Worst Car Accidents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Hi John

This could turn into one of those soapbox debates. Crime and crashes do cost (are a net loss to) the economy in financial terms. However the employment of large numbers of people in all the various associated areas create economic activity in their own right, much of it internally generated.

It is all very well to suggest that the society would be better off investing that economic activity in other areas of social benefit, but would that activity actually occur, would Government or industry actually fund it, would the citizens want to have their tax money spent on activities for community benefit if it wasn't an identified need?

The fact that crime and crashes occur, creates needs that must be met and those needs are met by employing people. People who would not be employed without those needs.

Just food for thought.

Diana

---

I am with Diana.

We shouldn't try and cure Cancer because we'll have all those unemployed Medical staff.

We shouldn't try and stop arsonists because Scania will sell less fire tenders.

We shouldn't stop terrorism because Chubb will have to lay off staff.

Geez, we shouldn't stop the Arms Race because General Electric will have to stop building thermonuclear devices.


I haven't even considered all those poor insurance salespersons and lawyers that will be out of a job.

:twisted::angel::p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewGJones

......
it always has struck me as nonsensical to be able to buy a vehicle (if i so choose) capable of over twice the maximum legal speed limit, which itself is probably twice the speed safe to actually drive at.
....

---

Few vehicles are designed for a particular maximum speed - in most cases the maximum speed capability of a vehicle is the result of designing it to be able to, for example, travel at maximum legal speed fully loaded up the steepest incline likely to be found - without specifically fitting a maximum speed governor, this results in a maximum speed well above the legal limit - and of course, this also begs the question "the maximum legal speed where?". I also find it difficult to think of any place where the speed limit is actually twice the safe speed, at least in normal conditions - my experience would be the reverse applies.

John

Cripes, I thought Diana was just making a particularly bad joke.

good points, John. By 'safe speed' i mean the difference between a survivable 60kmh head on crash and a 'can't work which body part came from which car' 110kmh head on crash.

I enjoy wondering wide eyed the way we all can pull off the death defying act we call 'driving' at the speeds we do, it is pretty amazing passing within a meter of each other with little margin for error, it's just something that I notice as being completely foreseeable in how very wrong it can go so quickly and for what?

i would love to have the time to slow right down, rushing everywhere all the time is wearing a bit thin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewGJones

good points, John. By 'safe speed' i mean the difference between a survivable 60kmh head on crash and a 'can't work which body part came from which car' 110kmh head on crash.

I enjoy wondering wide eyed the way we all can pull off the death defying act we call 'driving' at the speeds we do, it is pretty amazing passing within a meter of each other with little margin for error, it's just something that I notice as being completely foreseeable in how very wrong it can go so quickly and for what?

i would love to have the time to slow right down, rushing everywhere all the time is wearing a bit thin.

---

I think you are confusing "possible" with "probable". Driving can be dangerous, but so can many other aspects of life, and road accident statistics, as I have pointed out, have been going down ever since reliable figures started being collected. And for that matter, so has the incidence of most causes of death. And deaths from smoking still are far higher than those from driving, despite the fact that only about 20% of Australians smoke, where almost all are exposed to road accidents.

An interesting point, relative to your wonder - when I was learning to fly, almost sixty years ago, all the instructors and students had no hesitation about wearing full harness when flying (we were training in aerobatic aircraft) but ridiculed me for wearing a seatbelt while driving, where, as you point out, we pass within a metre of each other at speeds comparable to light aircraft, where in these we are almost never anywhere near that close to anything we can hit, except the ground when landing or taking off.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewGJones

i was driving out to southern cross before xmas and I had to watch in disbelief as a toyota landcruiser (!) used the over taking lane meant for MY SIDE of the road to pass a truck. luckily, like the good boy I am, I was on the left lane as i should be (not overtaking).

Amazing lack of intelligence coupled with a 600nm twin turbo 4.5 techno-diesel = future youtube fodder.

---

Providing he had a broken line on his side of the road, then he was overtaking perfectly legally.

I can't be sure, (I'll have a look next time I'm out there) but I think there are double white lines at the overtaking points. i thought that is the whole point of the extra lane being on my side of the road, so I can overtake without the danger of having oncoming traffic, if it was intended that the other side could also use it (through having a broken centre line) seems to defeat the purpose.

don't all dual carriage ways have continuous centre lines? Now you have got me thinking!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sleepy

I am with Diana.

We shouldn't try and cure Cancer because we'll have all those unemployed Medical staff.

We shouldn't try and stop arsonists because Scania will sell less fire tenders.

We shouldn't stop terrorism because Chubb will have to lay off staff.

Geez, we shouldn't stop the Arms Race because General Electric will have to stop building thermonuclear devices.

I haven't even considered all those poor insurance salespersons and lawyers that will be out of a job.

:twisted::angel::p

---

While you're agreeing with me, I dont necessarily agree with your explanations.

Skipping the first, Scania will still sell fire trucks because arson is not the only cause of fire.

The people at Chubb have jobs because of criminals and terrorists. Stopping terrorism will employ more people.

Making thermonuclear devices and missile systems is not the problem, using them is the problem, so employ as many people as you like in manufacture and security of devices but employ no one in missile control! :twisted:

You neglected to mention the employment of all the people making and distributing car crash videos!

I can't believe I have to actually put this in writing, but continuing to push this theory that car accidents are great moneyspinners for the local economy and that we wouldn't have TV shows such as "Most amazing car crashes", "Cops", and "Highway Patrol", when someone else has repeatedly pointed out that he has lost a family member in the exact circumstances that you are describing.... well, at best, it's extremely insensitive, at worst.... well who knows.

You can argue all day about what how we'd never have judges, lawyers, insurance reps, etc, but you can't put a dollar value on what a family has to go through when one of theirs is killed in such a manner. Nor can you put a dollar value on what the rescue services have to do to scrape parts of a body off the road, pull a dead kid from the wreckage of a car, the list goes on. Theres no "economic value" in that.

Ny $0.02, for what it's worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndrewGJones

i thought that is the whole point of the extra lane being on my side of the road, so I can overtake without the danger of having oncoming traffic, if it was intended that the other side could also use it (through having a broken centre line) seems to defeat the purpose.

don't all dual carriage ways have continuous centre lines? Now you have got me thinking!

---

You'd have priority over any oncoming cars but providing the road markings were suitable, then the other car is entitled to use your overtaking lane.

Here's a road near me where this is the case (Heathcote Rd near Liverpool):
-34.029481,150.963553 in Google Maps & go to street view.