A close shave on the A9
Discussion
Antracer said:
I'm all ears. People do like to over exaggerate & forget how safe modern cars are.
He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him.
Well - that's two utterly cretinous statements so far! Care to try for three in a row?He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him.
Edited by Antracer on Tuesday 24th February 18:45
Edited by Mike_Mac on Tuesday 24th February 19:17
Antracer said:
I'm all ears. People do like to over exaggerate & forget how safe modern cars are.
He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him.
Split second later and there would have been 20 tons of Scania and trailer heading through the drivers door , can't see a seat belt or airbag stopping it , admire your confidence though .He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him.
Edited by Antracer on Tuesday 24th February 18:45
From my perspective as a trucker that is utterly effing appalling!!
Trucker has much better vision, looks like he has slowed enough to take the turn but f*ck anyone who is coming as he is bigger and cars can stop, how ever i notice a slightly hard turn from the truck just as the snow comes down the screen on the car, suggests to me he knew the car was coming and forced his way on, probably swerved out of instinct when he couldn't see the car in his normal mirror therefore knew it hadn't slowed enough. No wonder you all hate us!!
Having said that he is a logger, had many run ins with them in the welsh mountains where they use CB to check the road ahead with other loggers so they can gun it, not clever enough to think other truckers on narrow roads don't have CB's. Countryside equivalent of skip drivers..................
Deserves forwarding to the area T.C not just the police.
Trucker has much better vision, looks like he has slowed enough to take the turn but f*ck anyone who is coming as he is bigger and cars can stop, how ever i notice a slightly hard turn from the truck just as the snow comes down the screen on the car, suggests to me he knew the car was coming and forced his way on, probably swerved out of instinct when he couldn't see the car in his normal mirror therefore knew it hadn't slowed enough. No wonder you all hate us!!
Having said that he is a logger, had many run ins with them in the welsh mountains where they use CB to check the road ahead with other loggers so they can gun it, not clever enough to think other truckers on narrow roads don't have CB's. Countryside equivalent of skip drivers..................
Deserves forwarding to the area T.C not just the police.
Antracer said:
Mike_Mac said:
Well - that's two utterly cretinous statements so far! Care to try for three in a row?
Wow, real nice. Care to backup your insulting opinion with any logical reason as to why you would think that?Your belief that this possibility was laughable (or at least 'LOL'able) in your first post, coupled with your subsequent statement that 'He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him' is, to me, utterly foolish, hence cretinous.
The camera car definitely did brake a little late, I guess the middle of the junction on the left would probably be where it's an absolute cert that the lorry wasn't going to stop.
That would be bloody scary to go through, it actually makes me feel a bit sick seeing the truck coming in from the right away to hit the car in the video.
That would be bloody scary to go through, it actually makes me feel a bit sick seeing the truck coming in from the right away to hit the car in the video.
http://www.highlandsnp.org/maxinesmith/?p=100
Quite a history at that stretch of road, driving a lorry and pulling out like that could cause a fatality, plain and simple.
Quite a history at that stretch of road, driving a lorry and pulling out like that could cause a fatality, plain and simple.
Antracer said:
I'm all ears. People do like to over exaggerate & forget how safe modern cars are.
He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him.
You have a poor grasp of physics and under-estimate the fragility of the human body. He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him.
Edited by Antracer on Tuesday 24th February 18:45
Mike_Mac said:
Antracer said:
Mike_Mac said:
Well - that's two utterly cretinous statements so far! Care to try for three in a row?
Wow, real nice. Care to backup your insulting opinion with any logical reason as to why you would think that?Your belief that this possibility was laughable (or at least 'LOL'able) in your first post, coupled with your subsequent statement that 'He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him' is, to me, utterly foolish, hence cretinous.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/minivans...
This is some new consumer testing (not legislative) that is starting to gain momentum in the US, and it is still only 40mph, but very severe due to its small overlap into a rigid barrier.
We currntly design cars in Europe for up to 40mph closing speed into a deformable barrier and 35mph into a full width rigid barrier in the US.
Mike_Mac said:
I'm quite happy to let the video of an HGV nearly t-boning a car stand as a very logical reason to back up my opinion that, in slightly different circumstances, that incident could easily have been a fatality. Unladen lorry or not.
Your belief that this possibility was laughable (or at least 'LOL'able) in your first post, coupled with your subsequent statement that 'He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him' is, to me, utterly foolish, hence cretinous.
Ok so again you are saying it could have been fatal but yet again you give no explanation as to "how" it could have been fatal. Like i said before, im all ears. Your belief that this possibility was laughable (or at least 'LOL'able) in your first post, coupled with your subsequent statement that 'He could plow into the lorry at 50 & his seat belt & airbag would save him' is, to me, utterly foolish, hence cretinous.
The possibility "is" laughable. The fact that if there had been a collision it would have been a glancing blow, worst case the car rolls (cuts & bruises) or the shock triggers a massive heart attack. A fatality from "that" incident is incredibly far fetched. The lorry was moving very slowly & the car saw him coming & had plenty of time to react.
Which part of a cars modern safety features make you think he cant crash at 50 & walk away?. I dont know about anyone else but wading in here & calling a fellow forum user "cretinous" is about as foolish as it gets.
The pedantry is strong here. Or autism maybe. Assuming a car driver would be so unlikely to die from a collision is interesting.
f
k me though, that was close. I pride myself as a good anticipatory driver but I'm not sure I would have anticipated a truck not stopping there- it's beyond stupid driving and there's no way he would have had the view to contemplate it.
The only close parallel I can consider in my years of driving are having gone straight on where a road actually turned 90deg left (therefore shooting a junction). Nobody died then as I was lucky. This one was stupid.
f
k me though, that was close. I pride myself as a good anticipatory driver but I'm not sure I would have anticipated a truck not stopping there- it's beyond stupid driving and there's no way he would have had the view to contemplate it. The only close parallel I can consider in my years of driving are having gone straight on where a road actually turned 90deg left (therefore shooting a junction). Nobody died then as I was lucky. This one was stupid.
mgtony said:
Check the video at 32secs, see how close the car driver was to taking out the post and road signs. That arrowed Inverness sign pointed in his direction coming through his windscreen doesn't really bare thinking about. 
Ah yes, but of course the modern safety systems fitted to such a car would have precluded any possibility of death or serious injury in the event of a collision.Antracer said:
Bug - You say that but fail to back it up with any reason.
Z06 - Interesting but the lorry is NOT a solid object. Hitting something like shown in the video is most common when hitting trees & could not have happened in the OP's incident.
I'm afraid it is nearer to being an imovable object than you think, purely due to its significantly greater mass.Z06 - Interesting but the lorry is NOT a solid object. Hitting something like shown in the video is most common when hitting trees & could not have happened in the OP's incident.
Say the lorry is 20x the mass of the car. Conservation of momentum means that if you hit it at 50mph and there is a perfect transfer of energy, the two vehicles would move at roughly 1/20th of your initial velocity, or about 2.5mph. So pretty much like hitting an imovable object at 47.5mph.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff