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
  #11  
Old May 12th 17, 09:11 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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
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.

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) and many
cyclists have died as a result of riding into the back of stationary
vehicles.
Ads
  #12  
Old May 12th 17, 11:04 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #13  
Old May 12th 17, 11:57 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #14  
Old May 12th 17, 04:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.

  #15  
Old May 12th 17, 06:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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?
  #16  
Old May 13th 17, 11:58 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.


  #17  
Old May 13th 17, 01:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #18  
Old May 13th 17, 01:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #19  
Old May 13th 17, 02:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
MrCheerful
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,082
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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.
  #20  
Old May 13th 17, 06:49 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,036
Default Cyclists cocks up inside overtake

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?

 




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 07:33 PM.


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.