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?