Re: Re[2]: Dose vs Regs cont'd

[tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)]

>>The phase "Speed Kills" is catchy and has been used by law enforcement for 
>>years and in a way it may be partially true.  But is it pure speed that 
>>kills  or a byproduct of it, vehicle density?
........

>>Be weary, keep that analytical edge.

AND!!!!!!

AND it isn't speed that kills - BUT dv/dt - ie. the change in speed!  Thus 
bringing in the probability of an accident due to traffic density and that 
differential speed on the roadway (fast and slow traffic) as a compounding 
factor.

ALSO ANOTHER POINT which is much closer to home for me ...... Sure as the 
speed goes up - so does the energy available for damage and thus the 
consequences of a higher speed accident are greater.  BUT that is just the 
point - they are GREATER and in a progression of possible consequences.

I feel that what is often lost sight of in looking at things such a traffic 
fatalities is that those that don't die at lower speeds are not necessarily 
ok - or even better off!!

Lower speed accidents can be horribly crippling and NOT kill.

Having had a family member totally paralysed for 18 years from a very low 
speed accident kinda brings this point home!  And at least in that person's 
expressed opinion - death would have been preferable - And I don't mean to 
open up a philosophical discussion here as to any validity to that 
expression - just stating the fact that it was expressed.  

BUT even in the legal world which defines so much of our societies' values - 
the award in case of death is almost always less than for such "lesser" 
injuries!

And I'll be nice and not make even the slightest comment regarding the 
motorcycle helmet comment <grin>.