trying to find a way of surviving head on crashes how about AVOIDING head on crashes......

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

:

Next you'll be saying that a plane can't take off on a conveyor belt.

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by flappist

I have a really good idea. Instead of dropkicks trying to find a way of surviving head on crashes how about AVOIDING head on crashes......

How dare you use common sense.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Rodp

:

Next you'll be saying that a plane can't take off on a conveyor belt.

What about if two planes crashed head on while attempting to take off on conveyor belts. Would there be more of less beer drunk at the AFF XMAS party than if one of the planes was actually a safety camera and the conveyor belt was Harold Scruby while the other was a Leopold tank on a W427?

[JC]

Originally Posted by Piotr

Your maths is a major fail, If two similar cars hit head-on @ 80km/h it is the equivalent of hitting a solid object at 80km/h NOT 160km/h

How can that be? If two cars travelling in the same direction hit, and one is doing 80, and the other is doing 81, would it not be the same as the car travelling at 1 km/h into a wall? ie bugger all damage? If that's true, then surely if they are headed in different directions and hit, then the speed must be combined - maybe not fully, but it's got to be harder than htting a solid immovable object at 80, since the thing travelling the other way not only has speed but movement too.

Instead of just saying "major fail", how about explaining/proving, because I'm 100% sure that my physics teacher (20+ years ago) taught us that force applied in opposite directions cancels, and we all know that two cars that head hit on don't suffer no damage, therefore I took that to mean that the force cancelling creates massive energy which is in the form of huge damage to each car - more than each car hitting a solid immovable object. Happy to be shown to be wrong, and as flappist suggests, not keen to find out in the real world, so I'd rather just avoid the head on, but an 80kmh limit is not necessarily going to do that.

[JC]

Originally Posted by flappist

FFS, there is a HUGE thread on this. You are completely wrong. It has been proven mathematically, demonstrated using physics models and finally confirmed by testing authorities stating "we crash into a wall as that simulates a head on of two vehicles traveling at the same speed"

Link please? Just for my own edumacation.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

lol, i was expecting something about sheep...


but i reckon it has more to do with the fact that some drivers in aussie get used to the feeling of 'safety' on multi lane divided highways, then turn to dithering morons when faced with just one lane, and traffic coming straight at them...

where as in nz everyone is used to undivided roads so dont 'panic' and are more able to drive safely.

Or maybe we have undivided highways in Aus that are many times longer than NZ? Then after driving for 10-15+ hours at the same constant speed looking at the same bush on the side of the road people lose concentration and come to a sudden stop.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by JC

Link please? Just for my own edumacation.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11282496

[smee323]

Some of our roads have a single strip of bitumen and dont even have a centre line.
You soon learn to give way etc and become more aware on these roads.

As above, people have become complacent travelling like sheep at 60kph in the city doing makeup, reading books etc and as soon as they head out onto a highway at 100kph or more do not know what to do.

Just look at the number of morons whom sit in the right hand lane doing 80 because they think it is their right to do so. Even the big frack off sign saying keep left has no affect. They just zone out.

What next a man witha red flag, and if you don't display it, Mr Plod on his horse will pull you over. And if he can't catch you the pigs in space will.

[JC]

Originally Posted by flappist

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11282496

Thanks, but which post in the many is correct? I think I'll back to IT - so much easier!

[JC]

Originally Posted by smee323

Some of our roads have a single strip of bitumen and dont even have a centre line.
You soon learn to give way etc and become more aware on these roads.

As above, people have become complacent travelling like sheep at 60kph in the city doing makeup, reading books etc and as soon as they head out onto a highway at 100kph or more do not know what to do.

Just look at the number of morons whom sit in the right hand lane doing 80 because they think it is their right to do so. Even the big frack off sign saying keep left has no affect. They just zone out.

What next a man witha red flag, and if you don't display it, Mr Plod on his horse will pull you over. And if he can't catch you the pigs in space will.

Actually, blue flag means you have a car behind you - red flag means race is over.e

[DOC]

calls for an 80k speed limit ? - these would be the same fools who for the last 10 years have been sprouting road safety and as a result our roads are worse now than ever before ?

100k bores me shietless on the highway 80k will put me to sleep while i drive.

[Scott]

Look out for the Government doing is a favour and only reducing limits to 95km/h. Leak out some really terrible scenario then be the white knight by only going half as bad, or twice as good (as any spin doctor would put it). Spew.

Next thing some bearded, tweed wearing silver back will say "all cars older than 20 years should be banned from our roads" only to have the gummit save us again and say "well we think that 40 years would be better".

Sew the seeds, let some schmuck take the fall then implement a "better" scenario so our ********** sandwich tastes a little better.

[JC]

Flappist, I think I got it. The energy/force applied when 2 cars hit head on is the same as a car hitting a wall at 200, but that energy is absorbed between 2 cars instead of one, so is shared, just like one car hitting a wall at 100. Your infinitely thin wall did it for me - nice explanation.

The impact on each car changes slightly when two vehicles of different mass hit (let's assume squarely head on, because vectors will change the force being applied and to whom), because the energy is still the same but the force applied by each mass to the other is in proportion to it's size/mass, so the larger car will inflict more damage on the smaller and vice versa. Crumple zones help keep energy away from the occupants, but at the right speed, it will still make a mess, and sounds like the right speed is over 80.

Moral of the story - if you have a head on, make sure you're in the bigger (heavier) car.

Bigger moral - avoid head ons, or any collision at all, if you can.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by JC

Moral of the story - if you have a head on, make sure you're in the bigger (heavier) car.

Only if your measure of safety is which car looks better, not which occupant cell performed better. Weight is purely one of many factors, and not always a good one in all instances.

Originally Posted by JC

Bigger moral - avoid head ons, or any collision at all, if you can.

Amen.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

lol, i was expecting something about sheep...


but i reckon it has more to do with the fact that some drivers in aussie get used to the feeling of 'safety' on multi lane divided highways, then turn to dithering morons when faced with just one lane, and traffic coming straight at them...

where as in nz everyone is used to undivided roads so dont 'panic' and are more able to drive safely.

I'd say NZ drivers are better then people in Australia (well from my experience).
It is funny how you guys have a BAC limit of 0.08 yet have lower deaths per capita.

[LTDHO]

Oh my god....

"Police crash investigator Sen-Sgt Bellion calls for ‘survivable’ 80km/h limit on undivided roads"

Is this a real police officer or a fake name used to lessen the embarrassment?

If it is a real Senior Sergeant, then he must have made his way through the ranks quickly as he sounds like he is 10 years old.

So he wants people to take longer getting to their destination, make the roads more congested. More aggravated road users. Higher tempers.

My advice to Sen-Sgt Bellion. Buy some bubble wrap, You seem to precious to be on the road, so wrap yourself up and lock yourself in a padded room.

[merlin]

If head ons on undivided roads is the issue why don't they just make these roads one-way. This would have the added benefit of doubling the amount of lanes.

[Yellow_Festiva]

80?? Too fast. I rekon if it was 60 the survival rate would be higher? Hang on... I guess if we were driving 30, we would impact at such a slow rate that we would have time to bail out the door.

Lets make it 20? This way, we have time to call the person that we are about to hit to warn them of the imminent impact... oh, can't call while driving.

So... perhaps if we push the cars rather than drive them, there is a larger crumple zone to absorb the impact.. oh, we are a nation of brake checking tailgaters.. so no good. My *** has nil space to crumple.

Lets all walk then??? Turn all motorways into large footpaths. Will save the government zillions in health as we will all become slim and healthy in the process.

Oh, but some of us need to actually get places in a certain timeframe. One brighter spark will then ask, why are we walking on these freeways when we used to drive on them at 100-110 in newer cars that are pretty cheap and much safer than they were 15-20 years ago when the limits were still the same.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by merlin

If head ons on undivided roads is the issue why don't they just make these roads one-way. This would have the added benefit of doubling the amount of lanes.

yeah, but how do you get home? :

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Oh great, I live out in the middle of tum buk too and my roads are all "country highways", the day they go 80km/h is the day I kill myself, I'd die of old age before I got to work.

given that 80% of the roads are not divided, it basically becomes a state-wide limit. and i agree, 100 is very boring. i won't kill myself, tho i may have a lot of unpaid speeding tickets.

[Brazen]

Dont let people be distracted by whats going on, there is a growing argument to actually increase speed limits on some rural roads up to 130kmh. You will see so called government 'experts' counteracting this push with a call to decrease, that way the government can keep everyone happy by keeping the limits the same, it is just away to avoid debating the merits of increasing the speed limits.


Australia is very unique, a lot of the rural undivided highways should be treated as divided as they have little oncoming traffic, ie you have the whole road to yourself 98% of the time. Head-ons are usually caused by inattention and fatigue, decreasing the speed limits will dramatically increase head-ons.

PS I dont know how people live in Victoria, I find the 100kmh rural limits bad enough. No wonder everyone there is moving to QLD, leaving the people who enjoy the nanny state to vote in the same government again.

[merlin]

Originally Posted by aussie muscle

yeah, but how do you get home? :

This is a selfish attitude. Think of the children. :

[Smoke Pursuit]

One things for sure.. They will double their revenue!!

[73gscoupe]

Originally Posted by flappist

FFS, there is a HUGE thread on this. You are completely wrong. It has been proven mathematically, demonstrated using physics models and finally confirmed by testing authorities stating "we crash into a wall as that simulates a head on of two vehicles traveling at the same speed"

When two cars crash, head on, the energy of the crash is absorbed by both cars in the crumple zone. hence, if both are travelling at 80 ks, each must absorb 80 k's worth (assuming the cars have identical crumple zones).

When you crash a car into a concrete barrier, the concrete does not deform, hence absorbs no energy. So all the energy must be absorbed by the cars crumple zone. So, this becomes indicative of a head on collision.

When your driving along, and a semi with a nice big bullbar collects you head on, the bull bar basically does not deform or absorb any energy. So its left up to you car to absorb all that energy. If you were travelling at 80, and he was traveling at 80, your effective speed is in fact close to 160.

So in answer to the problem it depends on how much the object you hit deforms.

Lowering to 80 kms is a rection to bad drivers, falling asleep, not watching the road. What can you do? People just dont care about the consequence of their actions.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by JC

Flappist, I think I got it. The energy/force applied when 2 cars hit head on is the same as a car hitting a wall at 200, but that energy is absorbed between 2 cars instead of one, so is shared, just like one car hitting a wall at 100. Your infinitely thin wall did it for me - nice explanation.

The impact on each car changes slightly when two vehicles of different mass hit (let's assume squarely head on, because vectors will change the force being applied and to whom), because the energy is still the same but the force applied by each mass to the other is in proportion to it's size/mass, so the larger car will inflict more damage on the smaller and vice versa. Crumple zones help keep energy away from the occupants, but at the right speed, it will still make a mess, and sounds like the right speed is over 80.

Moral of the story - if you have a head on, make sure you're in the bigger (heavier) car.

Bigger moral - avoid head ons, or any collision at all, if you can.

No read it again.

The car was doing 100 and is now stopped. THAT IS ALL THAT WAS INVOLVED.

[scoupedy]

when does this stop??? i heard that that the survivability of an accident at 0kmph is almost 100%

Originally Posted by Nikked

No, because the "object" is carrying energy, so the impact is greater then hitting a stationary solid object.

Two objects with energy and two that absorb energy, as opposed to one object with energy and one that obsorbs the energy - your statement would be true if one of the cars in the head on doesn't get damaged or slow down at all in the collision- and therefore transmitting all of its energy into the other

[scoupedy]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

80?? Too fast. I rekon if it was 60 the survival rate would be higher? Hang on... I guess if we were driving 30, we would impact at such a slow rate that we would have time to bail out the door.

Lets make it 20? This way, we have time to call the person that we are about to hit to warn them of the imminent impact... oh, can't call while driving.

So... perhaps if we push the cars rather than drive them, there is a larger crumple zone to absorb the impact.. oh, we are a nation of brake checking tailgaters.. so no good. My *** has nil space to crumple.

Lets all walk then??? Turn all motorways into large footpaths. Will save the government zillions in health as we will all become slim and healthy in the process.


Oh, but some of us need to actually get places in a certain timeframe. One brighter spark will then ask, why are we walking on these freeways when we used to drive on them at 100-110 in newer cars that are pretty cheap and much safer than they were 15-20 years ago when the limits were still the same.

Love it couldn't have said it better