Brimstone wrote:


That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

We know that attempting to take a bend at too high a speed will cause the
vehicle to want to continue in a straight line and collide with the
countryside. What similar forces or action will cause a car travelling
slowly to crash?

No, it will mean it is harder for the driver to control, so when the
driver crashes it will be because he was unable to control the path of
the car.

Of course, driving at a slower speed would make it easier to control,
but the analogy is the same.

The only time speed would directly cause a crash is if you drive into
the back of a vehicle going slower than yourself.

"Earl Purple" wrote in message
ups.com...

Brimstone wrote:


That depends on the indivual and whilst true for some isn't true for all.
But it's not the speed that's the cause of the crash, it's the failure to
concentrate.

We know that attempting to take a bend at too high a speed will cause the
vehicle to want to continue in a straight line and collide with the
countryside. What similar forces or action will cause a car travelling
slowly to crash?

No, it will mean it is harder for the driver to control, so when the
driver crashes it will be because he was unable to control the path of
the car.

Which may or may not be true but is beside the point since the end reuslt is
the same.


Of course, driving at a slower speed would make it easier to control,
but the analogy is the same.

The only time speed would directly cause a crash is if you drive into
the back of a vehicle going slower than yourself.

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed does not,
in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed does not,
in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed
does not, in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Quite true, but it won't be the speed that causes the collision in the same
way that excessive sped can and does will it?

Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed
does not, in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Quite true, but it won't be the speed that causes the collision in the same
way that excessive sped can and does will it?

When faced with a stationary object, any speed is excessive for the
conditions.

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Right so after all that you agree that traveliing at a slow speed
does not, in itself, cause someone to crash the car they're
driving.

No, the only speed that will guarantee that you can't crash into
anything is remaining stationary.

Even at a slow speed you can hit something.

Quite true, but it won't be the speed that causes the collision in
the same way that excessive sped can and does will it?

When faced with a stationary object, any speed is excessive for the
conditions.

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't feature
in the original scenario.

Brimstone wrote:

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't feature
in the original scenario.

Well let's imagine then that there is something coming from behind
towards you that is out of control. Let's say this object, whatever it
is, is approaching at 30mph and there is no way you can get out of its
way. It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

Earl Purple wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

Quite true. But this stationary object is your invention and doesn't
feature in the original scenario.

Well let's imagine

That's not necessary. The original scenrio was dealing with a single vehicle
on a road.


then that there is something coming from behind
towards you that is out of control. Let's say this object, whatever it
is, is approaching at 30mph and there is no way you can get out of its
way. It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

You quite obviously have a vivid imagintion, have you considered writing a
novel or other work of fiction?

In message , Brimstone
writes
It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

You quite obviously have a vivid imagintion, have you considered writing a
novel or other work of fiction?
I used to drive an old beetle and the brakes would fade when braking
from 70mph at about 20mph which could be quite hairy unless you read the
road ahead, so I wouldn't imagine the above a work of fiction.
--
Clive.

Clive Coleman. wrote:
In message , Brimstone
writes
It will be pretty nasty if it catches up with you and hits you.

So what is safer, driving faster or driving slower?

You quite obviously have a vivid imagintion, have you considered
writing a novel or other work of fiction?
I used to drive an old beetle and the brakes would fade when braking
from 70mph at about 20mph which could be quite hairy unless you read
the road ahead, so I wouldn't imagine the above a work of fiction.

The paragraph you've snipped is, however.