OMG! Manitobans Issued Licences To Kill

Sigh. I am old. I’m slowing down and the world is speeding up. Let the young folk deal with it…“MANITOBA GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCES SPEED LIMIT TO INCREASE TO 110 KM/H ON MOST TWINNED SECTIONS OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY WEST OF WINNIPEG”
.
See Manitoba Government Announces Speed Limit to Increase to 110 km/h on Most Twinned Sections of Trans-Canada Highway west of Winnipeg.”
I’m old enough to remember speed limits in Manitoba were “Night 50MPH/Day 60MPH”. I still drive 50MPH/80km/h day or night. It really does

  • reduce the lethality of crashes – (5/6)2 as much energy available,
  • reduce fuel consumption – (5/6)2 as much air-drag and engine viscosity,
  • gives more time to react to danger (deer/moose/kids/cars/ice/snow…) – 6/5 as much time, and
  • mean I don’t have to slow down for the “Burowski zones” (80km/h near lighted intersections) – I’ve never had a speeding-ticket…

I guess I would be a road-hazard on the Trans-Canada highway these days…

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to OMG! Manitobans Issued Licences To Kill

  1. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson the max for elastic car collision is 150km/h. But that is very different car chassis design to what we like using.

    The proptypes of that the complete bonnet area is a spring. How this is done instead of crumple zones the car front chassis was 3d woven spring that would compress quickly then slowly return starting shape. Yes centre of car would go up and bonnet would fold under. The problem here is it will take at least 14 days to make a chassis using this method.

    At 160Km/h the total chassis spring method fails. Also chassis spring method becomes a problem in pile ups. because the chassis spring cars would be straightening themselves so making everything highly unstable.

    So this is a big question of should we. If we can make sure car pile up cannot happen we can most likely make cars safer.

  2. ram wrote, “the differences between elastic and inelastic collisions.”

    Every collision over about 20km/h is inelastic. That’s what breaks things. I had a Cadillac totalled in a low speed collision in a parking lot… Otherwise we could just install big springs behind bumpers and be safe. That’s not possible when you get to high speeds as in TFA. A vehicle would have to be all spring and no passengers/freight. At some point even springs break.

  3. ram says:

    oiaohm said : “…resulting in road deaths”

    Or worse 🙁

  4. oiaohm says:

    ram I have seen quite a few where I am as well. One of the big problem is vehicle testing.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052533/Worlds-fastest-crash-test-Car-smashes-wall-120mph-speed-family-runarounds-hit.html

    This is something highly stupid most car testing stops at 40Mph or about 70Km/h. So driving into a crash that will equal higher than this is going into untested territory.

    There are issues with
    1) road design.
    2) car testing.
    3) human issues behind wheel.
    All there are resulting in road deaths.

  5. ram says:

    I won’t get into the differences between elastic and inelastic collisions. Those with an interest can look that stuff up.

    I do part-time work for an first responding emergency services organisation (NSW-RFS). I’ve seen too many horrific traffic “accidents” — almost always caused by people driving like assholes — usually too fast under the conditions, but also doing things that were plain stupid.

    Maybe people getting their new drivers licences or even getting them renewed should spend a few days with either us or Police Rescue. I guarantee they would drive more carefully, and many would choose to take public transport and not drive at all!

  6. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson there is a difference between car to car and car to truck.

    Truck engine block is like moving rock. Trucks are not required to have crumple zones.

    Yes “The energy goes as the product of mass and speed2.” Yes this is correct. 3T car meeting a 20 T truck head on you can guess how screwed the car is.

    Force also matters, but the force on the body with 140+140 head-on is identical to the force of 140 into rock.
    Not in fact not identical when the impacting vehicle is many times heavier. Car at 70 into a truck at 70 is equal to 140 into rock for person in car. Truck driver not as much due to the massive weight of vehicle most of the force is transferred to car.

    200 ton road train will crush a car into nothing in case of a head on at 40 km/h. Basically normal trucks are bad enough as they are equal to mobile rocks to cars.

    Really you want to improve outcomes get trucks off road and on rail. If a road is a mix of cars and trucks you have to over double the road speed for the force that will be given to car drivers if head on is possible due to the massive weight difference between trucks and cars. Now a car side swipped by a truck is no where near as bad even if the car hits a solid barricade.

    Most road deaths are car hit truck not car hitting car.

    The crumple zones in car hit car absorb massive amounts of force. Trucks cannot have big enough crumple zones to compensate for their weight so they don’t have any at all.

    4 wheel drive car size trucks in most countries don’t have to have crumple zones either. So a item a person calls a car might be a truck.

  7. oiaohm wrote, “I class that as insane as that is a 280Km equal when two cars head to head.”

    It’s not velocity that kills. It’s energy, you know, crushing people or cutting them up. In a high speed crash the kinetic energy is converted into damage, reshaping things, heat and even light. The energy goes as the product of mass and speed2. So, a head to head collision at 140km/h is twice the energy of one car, not four times. So, it’s equivalent to head-on into rock at 140km/h X sqrt(2) = 200km/h, not 280km/h. Force also matters, but the force on the body with 140+140 head-on is identical to the force of 140 into rock. The body stops in the same period of time. If the rock were explosive the results would be more “impressive” and that’s what you get with 140+140, both cars exploding. This is all academic as in most cases everyone will be dead or maimed in both cases. I guess seatbelts+airbags make a big difference but they are only good for sane speeds. It doesn’t matter how cushy the deceleration if you come to rest in ~2m from high enough speed and the vehicle around you is disintegrating. You’re heading into a crater as it forms.

    Here’s a dash-cam video of a head-on collision at moderate speed. The car is squashed and the driver too. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iw_tjHARk The guy braked but did not steer to avoid the collision.

    Here’s a head-on at 60mph. front seat was crushed. Even with modern cars would not always save a person. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOFY2kT5LqA

    Here’s 120mph into rock. Nothing but the trunk survives. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7dG9UlzeFM

  8. oiaohm says:

    Deaf Spy I guess United Arab Emirates unless of course you have got your terms wrong. Yes only 1 country has 140 km on general single carriageway items that being the United Arab Emirates. Yes I class that as insane as that is a 280Km equal when two cars head to head.

    Globally there are only 3 countries with 140Km speed signs. Bulgaria and Poland. Poland 140 is technically only on Motorways. So it should be a 50/50 guess.

    Yes 140 + the term Highway is extremely limiting on where you are.

  9. Deaf Spy says:

    I agree with you here. Where I live, the speed limit on the highways is 140 km / h, which is too much. I drive at 120 (though my car can easily handle much higher speed). Fuel consumption between 80 and 100 is not highly noticeable on contemporary engines and car designs.

    But risk on live in case of collision is drastically higher.

  10. oiaohm says:

    Dougman you have to call yourself lucky to be here. It was sometime around the year 2000 when someone decided to do the research and found out the 10 hours off every 24 hours was kind mandatory to keep reaction times up.

    “Would I do that now?… heck no.”

    Correct heck no and its heck no for everyone. Driving more than 14 hours after waking up is basically asking the luck to attempt to kill you.

    Interesting point is the 14 hours of highly functional state also says doctors should not do 16 hour shifts either. Adverse medical outcomes increase after 14 hours into a double shift as a Doctor. Its one of those universal human limits. Interesting enough the 14/10 split even applies to people who don’t sleep. Yes 14 hours of focus and 10 hours of light no focus required activity is all a person who does not sleep can do as well.

    There are still a lot of fields allowing staff todo double shifts and not understanding it is getting their staff hurt.

  11. dougman says:

    Dude, I use to drive 18-hours a day for months at a time for a job I was working. Just a small F450 and a 20′ trailer with a full load.

    Example: MD – CT – MD 6am – 12 midnight

    Would I do that now?… heck no.

  12. oiaohm says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck_driver
    dougman you are in fact lucky to be alive. Truck drivers have a max of 14 hours of being awake a day. Yes the 8 hours of study before hand was in fact massively bad.

    So 11 hours driver split in 2 with a 30 to 1 hour break in the middle after a decent night sleep is fairly safe. The 14 hours limit is after 14 hours awake you start getting reaction times as if you are getting drunk. By the time you hit 20 hours Dougman you would have had reaction times as if you were 0.8 or higher drunk. Really all cars should be installed with a reaction time test ignition.

    This is part of the reason why particular highways in Australia have need higher speeds so the distance in time between stops is 5 hours. 650 KM road between locations with nothing on the side of the road is a problem. Those roads kinda do need 130 km/h even then its cutting it tight. Yes the highways in the NT Australia have those insane distances yes truck drivers on those roads regularly break the law by a little bit. Yes if the speed was reduced with 110 they road would be not passable to truck drivers.

    Scary is not the 130 KM/h is the road trains at 200 tones doing 130KM/h.

    Dual carriageway(divided highway Canada term) was the term I was forgetting before. Dual carriageway with correctly design intersections 110 to 130 no problems(yes this includes fencing to keep wild life out). Now if they are talking about allowing 110Km/h on Single carriageway they are insane.

    Basically I don’t have enough information to say if the law change is sane or not. 80km/h Single carriageway is equal to 160km/h duel carriageway for harm in case of crashes involving sane drivers. Of course most countries are capping duel carriageway at 130km/s to reduce medical bills.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Speed_Limits.svg

    This is a very good map to give some prospective. Speed limits above 110Km/h are quite common. If it safe or not its road design and speed limit assignments more than anything else.

  13. dougman says:

    Re: It means staying awake longer and not even twitching for hours.

    When I was in college, I use to drive back home once a month. I would depart around 3-4pm, after 8 hours of school and then drive 12 hours straight, but that was in my 20’s.

    Now, I would just fly as it is quicker.

  14. oiaohm says:

    That works pretty well except at intersections.
    There is a solutions to that. Cloverleaf interchange, Diamond interchange and roundabouts. At no point does either of these require wrong direction.

    There it is always possible for some idiot to enter the road going in the wrong direction. It’s as if some seek death.
    This is two problems. 1 the connection method I bet is a normal intersection not a roundabout or diamond or cloverleaf. It takes being very stupid or insane to go the wrong way when roundabout or diamond or cloverleaf are the connection method.

    Problem 2 here the very stupid or insane are also the ones who most likely will not obey speed signs in the first place so could do 160+km/h plus themselves.

    High speeds good road design is important. This is why with 110 its more where are you going to allow it than the speed. Intersections that are not cloverleaf or diamond or roundabouts should be limited to under 80 km/h due to possibility of major screw-up leading to a head to head. Yes connecting into a major highway really need the other intersection methods. I still remember seeing on Mythbusters that the USA did not have roundabouts and I was like what F@#$ as this one of our common interconnects due to limited space requirements and when made big you can drive them at 110 KM/h plus. Yes all car to car contact is the correct direction.

  15. oiaohm wrote, “Major long highways in Australia each direction is a different road. So no head on possible.”

    That works pretty well except at intersections. There it is always possible for some idiot to enter the road going in the wrong direction. It’s as if some seek death. We have a few every year like that in my region. At 80K there is time for such drivers to wake up from their stupour and pull over. At 110K, there might not be. Here, we have the higher speeds on “divided highways”. In some places they are well separated but in others the two paths are close enough that a vehicle going out of control can cross the median and kill people. My son and I had a close call with such an idiot. He entered the road wildly, stopped and then reversed. Fortunately reverse is a low gear but it still caused $thousands of front-end damage. If anything can go wrong it will and the higher the speed of the collision the greater the potential harm.

    The 80+80 = 160 thing is not correct. In an 80-80 head-on collision the maximum potential energy for equal masses sticking is exactly twice the energy of one 80K car. 160K into a rock wall is four times that energy. It’s like an explosion. Kinetic energy varies as the mass and square of the velocity. There’s also forces. Modern light vehicles are pretty well made to reduce the force of impact on passengers but there’s only so much you can do if a body must stop in a few feet. The body may be more presentable in the coffin but it will still be in a coffin.

    I had a couple of aunts who were dinged in a side impact in an urban intersection. The one closest to the impact endured decades of pain and surgery at 50K or less. They described the collision as an explosion. Their driver went through a red light. In such a collision at 80K, one or both probably would not have survived. At 130K, if anything goes wrong, people will almost certainly be maimed or die. It’s just not worth it with unprofessional drivers. It might make sense for bus-drivers or pilots, but not ordinary folk.

  16. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson note I said highways. Major long highways in Australia each direction is a different road. So no head on possible.

    Basically like the German autobahns. You reduce deaths more by making roads 1 direction and increasing speed. 80km/h head on is equal to a 160km/h into stationary. So as long as the roads going 110 are one direction there will be no problem. Yes 110 km with a solid barrier between directions is quite safe.

    Even unlimited is appearing fairly safe as long as the road is 1 direction. Australia recently had a huge spike in death toll it was all the areas with multi direction roads with 80km or higher that had a problem. Basically 80km head on is lethal enough that we should be design roads to avoid the possibility. Yes 110km/h on a one direction road reduces max harm risk to each to that of a 55 km duel direction road.

    So the question here is what roads are they going to allow 110km on it could be safer than it first seams.

  17. oiaohm wrote, “130Km and unlimited are being done on the longer roads.”

    At 130K, I doubt any head-on collisions are survivable. At 80K, almost all are, barring fire/entrapment. It’s just a matter of kinetic energy and the human body. I can leave early to arrive on time driving slowly. I can’t raise the dead.

    I have flash-backs to my days in Saudi Arabia. They had built wonderful highways on which everyone sped, everyone passed fuel trucks and no one wanted to yield. The roads were dotted with small clusters of rusting wrecks which no one picked up. Every year there were many needless deaths due to speed and collisions. This was on straight smooth roads with lanes well marked. The only reason for the collisions was unsafe passing. The only reason for the deaths was speed. Oh, and the fuel, at that speed, almost always burns. Speed kills.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson only 110 I don’t exactly see a problem of course this could be because I am Australian.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_Australia

    Yes 2 highways in Australia are officially 130Km/h and this was a trial of unlimited.

    Note 130Km and unlimited are being done on the longer roads. There is a issue on longer roads of people falling asleep at wheel so crashing because of this. Speed is a double sided sword.

  19. dougman wrote, “when you are on the open road 70mph is not bad.”

    It means staying awake longer and not even twitching for hours. No, thank you.

    You, see, for more than a decade I worked in the North where there might only be 20 wheeled vehicles in a town of 1K people and there might only be one stop-sign. I only drove in summer. City traffic killed me. Highway driving with a bunch of maniacs terrified me. I like walking. I can keep up with the pace of things…

  20. dougman says:

    I once drove from MD to FL in 11 hours, and my average speed was 78mph. when you are on the open road 70mph is not bad.

Leave a Reply