And travelling at 20ks everywhere many would probably fall asleep at the wheel:angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
Printable View
And travelling at 20ks everywhere many would probably fall asleep at the wheel:angel:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
My point was that people don't seem to realise that it is the speed that kills most of the time no matter what the cause of the accident. This includes the speed of a shackle fired by a broken strap. If the snatch is more gentle, the potential for damage is greatly reduced. It's not a linear relationship either, a little less gives a far better safety result.
Fatigue is a factor. Some years ago, we used to travel to Sydney each year, to visit my wife's folks. One time, just over the border, where the road had a concrete surface [ I think ] I fell asleep. And went into a dream, where in that dream, I was driving in a straight line, it was so real. The only thing that saved us, was when I hit a post on the side of the road, and woke up. Just before a right hand corner. I had worked some 12 hour days before travel, and did not have enough sleep. Lesson learned. Bob
Quote:
Originally Posted by boa
If you look at reported 'success' rates for random breath testing, the proportion of drivers above the legal limit is invariably below 1%, usually well below. (And these 'random' campaigns are often not random, but deliberately target times and places where affected drivers are more likely).
If we then compare reported rates drivers involved in fatal accidents being above the legal limit, various reported rates are invariably above 20%. And these are not random - testing of all drivers involved in fatal accidents is mandatory.
Comparison of these two figures shows that alcohol affected drivers are at least 2,000% more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than unaffected drivers. No other accident factor can realistically be shown to be as frequently involved, mainly because the data is clearly incomplete.
Far from singling out one possible cause, I pointed out that all accidents have multiple factors. There is no single cause to any accident, but multiple factors.
In reality, it is impossible for most accidents to accurately identify all the factors involved, but the one I singled out is one that can be identified in many. Another factor that is easy to identify is road conditions - a simple comparison of accident rates on freeways compared to undivided roads illustrates this, and it is easy to see (but difficult to quantify) that differences in road construction will also have an effect.
To take a real life example - today I drove along the Mitchell Hwy between Dubbo and Wellington, and noted the location of a fatal accident on that road a couple of days ago. One obvious factor in the accident is that it occurred after police attempted to stop the car (not published why, could have been a traffic infringement, stolen car, unregistered car, car used in another offence etc). In this circumstance it is reasonable to assume that speed was also a factor (speed limit there is 110). Judging from arrests in similar circumstances, there is a high probability that the driver was under the influence of one or more drugs (including alcohol), another possible factor. The road has a slight RH bend, but with no sign, no barrier on the outside of the bend - and a very substantial pole (carrying an overhead stay to the power line along the road) about five metres from the road, which the car hit. So road conditions were clearly a factor. Given the weather at the time it is just possible there was ice on the road, or it may have just been wet. Another possible factor.
The word 'accident' is only an escape from responsibility for those unfamiliar with the meaning of the word - which simply means something unintended. (An unknown number may well be actually intended, and these really are not accidents)
However, regardless of the factors involved in an accident, the primary responsibility for the accident, as with, for example, a ship or an aeroplane, remains with the person in control, the driver. Certainly, there will be cases where it is clear that another person, often the driver of another vehicle, has equal or perhaps greater responsibility. (and I emphasise that I am not talking about legal responsibility - that depends on the law, not real life).
A bit long winded, but I hope this has made my views clearer.
John
As I pointed out above, no accident has a single cause, and almost no accidents are thoroughly investigated. The attributions that form the basis of these tables come from the police reports, and really are little more tha informed opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco Muppet
Speed rates a frequentmention because it is something that can be measured or calculated from skid marks etc. And, in the sense that in an accident, the greater the speed, the greater the likliehood of injury or death - but this does not necessarily mean that speed is a factor in the accident happening.
John
i wish more people would realise this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW
Amen.
Except it isn't possible to have an accident if no speed is involved.
Difficult, but can probably be managed. Depends how you define a motor vehicle accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by mikehzz
For example, there is the whole range of two vehicle accidents where one vehicle is stopped. Then there are accidents with single stationary vehicles, including those who manage to kill themselves with vehicles falling off jacks, and cars that catch fire while stopped for various reasons.
John
Too true JDNSW. There are the Factors which cause an incident and those which determine the outcome.