Speed kills / physics puzzle

[libby lou lou]

£45 extra not to have points on a clean licence is well worth the money, if it will save a hefty hike in my insurance premium.




And how long as th1s been go1ng on.? 1t sa1d on the back of a fr1ends recent form ( po1ce enqu1ry regard1ng the dr1ver of alleged offence) that po1nts cannot be exchanged for cash!!!!

So, po1nts do make pr1zes, after all.( for the dvla at least.)


(ED1T....Don't tell me that theres 2 d1shonest people on here.)

 

[D_Hailsham]

£45 extra not to have points on a clean licence is well worth the money, if it will save a hefty hike in my insurance premium.

And how long as th1s been go1ng on.? 1t sa1d on the back of a fr1ends recent form ( po1ce enqu1ry regard1ng the dr1ver of alleged offence) that po1nts cannot be exchanged for cash!!!!

So, po1nts do make pr1zes, after all.( for the dvla at least.)

You are invited to attend a "speed awareness" course. If you accept, you will not have to pay the £60 fixed penalty and no points will be put on your licence. The cost of the course - which is "self funding" (i.e makes a profit) is £105. As you will have to pay £60 in either case, you only have to pay an extra £45 to keep a clean licence.

PS Why do you type 1 when you mean to type i? So used to using 1 instead of i in a password?

 

[mark vincent]

We all know that speed alone isn't enough to cause death, and that stopping very quickly can hurt a lot, but what's your intuitive answer to the following?

A child runs into the road and falls in front of a car travelling at 30mph. The driver brakes quickly enough to stop the car with its bumper about 1mm from the stationary child, and nobody is hurt.

Under identical conditions, i.e. same weather, same car, same driver, same braking, same road, and same child, a car whose initial speed was more than 30mph would hit the child instead of stopping short. What would the impact speed be in the following example of speed at the moment of starting to brake?

32mph:

35mph:

38mph:



Please note:- although reaction times are important in real life, they would make this exercise too complicated, so please take it that the driver's reaction time is precisely zero. In practise this would increase the speed at impact, so the purpose of the exercise is still valid.

PS - If you already know the answers, perhaps you could sit on your hands for a while, so that others can have a go. Thanks.
__________________

PPS - There is no conveyor belt anywhere in this scenario.

__________________

Edited to make reaction times irrelevant.

It would all depend on the colour of the child and if Bernard Manning was driving.

 

[Homesafe]

We all know that speed alone isn't enough to cause death, and that stopping very quickly can hurt a lot, but what's your intuitive answer to the following?

A child runs into the road and falls in front of a car travelling at 30mph. The driver brakes quickly enough to stop the car with its bumper about 1mm from the stationary child, and nobody is hurt.

Under identical conditions, i.e. same weather, same car, same driver, same braking, same road, and same child, a car whose initial speed was more than 30mph would hit the child instead of stopping short. What would the impact speed be in the following example of speed at the moment of starting to brake?

32mph:

35mph:

38mph:



Please note:- although reaction times are important in real life, they would make this exercise too complicated, so please take it that the driver's reaction time is precisely zero. In practise this would increase the speed at impact, so the purpose of the exercise is still valid.

PS - If you already know the answers, perhaps you could sit on your hands for a while, so that others can have a go. Thanks.
__________________

PPS - There is no conveyor belt anywhere in this scenario.

__________________

Edited to make reaction times irrelevant.

It would all depend on the colour of the child and if Bernard Manning was driving.

no one has took the bernard theory into the equasion ,
mind you he's been not alive for a while now, it always get's difficult to drive when you'v been incinerated

 

[hairyben]

It really depends if the driver is staring at his speedo having swallowed wholesale the "speed kills" propganda and doesn't see the kid, or if he's scanning the road and pavements for danger, sees the kid and pre-empts the situation by easing off and covering his brake.

"hit me at 40 and there's an 80% chance I'll die.
hit me at 30 and there's a 20% chance I'll die."

11,000 kids were hit by cars last year, 300 something died. While thats unquestionably horrible and needs to be reduced, it shows us that this fixation on making people stare at their speedo to not go over 30 is not the solution.

Speed kills. a simplistic message for stupid people from an arrogant regime. and a policy thats seen relative road safety deteriorate.

 

[Softus]

If people are fixating and starting at their speedos, then this is down to poor education, not the law and its enforcement.

For example, if you select 3rd gear and tickle the throttle, then the average normal road car (i.e. something with a top speed IRO 120mph) will not take you above 30ish mph.

And anyone with more than a cursory amount of driving experience knows what 30mph feels like, without the need to look at the speedo at all.

 

[WDIK]

surely at increased speeds, the child would be in the road after the car had passed?

 

[Trazor]

surely at increased speeds, the child would be in the road after the car had passed?

Impeccable logic, apart from the following car........

 

[mark vincent]

We all know that speed alone isn't enough to cause death, and that stopping very quickly can hurt a lot, but what's your intuitive answer to the following?

A child runs into the road and falls in front of a car travelling at 30mph. The driver brakes quickly enough to stop the car with its bumper about 1mm from the stationary child, and nobody is hurt.

Under identical conditions, i.e. same weather, same car, same driver, same braking, same road, and same child, a car whose initial speed was more than 30mph would hit the child instead of stopping short. What would the impact speed be in the following example of speed at the moment of starting to brake?

32mph:

35mph:

38mph:



Please note:- although reaction times are important in real life, they would make this exercise too complicated, so please take it that the driver's reaction time is precisely zero. In practise this would increase the speed at impact, so the purpose of the exercise is still valid.

PS - If you already know the answers, perhaps you could sit on your hands for a while, so that others can have a go. Thanks.
__________________

PPS - There is no conveyor belt anywhere in this scenario.

__________________

Edited to make reaction times irrelevant.

It would all depend on the colour of the child and if Bernard Manning was driving.

difficult to no one has took the bernard theory into the equasion ,
mind you he's been not alive for a while now, it always get's drive when you'v been incinerated

It would also slow down his reaction time considerbly.

 

[WDIK]

and the answer is?

 

[Trazor]

It would also slow down his reaction time considerbly.

You mean he would not be able to speed up quickly enough..........

and the answer is?

49?

 

[WDIK]

42

 

[Homesafe]

has this become a wild guessing excersize???????

 

[WDIK]

Douglas Adams