Is Speed Dangerous?

[flecc]

Human beings have evolved over time to survive well at the speeds they are naturally capable of, so a definitive answer is possible. Since the average healthy human can run up to about 18 mph, extremes like Usain Bolt excluded, that is roughly the speed up to which we are fairly safe. All higher speeds are potentially more dangerous and the higher they are, the more intrinsically dangerous they become.

Although this would appear to be an answer only for accidental outcome consequences, that isn't the case since our response times to arising situations have also evolved to suit our capabilities. Therefore the risk of becoming involved in an accidental outcome also rises with speed.

 

[tillson]

Human beings have evolved over time to survive well at the speeds they are naturally capable of, so a definitive answer is possible.

I have to slightly disagree that a definitive answer to the question, ["Is speed dangerous?"] is possible.

Speed is a relative thing, the speed of one body in relation to that of another. Therefore, a cyclist who is travelling at 20 mph is more likely to survive than a cyclist travelling at 10 mph if hit by a car which has a speed of 30 mph. Under these circumstances the higher speed is the safest.

Its all about managing the speed delta, this is what causes the damage upon impact. You can't say that the faster you travel the more danger that you expose yourself too, it doesn't hold true, as illustrated above.

 

[peasjam]

If the premise had been to do with appropriate v inappropriate speed in a variety of different situations, I may have couched my response slightly differently but the simple question was, "Is speed dangerous?" That was the question I answered; not a different question so I hope that's clear.

The answer is still 'no'.

It's the extreme deceleration and inevitable impact that is dangerous.

Regards.

 

[flecc]

Speed is a relative thing, the speed of one body in relation to that of another. Therefore, a cyclist who is travelling at 20 mph is more likely to survive than a cyclist travelling at 10 mph if hit by a car which has a speed of 30 mph. Under these circumstances the higher speed is the safest.

I don't think even that can be said:

If the car is coming from the opposite direction that's not true.

If the cyclists are thrown off to the side by a car travelling in the same direction that's also not true since their road/obstruction impact speeds makes the slower one safer.

If the greater speed differential throws the cyclist higher so they go over the car roof instead of impacting the screen, the slower is safer.

These are why I so carefully worded what I said, it being a definitive answer to the principle rather than all specifics.

 

[tillson]

I don't think even that can be said:

If the car is coming from the opposite direction that's not true.

If the cyclists are thrown off to the side by a car travelling in the same direction that's also not true since their road/obstruction impact speeds makes the slower one safer.

If the greater speed differential throws the cyclist higher so they go over the car roof instead of impacting the screen, the slower is safer.

These are why I so carefully worded what I said, it being a definitive answer to the principle rather than all specifics.

Yes, I take your point about the car approaching from the opposite direction. My example (clearly not as obvious as I originally thought) concerned a car and cyclist travelling in the same direction.

Every point you raise further reinforces the fact that it is the speed differential between the two colliding bodies which is the danger factor. My point is that by reducing that differential, sometimes by actually travelling faster relative to the road surface, you can reduce the risk of injury / danger.

So I still believe that there is no definitive answer to the original question, "Is speed dangerous." There are far too many variable factors to give a definitive answer.

You just have to apply common sense and travel at the safest speed for the prevailing conditions and sometime those conditions will dictate that you will be safer going faster. Other times, maybe the most of the time, you will be safer going slower.

 

[flecc]

You've disappointed me Tillson! While everything you say is true, it all adds up to speed being more dangerous as it increases, since it's all speed on impact approach, whether relative or actual.

Perhaps it's best to use Einstein's special theory of relativity, quoting the example of a fly travelling forward at 20 mph in the aisle of a plane flying at 500 mph over Britain. To a passenger the fly is doing 20 mph, but to someone on earth in Britain the fly is doing 520 mph. However, as the person on earth in Britain is travelling at about 700 mph due to the earth's rotation and the plane is having some of that added or subtracted, depending on altitude and direction, we can surely conclude there is no such thing as a reliable speed definition anyway!

 

[peasjam]

You've disappointed me Tillson! While everything you say is true, it all adds up to speed being more dangerous as it increases, since it's all speed on impact approach, whether relative or actual.

Perhaps it's best to use Einstein's special theory of relativity, quoting the example of a fly travelling forward at 20 mph in the aisle of a plane flying at 500 mph over Britain. To a passenger the fly is doing 20 mph, but to someone on earth in Britain the fly is doing 520 mph. However, as the person on earth in Britain is travelling at about 700 mph due to the earth's rotation and the plane is having some of that added or subtracted, depending on altitude and direction, we can surely conclude there is no such thing as a reliable speed definition anyway!

Absolutely. Movement can only be described in relative terms since there is no way of defining a universal reference point.
Interestingly, and with this in mind, if you take into account the fact that the speed of light is constant it means that time itself is different depending on the viewpoint. In other words, time is passing slower for the person on the aeroplane from the point of view of the person on the ground.

 

[flecc]

Indeed, and this starts to bring in aspects of Einstein's main theory of relativity, the curvature of space and it's effect on time.

We could have some real fun defending a speed related case in a magistrates court!

 

[tillson]

You've disappointed me Tillson! While everything you say is true, it all adds up to speed being more dangerous as it increases, since it's all speed on impact approach, whether relative or actual.

Take the following example: (note all speeds are relative to a fixed point on the surface of the earth!)

A cyclist on an open road devoid of street furniture or fixed objects. (There aren't many but they do exist) The cyclist is travelling at + 10 mph. A vehicle collides with it whilst travelling at + 30 mph. The relative speed at point of impact is 20 mph.

Take exactly the same scenario, except this time, the cyclist is travelling at + 20 mph. This time the relative speed at point of impact will be 10 mph. Neglecting secondary collisions the cyclist may have as a result of falling off, and assuming he does just that, falls off and rolls along the ground (again this can happen), I believe that under these circumstances, the cyclist's additional 10 mph in the second scenario will expose him to less danger.

 

[flecc]

As I said above Tillson, I'm not disagreeing with the arguments on relative speed differences and they are relevant for avoiding harm. I was just taking the general position that overall, more speed means more harm. For example, if we all stood still, no-one would ever get hurt in a collision with another.

 

[Mussels]

Interestingly, and with this in mind, if you take into account the fact that the speed of light is constant it means that time itself is different depending on the viewpoint.

It's not quite constant, even in a vaccuum in the same period of time but that's being a bit picky for this thread.

 

[tillson]

As I said above Tillson, I'm not disagreeing with the arguments on relative speed differences and they are relevant for avoiding harm. I was just taking the general position that overall, more speed means more harm. For example, if we all stood still, no-one would ever get hurt in a collision with another.

I had a feeling that we were all agreeing, but wasn't quite sure.

 

[Scimitar]

Now, the question again was, "Is speed dangerous?" Too damned right it is!

Inappropriate speed is dangerous.
To say that "speed is dangerous" as a blanket term is simplistic nonsense.

 

[NRG]

Inappropriate speed is dangerous.
To say that "speed is dangerous" as a blanket term is simplistic nonsense.

Agreed. This was drilled in to me during my advanced driver training. The % of RTA casualties attributed to excessive speed or even inappropriate speed is surprisingly low at ~5% or thereabouts...