|
|
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
|
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. I've seen (the results of) some low speed crashes which wrote off older vehicles simply because the bodywork, whilst technically repairable with new panels, was nothing like economic due to of the way that the energy of the collision was so extensively dissipated (and given th low retail value of the car). Have you ever wondered how it is that even high-speed motorway accidents are so rarely fatal these days, especially compared with ones involving Austin A55s, Ford Consuls, Hillman Minxes, etc, from around 1960? It's all down to better, safer, vehicle design and the hard work of vehicle designers, the TRRL, etc. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote: On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in a car from just 20 or so years ago. "Despite pictures showing serious damage to the car, officers say only "minor injuries" were suffered by those involved. A spokesman for Humberside Police said: "We were called at 6.22pm yesterday reporting a road traffic collision between a Stagecoach bus and a grey Range Rover. "People involved sustained minor injuries. The road was closed whilst debris and the vehicles were moved." http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...cs0mQoJmcuM.99 Remind me what safety improvements have been made to the bicycle in the last hundred years? |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote: On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in a car from just 20 or so years ago. The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times. There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference. My point main point that the structural damage (implying there was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope with) is not from a collision of less than 40mph. |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote: On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote: On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in a car from just 20 or so years ago. The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times. There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference. My point main point that the structural damage (implying there was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope with) is not from a collision of less than 40mph. No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote. |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:
On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote: On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote: On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in a car from just 20 or so years ago. The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times. There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference. To be fair, perhaps Mr C's "20 or so years ago" needs to be read as "more than 30 or so years ago". Cars have been having crumple zones designed into them since not long after Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" (1965) and the concept had been known since pre-WW2, with Mercedes Benz starting to use it in the 1950s. My point main point that the structural damage (implying there was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope with) is not from a collision of less than 40mph. You might be right, but sufficient structural damage to write off a vehicle can be caused at less than 40mph. I remember a work collegue' (newish) company car being written off because of non-obvious structural damage when he/she ran (at 70mph) into the back of a car doing about 50. The car didn't look all that bad at the front (obviously, the panels were all destroyed and the nearside wheel arch was severely distorted, back into the A-post), but... the roof panel had a pronounced crease to it. As soon as the loss adjuster saw that there was a sharp intake of breath... --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 11/05/17 22:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote: On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote: On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in a car from just 20 or so years ago. The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times. There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference. My point main point that the structural damage (implying there was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope with) is not from a collision of less than 40mph. No, that is not the implication of that which you wrote. I suggest you read the paragraph at the top. |
Cyclists cocks up inside overtake
On 12/05/17 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote: On 11/05/17 11:30, MrCheerful wrote: On 11/05/2017 10:10, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 21:30, JNugent wrote: On 10/05/2017 20:35, TMS320 wrote: On 10/05/17 05:43, wrote: http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01 It's a road with a 40mph limit. No way did that RR crash into the bus at less than 40mph. One hopes the injury, damage and the air bag recorder are sufficient evidence to give the driver enough points to keep him away from other road users for a while. I wouldn't be so sure. It's not often that a vehicle will be driven into a stationary obstruction at 40mph in an urban environment, and in any case, body damage on modern vehicles can be very deceptive. It's not difficult to see the difference between skin damage and structural damage. As you know, rumpling panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from vehicle occupants. Indeed. This one clearly didn't. The driver only had minor injuries, I think that shows how incredibly safe modern vehicles are. The apparent severity of the crash would have killed or maimed for life someone in a car from just 20 or so years ago. The mid-90's were not primitive times in automotive times. There is no straightforward way of knowing the difference. To be fair, perhaps Mr C's "20 or so years ago" needs to be read as "more than 30 or so years ago". Cars have been having crumple zones designed into them since not long after Ralph Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" (1965) and the concept had been known since pre-WW2, with Mercedes Benz starting to use it in the 1950s. Of the three main protection systems, crumple zones are actually the least important, even though they appear to be uppermost in public perception. The first is restraint and the second is a zone that *doesn't* crumple. My point main point that the structural damage (implying there was far more energy than the crumple zones could cope with) is not from a collision of less than 40mph. You might be right, but sufficient structural damage to write off a vehicle can be caused at less than 40mph. Yes, but whether or not the damage is repairable is hardly relevant. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com