Quote:
Originally Posted by JacobAziza
The question isn't what is the "main" cause, the question is just "could the same accident have been avoided, or been made less severe, if one or both drivers were going slower?"
|
The end result of that line of reasoning can only be Vmax = 0 .
Which would be sort of impractical.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it only works when only the speed-factor is changed.
In the real world, it's not just the speed that changes.
People will drive less attentively at lower mandated speeds.
People will pull out closer in front of slow-moving vehicles - negating the effect of reduced speed.
If reduced speed would really help, surely we'd see less accidents.
Fact is, we don't .
Despite all driving aids like ABS, EBD, ESP, and what not, combined with lower allowed speeds - and lower attainable speeds due to congestion - the number of accidents goes up year after year.
You'd think those driving aids would stand their best chance at preventing the lower speed accidents, and reducing the severity of the higher-speed collisions. Apparently, it's not happening.
Some claim that accidents are getting less severe, as fatal accidents are decreasing.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
Accidents get more survivable, due to better designed cars (better crumple zones, better structural integrity) and better medical help.
Not because they are less severe.
These days, if you hit anything solid at 40 mph in a modern car with your seatbelt on, you'll step out, shrug it off, and be a bit stiff the next day.
30 years ago - or in a 30 year old car - you'd be cut or carried out, possibly off to the morgue.