iMatchu

Please do I can't work out how to have accident without hitting anything! Surely it's just your car breaking down in that case? I think by definition of accident you have to hit something! or it's just a near miss!

... sigh Folks Before Posting Please Please Please do a little research and establish whether or not you're barking up the right tree (pun intended). Ken I implore you too go look at the accident stats break down on gov.uk Someone has already posted a link, go read them and then you'll realise that trees are one of the biggest risks of death on the roads Which roads kill the most? Rural road with national speed limits- what lines rural roads? Our survey says: Trees! So no you haven't proved at all that you're unlikely to hit a tree the opposite is true though! So fifth gear (although I know Jezza isn't there so it's might just be all lies and Cgi Effects) have done a nice little crash test with a tree to look at. I'll even link it for you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWegXQ81TKw And using the argument of probability is nonsense! of course it's got to be less than 1! if just one person survives a crash no matter how many are KSI then it's automatically less that 1.

Or maybe just maybe it was the lack of observation? Would of the truck moved over if he had seen him? No! And to me he look alive and rather shocked in that video rather than dead.... Losing the debate? make outrageous comments and try to make up stuff that rubbishes the others while using evidence that doesn't support your case! You really are getting desperate, just admit you're wrong and stop digging a hole for yourself- you've been completely out classed and out witted with this argument. or will we have to get Jezza to come and tell you to stop arguing? haha :sun:

I don't understand what you're trying to point out? I've not assumed, I've stated that the tree will be hit! How else would you remove other factors in the crash? Unless you're wanting to just fire cars at random in a forest and see which hit? We could end up with the result that it's the squirrels that kill. So if the KE(I assume you mean Kinetic Energy) is a risk factor then the death is the consequence? And as Kinetic Energy is directly proportional to speed we're still with the fact that in Speed is the "risk" And yet still the same results come out of it! "the risk of higher speeds increase the likelihood of death which is the consequence"? Oh look it's what I was explaining in the other post! Only 1/10,000,000 of trees being sentient and mobile beings with a past time of trying to catch motorists out? so we've over 30 million cars in the UK so worrying 3 people are attacked each year by trees!?!?! Wow I must go back and apologist to the people to claimed that happened to them as I for some unbeknown reason didn't trust their account of the crash.

wow just wow Please just stop, you lower the IQ of the whole forum every time you post. Do you understand the meaning of hypocrite? You claim to have never broken the limit and then explain that you have..... Don't you ever remember you parents telling just because someone else has done something doesn't mean you have to? Now it may just be me or just the word constant mean it stays the same? so you fluctuating from 65 to 70 mph isn't constant and therefore people doing 70 would eventually pass you..... I wonder if you were one of the challenged folk that like Mr Clarkson's uttered words as gospel truth even when the man himself response sarcastically to the fact they're classed as a factual show. I think that fits the definition of a brainwash man if ever! ha I also would like to point out that it's top gears "estimate" not a study nor fact finding research.

To win a Darwin award? I think you'd be a perfect candidate. Yes you could use Marc Bolan as a example( I heard he was on the radio on the day he died, and all over the windscreen) the fact that a drugged up marc hitting a tree at 10mph and 70mph would still have very similar results. But there marc bolan reference has no reason to be included as we're not discussing if drugs make you a bad driver. So are you saying if I never drink or use drugs I can crash into trees and be fine? I mean just I can't fathom how you even process that as a argument and think its a good point. and I would love to see a tree jumping into the air to hit a aircraft. And trees have always had a life threating property( not just since the invention of motor cars) particularly by the fact they don't move when they get hit. And 40+ years driving and you don't understand still how cars behave while under high speed travel is comically bad. there is a office you can return your licence in Swansea I believe?

I'm a little disappointed that you've only chose to response to 1 small part of my post but simple things for simple minds? But hey if you call things you don't understand "pseudo-science" I can forgive you. So I'll explain how science works to you (it's not magic and wizards just so you know) So I've hypothesized that excess speed kills. (okay? stay with me it not that hard.) Now we have a statement and we need to investigate and either prove or disprove it. So the experiment that I proposed is a 10mph tree crash and a 70mph tree crash. So let identify the variables in the experiment (Now this was a long and difficult process but after 3 hours of searching I couldn't find anymore). It turns out the only different is the speed and therefore I can now say "the only relevant factor to compare is the change in speed" (also know as Delta Speed) . So what would happen in the crashes? Now I understand that I haven't actually done this test is I do find live rather fun and would like to keep doing it but from looking on the magical picture box that talks to other picture boxes I found a few videos that say the deceleration(the technical term is retardation) on the internal organs would make a 70mph crash of this nature fatal. Now it is possible for some to die at 10mph crash it's a lot less likely than the 100% fatal 70mph. So now we can draw a comparison from the tests "with the increase of speed fatality's in increase as well" Where do we go from here? In a experiment where 1 factor has been changed and the outcome is the difference between them is you live in one and die in the other what can we draw from that experiment? that the change in condition must have caused the outcome. and as we haven't done anything different except the speed differential the speed must of killed the subject So if the speed didn't kill what did? I notice you've fail to identify the culprit in your ridicule of my reply! I suppose it could be the magical pixies or the Gnome King from under the hill? "No my lord, it was them pixies that kill him- honest!" Science lesson over. Now I think that this may hurt your brain to understand this but don't worry I'm here to explain any hard phrase or things you don't understand. I'm also interested where you found out that German cars are better maintained? If autobahns are safer to drive at higher speeds why do they have a lot more deaths per year than our motorways? And re: about the cameras having no options: You can appeal the fine or contest it in court much like the police officer? So yet another one of you claims is unfounded and quiet frankly I think disappointingly naïve and stupid to claim. And at risk of repeating myself "I still don't think there's a cure for stupid yet"

4.00ams not a safe time to speed and increase the consequences of a crash is it? What types of crashes cause the biggest disruptions? The ones that effect the daily rush hours and a 4.00am crash will certainly do that. Have you ever done a hard stop from 130mph to 0? You'll be lying if you say you have and still think it's safe for those sorts of speeds, with out testing it and seeing how you car reacts to those huge changes in forces you can't ever claim to be driving safely. Unless you're always driving at those speeds you have no reference to compare it to and react to a situation safely 70 compares to 130 is hugely difference. Even just at 100mph you've doubled your stopping distance compared to 70mph so I dread to thing what 130 is like. And in answer to you list; 1. Yet people still like to fit "budget tyres and part worn stupidity" 2. With improving car technology and reliability less folk are checking the condition of the car every day and tyres don't even get a look in to be checked. 3. And? at high speed power steering is irrelevant and it's not needed (and speed adjustable power steering turns it off at 60-70mph) 4. Glad you noticed that as well but not really relevant is it? 5. hmm I must of missed the part of the test where every one is now tested at motorway speed limit? And this stupid argument that speed doesn't kill! of course it flipping does! and to prove this point to anyone that disagrees try this for proof; Try driving into a tree at 10 mph then at 70 mph and let me the speed is irrelevant.... I don't think there is a cure for stupid yet :(

Considering 10% +2 rule has no legal standing so its 12mph over, When braking the real effective speed decrease happens right at the end it of it. Also the fact the faster you go the longer it takes to slow down the end cause would of meant he would of struck them probably at 35+ although I don't have the figures near me at the moment so can't verify them. I can't remember if I've confused the figures or not If you're doing only 40 instead of 30 you're still doing 28mph where you'd of stopped at 30 and the gap gets bigger the faster you go. The scary one I always remember is if you're doing 100mph and emergency brake you still doing 71mph at the point the 70mph emergency brake would of stopped. There is a TV clip of Angus McNairn and Gethin Jones (I think its them two?) doing a 50~ instead of 40 braking test I think for TV although I can find it atm that would show what I'm talking about.

Well a 140,000 lessons in about 4 years seems to me like reasonable take up and about 50% reduction in accident rate I would say it a very good idea. It's Called Admiral Young Driver www.youngdriver.eu And here is a Link to their Second Magazine https://www.youngdriver.eu/gfx/pictures/1395675673.pdf

With the asg reverse problem it's the way you select the gear is causing the problem, it doesn't like changing direction with out the brakes being on. I think pushing the brake as you select it will solve the problem but I've not drive a asg for a while.