A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cyclists cocks up inside overtake



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 10th 17, 05:43 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
swldxer1958@gmail.com
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...5jsGlRAE01C.01
Ads
  #2  
Old May 10th 17, 08:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.

  #3  
Old May 10th 17, 09:30 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,976
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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. As you know, rumpling
panels are designed for absorbing shock and directing energy away from
vehicle occupants. I've seen (the results of) some low speed crashes
which wrote off older vehicles simply because the bodywork, whilst
technically repairable with new panels, was nothing like economic due to
of the way that the energy of the collision was so extensively
dissipated (and given th low retail value of the car).

Have you ever wondered how it is that even high-speed motorway accidents
are so rarely fatal these days, especially compared with ones involving
Austin A55s, Ford Consuls, Hillman Minxes, etc, from around 1960? It's
all down to better, safer, vehicle design and the hard work of vehicle
designers, the TRRL, etc.

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

  #4  
Old May 11th 17, 10:10 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.

  #5  
Old May 11th 17, 11:30 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.

"Despite pictures showing serious damage to the car, officers say only
"minor injuries" were suffered by those involved.
A spokesman for Humberside Police said: "We were called at 6.22pm
yesterday reporting a road traffic collision between a Stagecoach bus
and a grey Range Rover.
"People involved sustained minor injuries. The road was closed whilst
debris and the vehicles were moved."

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/drive...cs0mQoJmcuM.99

Remind me what safety improvements have been made to the bicycle in the
last hundred years?
  #6  
Old May 11th 17, 08:17 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.

  #7  
Old May 11th 17, 10:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #8  
Old May 12th 17, 01:09 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,976
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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

  #9  
Old May 12th 17, 08:07 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #10  
Old May 12th 17, 08:38 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

On 12/05/17 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".

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.


Of the three main protection systems, crumple zones are actually the
least important, even though they appear to be uppermost in public
perception. The first is restraint and the second is a zone that
*doesn't* crumple.

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.


Yes, but whether or not the damage is repairable is hardly relevant.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to overtake a pair of cyclists Alycidon UK 10 January 22nd 16 11:07 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 06:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.