From: John Tserkezis 
Reply-To: Fidonet AVtech Echo 

Bob Lawrence wrote:

>  Bullshit! I thought, so I adjourned to the back room and Newton's
> Laws... and they're right. At the point where the car at 60 just
> stops, the one at 65 really is doing 27K. Crunch! You can't argue
> with physicas and Newton.

  The laws of physics are right, but as you've found out, in the "right" 
circumstances, it can be fatal.
  How a normal person gets themselves into this "right" situation
on the other 
hand is a totally different story.

>  But it's bullshit, I know that because fatals don't happen at 65K
> but I couldn't see why.
> 
>  I was in the shower this morning still thinking it over when I saw
> what they'd done! It had been spun! The spin doctors had been at it!
> 
> 1.  The actual stopping distance for 0.8g (a car in good condition)
>    is 17m plus 8m for response = 25m and 2.5 seconds. How does a semi
>    get right across the road in 2.5s? You'd drive around it as soon
>    as you saw you couldn't stop in time. At worst, you'd go around
>    the corner with the semi. Reality has been spun.

  Much like the teenager speeding at 70 to get to McDonalds faster.  He gets 
clipped on the rear quarter by a car trying to turn in, and ends up against a 
pole.  Too bad that doesn't happen in real life.
  They say "Don't try this at home, this has been performed under tight 
supervision" is exactly right.  The circumstances have been so tightly 
controlled, that it will never happen in real life.

>  It looks to me like they're getting ready to make this silly 50K
> limit the standard... down from the more sensible 60K. Dr Goebbels
> rides again. They used to call it propaganda, now it's spin.

  It's been done.  There are streets in North Sydney that are classed as 40 
(full time), and one has gone down to 10.

> Actually, I don't give a fuck. The only time I'm under the limit is
> when I'm accelerating, braking, or passing a speed camera.

  Just like everyone else.

>  BTW, my tip for the next spin is old drivers. They'll be telling us
> how dangerous 70 yo's are next.

  The reason for this is statistics.  At about 65, the _average_ driver is at 
about the same risk of an accident as an 18 YO.  As you get older, the 
statistics get worse.
  These numbers are gauged on risk of a prang per kilometre travelled.  18 YO 
do lots of K's, 80 YO don't.  So the real risk is actually lower than what they 
imply.

  But again, it's all statistics and bullshit.  You go in however every often 
for the test, and prove that you're still within their definintion of "good 
enough".

-- 
       -o)
       /\\    Message void if penguin violated
      _\_V    Don't mess with the penguin

Linux Registered User # 302622                         http://counter.li.org>
Fido: 3:712/610  BBS/FAX: +61-2-9716-8310  Internet: jt{at}techniciansyndrome.org

--- ifmail v.2.15