A nice sunny Sunday morning when the road is empty 100mph is not dangerous. 50mph in the fog in rush hour is. Speed cameras don't generally account for that. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.
Damn right.
In NSW we have recently had a safety campaign built around the idea that "there's no such thing as safe speeding". This is fundamentally rediculous, since what is "safe" is not a constant for many reasons. Rossi (I ride a motorcycle) is safer at 100kph on his motoGP bike than Mr L plater zipping around at 60 on his scooter.
Furthermore, many speed limits were reduced from 60 to 50 or 40kph just before this campaign began. So if there is no such thing as safe speeding, does this mean the government was putting me at risk by having a speed limit of 60 before it was dropped by 10 or 20 kph?
Finally, their "real life" examples are completely flawed. One of them shows a driver deciding to overtake a column of stationary traffic. He pulls into a clear lane and his speed is 65. Suddenly a car trying to cross an intersection sticks its nose out past the stationary row. Said driver hits nose of car and spins out into a post. Not only was this entirely the stupid "I'll just stick my nose out without really knowing whether or not it is safe" driver's fault, but if the guy had been going, say, 75, he may have gotten past the intersection before nosey ever arrived.
While my own points are nitpicking, I will end by reiterating my support for the parent. I would be rather annoyed to be fined for going slightly over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway.
PS: I have never had a ticket for any driving infringement.
Which all works perfectly, since change of direction is not an acceleration and therefore requires no force be imparted!
Wait...
Restated without the "haw haw":
Initial vector is, say, right.
Final vector is, say up.
We require a force diagonally up and left on the projectile to achieve this.
Therefore an equal an opposite force is directed down and right on the gun.
If this were to happen simultaneously on two projectiles intially going in opposite directions, we can add the resultant forces exerted on the gun (down right plus down left) head to tail to get down. Lots of down.
Which is just another way of saying that, no matter how many twists and turns the projectile goes through, if you end up sending it one way, it ends up sending you the other.
Slashdot Mirror
A nice sunny Sunday morning when the road is empty 100mph is not dangerous. 50mph in the fog in rush hour is. Speed cameras don't generally account for that. Speed doesn't kill. Inappropriate speed kills.
Damn right. In NSW we have recently had a safety campaign built around the idea that "there's no such thing as safe speeding". This is fundamentally rediculous, since what is "safe" is not a constant for many reasons. Rossi (I ride a motorcycle) is safer at 100kph on his motoGP bike than Mr L plater zipping around at 60 on his scooter.
Furthermore, many speed limits were reduced from 60 to 50 or 40kph just before this campaign began. So if there is no such thing as safe speeding, does this mean the government was putting me at risk by having a speed limit of 60 before it was dropped by 10 or 20 kph?
Finally, their "real life" examples are completely flawed. One of them shows a driver deciding to overtake a column of stationary traffic. He pulls into a clear lane and his speed is 65. Suddenly a car trying to cross an intersection sticks its nose out past the stationary row. Said driver hits nose of car and spins out into a post. Not only was this entirely the stupid "I'll just stick my nose out without really knowing whether or not it is safe" driver's fault, but if the guy had been going, say, 75, he may have gotten past the intersection before nosey ever arrived.
While my own points are nitpicking, I will end by reiterating my support for the parent. I would be rather annoyed to be fined for going slightly over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway.
PS: I have never had a ticket for any driving infringement.
Which all works perfectly, since change of direction is not an acceleration and therefore requires no force be imparted!
Wait...
Restated without the "haw haw": Initial vector is, say, right. Final vector is, say up. We require a force diagonally up and left on the projectile to achieve this. Therefore an equal an opposite force is directed down and right on the gun. If this were to happen simultaneously on two projectiles intially going in opposite directions, we can add the resultant forces exerted on the gun (down right plus down left) head to tail to get down. Lots of down. Which is just another way of saying that, no matter how many twists and turns the projectile goes through, if you end up sending it one way, it ends up sending you the other.