Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 12/05/2017 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".


worth looking at the test of a 2015 car to its identical version from
1998 The 98 is destroyed, the 2015 looks very survivable, so yes, just
20 years ago cars were far less safe for occupants and the general public.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/enthus...cid=spartanntp

On 19/05/17 11:25, MrCheerful wrote:
On 12/05/2017 01:09, JNugent wrote:
On 11/05/2017 20:17, TMS320 wrote:

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".

worth looking at the test of a 2015 car to its identical version from
1998 The 98 is destroyed, the 2015 looks very survivable, so yes, just
20 years ago cars were far less safe for occupants and the general public.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/enthus...cid=spartanntp

Just a stunt. It only shows us the damage in an older car when hit by a
newer car that is 300kg heavier. They are not equivalent. The only valid
crash test is against a barrier, where the only energy in the system
comes from the car being crashed.

There is another issue. All that design can do is to raise the speed
where a crash is no longer survivable. eg, if a 20mph crash is benign in
an older car it should also be so in a newer one and there would be no
gain in being the newer one. Conversely, if a 70mph crash is not
survivable in a newer car, it is also unlikely to be survivable in an
older one and there would have been no disadvantage being in an older
one. So there is a spectrum of speeds over which injury starts,
eventually leading to death. For all the scary demonstrations, we have
absolutely no way of knowing where these threshold speeds are or by how
much they have moved up.

I put it that over the 20 years up to the late 90's things moved on
enormously in all aspects of car technology; vastly more so than they
have done over the last 20. The reduction in casualties was far greater
over the earlier period than the later one - ok, road engineering, seat
belts, speed, drink etc, also made a significant contribution. Since
then vehicle engineers seem to have been mainly asked to add decadence.