# You can speed and won't get in trouble



## bstone (Apr 4, 2011)

> Judge Jay Boynton found 32-year-old John Coughlin not guilty Monday, saying he was driving too fast but that it was justified.


Source: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ne...regnant_wife_rush_to_hospital/?p1=Upbox_links

Well, that seems to settle this issue!


----------



## Shishkabob (Apr 4, 2011)

Naw, just proves that some judges are idiots.


----------



## Icenine (Apr 4, 2011)

Sounds to me like a legal precedent has been set.

Slippery slope


----------



## usafmedic45 (Apr 4, 2011)

I once got out of a speeding ticket by proving that I was within the margin of error for the radar gun the state police uses.


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 4, 2011)

Its all about the outcome.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 4, 2011)

With out knowing about the road or traffic conditions, I can't really say anything. Heck, I've hit 105ish in a 65 before, but there's no reason that stretch of road should be in the 60's anyways, plus it was late at night with no traffic.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 4, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> With out knowing about the road or traffic conditions, I can't really say anything. Heck, I've hit 105ish in a 65 before, but there's no reason that stretch of road should be in the 60's anyways, plus it was late at night with no traffic.



Agreed. 

Am I endangering anyone going 45 in the very straight, very flat, 2 lane road that's a 35mph zone at 0300 on a clear night? Nope.


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 4, 2011)

adamjh3 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Am I endangering anyone going 45 in the very straight, very flat, 2 lane road that's a 35mph zone at 0300 on a clear night? Nope.



45 in a 35 is alot different from 102 in a 55.

Those speeds relate to instant death to anyone in that car and anything that car may imapct.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Apr 4, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> 45 in a 35 is alot different from 102 in a 55.
> 
> Those speeds relate to instant death to anyone in that car and anything that car may imapct.



As the closest thing to an injury epidemiologist this forum has, I'd like to point out that it's not "instant death".  Yeah, there's a near 100% morbidity and a very high mortality rate but there is far more that goes into predicting survivability than simply "above X everyone is dead" when it comes to motor vehicle crashes.


----------



## JPINFV (Apr 4, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> 45 in a 35 is alot different from 102 in a 55.
> 
> Those speeds relate to instant death to anyone in that car and anything that car may imapct.




That's assuming that there are a signficant (note: "significant" means enough to have an impact and can be a handful of cars) number of people going a significant speed below the person going 100. As a for instance, despite the speed limit being 65, how many cars do you think are both on the road and going anywhere near the speed limit on this stretch of road going between Oceanside and San Clemente at, say, 11:00 at night. The answer is what few cars are on that road are going, at a minimum, 80 mph. Hence, there's not that big of a risk going 90 or 100.


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 4, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> As the closest thing to an injury epidemiologist this forum has, I'd like to point out that it's not "instant death".  Yeah, there's a near 100% morbidity and a very high mortality rate but there is far more that goes into predicting survivability than simply "above X everyone is dead" when it comes to motor vehicle crashes.



Im pretty sure doing over 100mph in a Kia is going to result in instant death 100% of the time. 

My defense would have been its a Kia it can possibly go over 100mph.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Apr 4, 2011)

> Im pretty sure doing over 100mph in a Kia is going to result in instant death 100% of the time



I'm pretty sure that belief makes you wrong and changing the nature of your statement to make it more plausible makes you look like a weasel.  I'll give you that Kias aren't the strongest cars on the planet but can you back up your little contention with something other than supposition?


----------



## CAOX3 (Apr 5, 2011)

usafmedic45 said:


> I'm pretty sure that belief makes you wrong and changing the nature of your statement to make it more plausible makes you look like a weasel.  I'll give you that Kias aren't the strongest cars on the planet but can you back up your little contention with something other than supposition?




The smiley face commonly denotes humor.

That statement wasnt made in relation to the original.


----------



## nakenyon (Apr 5, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> Im pretty sure doing over 100mph in a Kia is going to result in instant death 100% of the time.
> 
> My defense would have been its a Kia it can possibly go over 100mph.



Formerly, I would have believed that a Kia couldn't possibly do over 100. That was until a friend of mine took me for a 114 mph ride in his Kia Optima.


----------



## DesertMedic66 (Apr 5, 2011)

That's one of the reasons I love being in a small town. I know a lot of the officers here. And am really close friends with a couple. So if I do get pulled over I just get a verbal warning (probably because I don't do stupid stuff). Ive been pulled over by an officer just to get invited to a party and the normal conversations.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Apr 5, 2011)

CAOX3 said:


> The smiley face commonly denotes humor.
> 
> That statement wasnt made in relation to the original.



My apologies.  That's what I get for reading the forums when I'm tired and withdrawing from caffeine (day #3 and counting).


----------



## Asimurk (Apr 5, 2011)

Terminal velocity of a human, according to Wikipedia, is 117-125MPH.  Any parachuters ever hit the ground and survived after a failed deployment?


----------



## abckidsmom (Apr 5, 2011)

Asimurk said:


> Terminal velocity of a human, according to Wikipedia, is 117-125MPH.  Any parachuters ever hit the ground and survived after a failed deployment?



Yes.  We had one.  It was very, very ugly, but he lived for a couple of weeks.

Somehow, he spun in on his legs, dug a hole up to his knees, and didn't break every single bone in his body.  Most of them, but he was alive for a good while, and talking for the whole ride in to the hospital.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Apr 5, 2011)

Yup, it's not common but it does happen.  The major deciding factors seem to be what you hit and the angle at which you strike it.   There are documented human survivals of impact forces in excess of 200 _g_, mostly in the racing community (simply because they have the data from the car's to prove the amount of force involved).


----------



## AndyK (Apr 7, 2011)

Speed is safe, it's the sudden stop that hurts! B)


----------



## HasTy (Apr 7, 2011)

JPINFV said:


> That's assuming that there are a signficant (note: "significant" means enough to have an impact and can be a handful of cars) number of people going a significant speed below the person going 100. As a for instance, despite the speed limit being 65, how many cars do you think are both on the road and going anywhere near the speed limit on this stretch of road going between Oceanside and San Clemente at, say, 11:00 at night. The answer is what few cars are on that road are going, at a minimum, 80 mph. Hence, there's not that big of a risk going 90 or 100.



JP as one who makes this stretch of road a regular occurrence especially during the summer month I can vouch that you are correct very rarely do you run into someone that is going less than eighty and at that time of night I can not remember the last time I ran into someone going the actual speed limit on that stretch of road.


----------



## systemet (Apr 7, 2011)

Worth bearing in mind that velocity is a far more important factor than mass when considering impact forces.  Granted a Kia is far from a quality automotive, but if you're hitting a significantly heavier object (like a tree, or planet earth) at warp 9 the mass of the vehicle you're in becomes less and less important.

Nice big vehicles like SUVs are great when you're playing pool with other vehicles, but there's not much of a survival benefit when you're playing with high speeds and fixed objects.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 7, 2011)

systemet said:


> Worth bearing in mind that velocity is a far more important factor than mass when considering impact forces.  Granted a Kia is far from a quality automotive, but if you're hitting a significantly heavier object (like a tree, or planet earth) at warp 9 the mass of the vehicle you're in becomes less and less important.
> 
> Nice big vehicles like SUVs are great when you're playing pool with other vehicles, but there's not much of a survival benefit when you're playing with high speeds and fixed objects.


Umm...I thought Force=Mass x Acceleration.  Kinetic Energy = Mass x Velocity x Velocity.  Work = Force x Distance.

So while velocity is more important in regards to the energies involved, mass is more equally important when it comes to force and worl.


----------



## systemet (Apr 7, 2011)

Perhaps my physics is a little rusty :huh:

The kinetic energy present at the beginning of the collision will of course be used to do work.  The magnitude of applied forces will depend on the mass of the object considered and its deceleration.  Which is going to depend on how quickly the object is stopped, and how fast it was travelling initially.

Maybe I'm just digging myself a bigger hole.  Maybe if I write the university nicely they'll give me the money back for those physics courses I seem to have forgotten


----------

