🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <35aa4795.2797214@news.okc.oklahoma.net>,
   in@the.sig (E. Faubion) wrote:
>Dennis.Jensen@dwt.csiro.au (Dennis Jensen) wrote:
>
>>Okay. So I guess it means that deaths in these cases can be counted as 
traffic 
>>deaths or other deaths depending on the involvement or non-involvement of 
>>other parties. I don't know the best way to resolve this, but to me it tells 
>>an incomplete story.
>
>I'm not sure if I understand fully what you mean so I'll just comment
>on how it works in my state.  If the crash investigation and autopsy
>reveals a driver first suffered a fatal medical problem then the death
>is not counted as a traffic fatality although the crash still counts
>as an accident and the cause will be listed as medical in nature.  If
>that crash causes other deaths then *those* deaths *are* counted as
>traffic fatalities.   OTOH if a driver suffers a non fatal medical
>problem and crashes then the death will be counted as a fatality and
>the cause of the crash will be listed as medical in nature.  If the
>autopsy is inconclusive whether the medical problem was enough to
>cause the crash the death will usually be counted as a fatality.  Now
>toss into the mix the occassional suicide in a motor vehicle and you
>can see how convoluted it can become.  Basically it boils down to if
>the death can positively be linked solely to causes other than the
>crash then the death will not be counted statistically as a fatality.
>If there is any doubt then it will be counted.
>

Okay, seems a reasonable way of doing it.

>>True, compared with aviation, the numbers are terrible. However, the correct 
>>way to tackle the problem is using scientific method and good statistical 
>>analysis, not gut feel.
>
>Shock treatment alone is not enough but I do believe it has a place.  
>

The problem with shock treatment and propaganda is that it detracts from the 
core of what you are trying to achieve, and ends up with delusion.

I know quite a few of our state politicians, and I spoke a few months ago to 
one whom I would consider to be very well informed. However, he was under the 
misguided opinion that Australia generally, and Victoria specifically had the 
best fatality rates in the world (which is the propaganda that is put out ad 
infinitum, along with the Traffic Accident Commissions SHOCK ads). I stated 
that this was certainly not correct, and he said that he was talking fatality 
rates, not deaths per se, and I stated that I was as well. Anyhow, I faxed him 
the data (from the Federal Office of Roads Safety, no less). He later admitted 
that I had him on that, and jokingly said that he would have his staff go over 
it to find some way of "disproving" my contention.

Point that I am trying to make in this amusing aside is that the spin doctors 
have been at it for so long that the spin overrides the facts, even for those 
who should know better.

>>Very interesting. Do you know when the data was obtained, on what type of 
tyre 
>>and what type of vehicle. Looking at the format, I would say about 1960's. 
>>Tyres have come a LOOONNNNGGGGG way since then. But thanks for sending it, 
it 
>>is very interesting.
>
>The chart is a guide for use only when nothing better is available.
>Tires are indeed better today however their performance under pure
>deceleration isn't much different now than it was eight years ago.

Eight years ago I will agree with. But there is a vast difference in all areas 
between todays tyres and those of the 1960's. There is also a vast difference 
between tyres today. As an example, I drive an Australian Falocn, 1994 model 
with sports suspension and about 230-240hp in its modified form. The original 
tyres were Dunlop Monza's in 205/65*15 size. They were abyssmal for 
longitudinal and lateral traction, would wheelspin when accelerating from 
lights in the wet without prompting, and in the wet the ABS would kick in way 
earlier than you would have expected. I now have Falken A-05G's, 225/50*16, 
and the difference is astonishing. Not only is grip WAY superior, but so is 
predictability, and you will only get to the ABS kicking in at a time when you 
are expecting it. Now, wheelspinning away from lights involves EXACTLY the 
same principles as braking hard, the direction of the force is the same 
(longitudinal), and the type of force changes (going from staic to kinetic 
friction) is the same. The other thing that should be remarked on is if you do 
get wheelspin in the wet with the Falkens (which requires a lot more 
accelerator to be used than the Dunlops), the tyres get grip and return to 
static friction far more quickly than the Dunlops did. This definitely implies 
a greater kinetic CoF in the wet (and it is a similar situation on dry roads).



>We've run many tests with old tires, new tires, defective tires, you
>name it, and the results simply don't vary all that much.  Where the
>differences show up are in normal driving and handling.  Bear in mind
>that in accident investigation we aren't nearly as concerned with
>performance under normal conditions, we're concerned with performance
>under abnormal conditions. 

But aren't these "abnormal" conditions a locked wheel? As I mentioned above, 
thise is exactly the same situation as with a spinning tyre (wheelspin). Now 
you will find that drag-racers have a huge difference in their performance off 
the line with a change in tyres.

>  In a collision the vehicles are often
>performing at the limit of their abilities so what is 'normal' won't
>necessarily apply.  Not sure if I explained that very well, perhaps
>you can see what I mean.
>

But Earl, when racing vehicles (or driving "to the edge"), you are also 
performing at the limit of the vehicles abilities, but it doesn't mean that 
you get a change in the physics relationships (such as frictional response).

Dennis