A Theory - Avoiding Collisions

I read this on Nucleapower (home of 8 bit theater) and had to share it, it's brilliant!

Originally Posted by Brian

So, I have this theory. I’ve shared it here before, but that was many years ago. It’s about car crashes and how to avoid them.
There’s tons of ways to have a collision, but fundamentally there’s only one way. To wit:
Two objects intersect the same space at the same time.
Therefore, the best way to reduce the risk of having a collision is to occupy any given section of space for as short a period of time as possible. The odds of there being another object in that exact same space at that slice of time are drastically reduced. As you drive faster you occupy any sub-division of space for less total time, so the faster you drive the less likely you are to be in a collision.
Example!
If your car is parked at Spot A, then it has a 100% chance of being rammed by any other car that attempts to occupy Spot A. If, instead, your car is zooming through Spot A at full speed, then there’s a vanishingly small chance your car will be anywhere near Spot A when another vehicle attempts to occupy that space.
Apply that logic to every individual inch of a journey, and the odds of you having a wreck at any given moment are next to nothing!
Now, there are those of you out there who are saying things like, “That’s not how logic works.” Or maybe, “You’re an idiot, Brian.”
That’s fair. But to you, I say this: make it legal for me to do, say, 90mph everywhere so I can put the theory to the test!
80mph would also be cool if there’s like a school zone or whatever. I’m not particular.

It works until you realize that if you're going 90mph it's much harder for you to avoid accidentally occupying the same space as something else. It also means that if there's a sharp bend with lots of trees at Spot B, it's 100% likely you'll collide with those trees when you fail to make the corner at 90mph

Heh yeah It's got a huge element of tongue in cheek but figured people here would appreciate the humour in it

[Sid Squid]

I like it, you can't argue with physics, that's like saying Newton was wrong and it goes nicely with my considered response to accusations of speeding:

"If the sequence of numbers is, as we are told, truly infinite, then the difference between any two numbers is infinitesimally small, in which case 40 and 85 are actually the same, so no, officer, I wasn't speeding".

I haven't tried this 'in the field' yet.

If only 10% of accidents are caused by drunk drivers,you have less chance of having an accident if drunk-------------Statistically speaking

PMSL and the goverment love statistics so surely they can't complain

thats like the theory on contraflows in roadworks. if the reduce a 2 lane road down to 1 lane, the only way they can make sure that all the cars get through that at the same rate would be to double the speed limit! so only really fast cars should be allowed to drive through roadworks!!

I love fatally flawed logic.

The weather was hot and we sold a lot of ice-creams, therefore selling a lot of ice-creams makes it hot.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by simesb

I love fatally flawed logic.

The weather was hot and we sold a lot of ice-creams, therefore selling a lot of ice-creams makes it hot.

Indeed, correlation and causality - two very different things only too often confused.

[Messie]

There is a significant positive correlation between birth rate in Sweden and the number or storks nesting on roofs.



At least that's what my stats lecturer told me at Uni!!!