When Slogans Replace Logic:
Examining "Speed Kills" and "Impact Kills"
We've all heard it countless times. "Speed kills."
It's on billboards, in driver's education classes,
repeated by safety campaigns worldwide. Similarly,
we hear "impact kills" - the force of collision that ends lives.
These statements are presented as facts. Absolute truths.
Scientific certainties.
But are they?
I'd like to invite you to think about this with me,
not to be reckless, not to dismiss safety, but simply to
examine whether these statements are actually true.
Let's use the same critical thinking we'd apply to any other claim.
The Test of a True Fact
Before we go further, let's establish what makes something a fact.
A fact should be:
Consistent - it produces the same result under the same conditions
Predictable - we can forecast the outcome reliably
Verifiable - we can test it and observe it repeatedly
Gravity is a fact. Drop an object, it falls. Every time.
Consistently. Predictably.
Water boils at 100°C at sea level. Every time.
Consistently. Predictably.
These are facts because they don't have exceptions
under the same conditions.
So let's apply this same standard to
"speed kills" and "impact kills."
Question 1: At What Speed Does Speed Kill?
If speed kills, there must be a threshold, right?
A specific speed at which death occurs.
Is it 50 mph? 70 mph? 100 mph?
Here's the problem: People die in crashes at 20 mph.
People survive crashes at 150 mph.
If speed itself is the killing factor, how do we explain:
Race car drivers who crash at 200+ mph and walk away?
Passengers who die in parking lot collisions at 15 mph?
The same crash, same speed, where one person
dies and another survives?
If speed kills, why isn't there a consistent "killing speed"?
A true fact would give us a number.
"Speed above X mph kills." But we can't
identify that number because it doesn't exist.
The outcome varies wildly at every speed.
Question 2: Why Do Survivors Exist?
Here's the most important question, the one that
exposes the flaw in the statement.
If speed kills, why do people in the same vehicle,
traveling at the same speed,
in the same crash, have different outcomes?
Think about it:
Same car
Same speed
Same impact
Same forces acting on everyone
Yet one person dies. Another walks away with minor injuries.
A third is critically injured but survives.
If speed is what kills, how do we explain the survivors?
They experienced identical speed. Identical impact.
But different results.
This alone proves that speed itself is not the determining factor.
Something else, or multiple other factors, determines who lives and who dies.
Question 3: What About Impact?
"Okay," someone might say, "maybe it's not speed itself, but the impact,
the sudden deceleration, the force of collision. That's what kills."
Fair point. Let's examine it.
If impact kills, then identical impacts should produce identical results.
But they don't.
Two people hit by the same force:
One suffers fatal injuries
One suffers broken bones but survives
One walks away with bruises
Same impact. Different outcomes.
Engineers can calculate the G-forces involved in a crash.
They can measure the exact deceleration.
They can quantify the impact precisely.
Yet they cannot predict with certainty who will die and who will survive.
If impact kills, why can't we predict the outcome when we know
the exact force involved?
Question 4: The Airbag Paradox
Here's another puzzle.
Airbags are designed to reduce impact forces.
They slow deceleration,
spread the force over a larger area, protect the head and chest.
Yet people have died from airbag deployment.
The airbag reduced the impact - the very thing that supposedly kills,
and yet death still occurred.
Meanwhile, people in crashes without airbags, experiencing
greater impact forces, survive.
If impact is what kills, how do we explain deaths with reduced impact
and survivals with greater impact?
Question 5: The Falling Paradox
People have survived falls from airplanes at terminal velocity,
over 100 mph impact with the ground.
People have died from falling off a ladder, perhaps 10 mph impact.
Same type of event (falling and impact). Vastly different speeds.
Opposite outcomes from what "speed kills" would predict.
If speed and impact are the killing factors, the person falling
from the plane should always die, and the person falling from
the ladder should always survive.
But reality shows us the opposite can happen.
Why?
What These Questions Reveal
These aren't trick questions. They're observations of reality that
contradict the absolute statements we've been told.
"Speed kills" and "impact kills" fail every test of a factual statement:
❌ Not consistent - same speeds produce different outcomes
❌ Not predictable - we cannot forecast who will die at a given speed
❌ Not verifiable - repeated tests show varying results under similar conditions
The existence of survivors proves these statements are false as stated.
But there's a huge difference between:
"Speed kills" (absolute, implies certainty,
implies speed alone is sufficient cause)
and
"Higher speeds increase risk of death in a collision"
(acknowledges probability, recognizes other factors)
One is a slogan. The other is an honest statement.
One claims to be a fact. The other acknowledges complexity.
One cannot be questioned. The other invites further investigation
into what those other factors might be.
Why Does This Matter?
You might think, "This is just semantics. Everyone knows what 'speed kills' means.
Why be pedantic about it?"
Here's why it matters:
When we accept absolute statements that aren't actually true,
we stop thinking critically.
We stop asking questions like:
What really determines survival in a crash?
Why do outcomes vary so dramatically?
What factors are we missing?
How can we better predict and prevent fatalities?
We accept a simple answer ("speed kills") and stop
investigating the complex reality.
We mistake a slogan for understanding.
An Invitation to Honest Thinking
I'm not encouraging reckless driving.
I'm not suggesting speed limits are pointless.
I'm not dismissing vehicle safety.
I'm simply inviting you to recognize the difference between:
Slogans ("speed kills")
Facts (verifiable, consistent, predictable truths)
Honest uncertainty (acknowledging what we don't fully understand)
Real facts don't have exceptions. When we observe consistent exceptions,
survivors at high speeds, deaths at low speeds - we need to be honest:
the statement is not a fact.
It might be:
A useful warning
A risk factor
A contributing element
A guideline for safety
But it's not a fact in the scientific sense.
Questions Worth Pondering
Before you dismiss this as overthinking a simple safety message, consider:
If we accept "speed kills" without questioning it,
what else do we accept without examination?
How many other "facts" are actually slogans we've never tested against reality?
What would happen if we applied this same critical thinking to
other absolute statements we hear?
Are we thinking for ourselves, or repeating what we've been told?
I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm simply asking the
questions that the evidence demands we ask.
The survivors prove that speed alone doesn't kill.
The varying outcomes prove that impact alone doesn't kill.
Something else is at work.
What that something else is - that's a question
each person must explore for
themselves as some may call it luck and others
will give Glory to God, calling it mercy. Like I do.
But let's at least be honest enough to admit:
"Speed kills" is not a fact.
It's a slogan we've been taught to believe.
And maybe, just maybe, it's time to
think more carefully about the difference.