![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) The damage from the crash will undoubtedly be paid by the vehicle insurers, the same cannot be said for most cycle crashes, even when the cyclist is identifiable. Regular stupid driving or riding is likely to result in someone or something being unnecessarily hurt or damaged. Many car related infractions are discovered and punished via camera enforcement, it is time that all vehicle users were subject to the same, this can be best accomplished by having all vehicles registered and traceable via number plates. All vehicles should also be covered by compulsory insurance against third party losses. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to overtake a pair of cyclists | Alycidon | UK | 10 | January 22nd 16 10:07 AM |
Good Idea: Penalties for Motorists Trying To Overtake Cyclists | Bret Cahill[_4_] | UK | 3 | May 12th 14 07:21 PM |
Why do some cyclists overtake on the left? | John Benn | UK | 58 | August 22nd 12 01:35 AM |
Idea to warn cyclists against trying to pass on the inside. of lorries | Mr. Benn[_9_] | UK | 21 | April 30th 12 01:13 AM |
up the inside of a lorry at a junction, when will cyclists learn? | Mrcheerful[_2_] | UK | 59 | February 18th 11 05:44 PM |