JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 20:16, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 15/05/2017 19:54, TMS320 wrote:
On 15/05/17 08:18, MrCheerful wrote:
On 14/05/2017 22:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 14/05/17 01:16, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 18:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 14:49, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 13:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 13/05/17 13:01, MrCheerful wrote:
On 13/05/2017 11:58, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 18:19, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 16:37, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 11:57, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 11:04, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/05/17 09:11, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 08:07, TMS320 wrote:
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.


The vehicle DID absorb the energy of the crash,
whatever speed
that
occurred at. The driver suffered minor injuries
only, that is a
testament to the safety features of modern cars.
Effectively
the
bus
is the immovable object, rather as the concrete block
is in safety
test crashes.

Watch the ncap test of a range rover, that test is at
39mph,
the
damage is pretty close to the damaged vehicle
pictures, except
that
the bus is

Then you agree it must have been doing way over 40mph.
Or the
driver
crashed without braking, meaning he wasn't looking out
of the
window.
(Although this seems to be something drivers are not
required
to do
these days.)

much higher than the concrete block and so hit the
bonnet much
more,
there is also the lack of bounceup of the vehicle
(compared to
hitting a concrete block) and that would increase the
frontal
damage.

Frontal damage is not important; it is only important
when it
gets to
compressing the passenger cell.

Still, remember to keep this on topic, a cyclist
riding into
the
back
of a bus at 20mph will have no safety equipment (in
comparison)

Since you're obsessed about topic, a driver can (as
frequently
happens)
cause considerable harm to others and still get away
with light
injuries. Unlike a 'speeding' cyclist.

and many cyclists have died as a result of riding
into the back of
stationary vehicles.

Comparing injuries between drivers and riders is
misplaced concern.

It is pretty clear which mode of transport is safest
for the occupants/users, and it is not a bicycle.

Let's remind you again that my (distant) observation of
the damage on
this Range Rover was indicative of gross
irresponsibility and hence a
significant danger to others. I expected come back on
that point,
not
diversion into car design and history.

It should be pretty clear which mode of transport is more
dangerous to
those around. And it is not a bicycle.

Who else was injured by the incident? Other than the
occupants of
the
vehicle? Was the cyclist hurt in any way?

You love making a big deal of a person doing something
perceived to be
wrog when riding a bicycle but shrug off driving that was
clearly
irresponsible and liable to cause harm to others. Get a
sense of perspective.

There was no cyclist involved, no injury was caused to
anyone other
than
the vehicle occupants, and that injury was minor. In
contrast to the
pedestrian at death's door after being run over by
a cyclist.

Stop cherry picking.

Keeping things on topic is not.

Driving of the standard this person displayed is of
considerable interest to bicycle users.

So long as some serious driver fault does not concern you when
nobody
other than vehicle occupant is harmed, then I take it that you
will no
longer get the fits over people riding their bicycles in any
manner they
desire. Your self imposed mission here is utterly pointless.

Perhaps, one of your crashes was something similar to this and
you believe it can be played down?

The crash in question was, from what can be seen, entirely the
fault of
the Range Rover driver. Hopefully he will learn from his
mistake. Happily no member of the public outside the vehicle
concerned was injured (from what was reported)

It is not a reply to my paragraphs above. When are you going to
stop telling bicycle riders what they should and shouldn't do?

When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense.

Yet really don't get it.

Hmmm. The first word was meant to be 'You'.

Sounds like a reasonable amendment:

Q: When are you going to stop telling bicycle riders what they
should and shouldn't do?

A: When they obey the rules of the road and those of common sense
yet really don't get it.

It made perfect sense.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

You are replying to a lamp post, you may as well talk to a cyclist for all
the sense you will get.
Please get that AVG sig out of your replies.
AVG do not make it straightforward on how to do it. I've forgotten how I did
it, just mess around .......