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