Lunacy on the M40

[BoRED S2upid]

saaby93 said:

t could though
The motorway junction is just up by that sign. The slip road ends in a simple road junction at the A329
All someone would have to do is turn left down the slip road and theyre on the motorway just in time for the video


Here's the junction - it wouldnt be difficult to turn left - the kerbing gives a round entry. Sometimes you see no entry signs that have been batted around the wrong way

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 16th October 19:42

That bottom picture is the reason why they turned left I’ve never seen such a ste no entry onto a motorway junction. However there is no reason for what happened next it’s just insanity.

[saaby93]

CaptainSlow said:

I know the location well, I was in M40 Hughenden bike dealer on Saturday. If the couple had come along the A329 from the North they may have mistaken the turning for the A40 south as the first slip for the M40...the real slip for the M40 South would then become the M40 slip North..which may have been what they wanted.

Whats the betting that as you say for most motorway junctions theyd expect to turn down there to head north on the M40
How were they to know the green sliproad is missing

[anonymous-user]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

1) Young lad driving the wrong way at night, killed a poor lass coming the other way. I think one of the reports said the combined impact speed was around 150mph. So, essentially nothing left of either of them.

Point of order:

As I'm sure you are well aware, two cars colliding head on at 75mph each, does not mean an increased impact, and certainly not a combined impact speed of 150mph.

If both cars are travelling at 75mph and collide head on, the deceleration force on each vehicle is the same as hitting a stationary object.

[nyxster]

Lord Marylebone said:

Point of order:

As I'm sure you are well aware, two cars colliding head on at 75mph each, does not mean an increased impact, and certainly not a combined impact speed of 150mph.

If both cars are travelling at 75mph and collide head on, the deceleration force on each vehicle is the same as hitting a stationary object.

Assuming equal mass - a HGV weighing 30 tonnes at 75mph has greater kinetic energy than a car weighing a ton. Otherwise a freight train hitting an oncoming passenger car would come to a dead stop and not simply smash the car to smithereens.

[tannhauser]

aeropilot said:

sjg said:

Panic could be a big factor. That same panic that seems to occasionally send old duffers off on a wrecking spree in the car park, where they just jam the accelerator down until the car can't go any further. The obvious thing is just to take your foot off and hit the brake bur they don't.

This is exactly what happened to my Mum when only in her early 70's. Reversing at side of road, got her foot caught, slipped whatever, and foot when down hard on accelerator, and instead of lifting she pushed harder thinking she needed to brake but her foot was still on accelerator, and so she reversed at speed into a skip behind her writing off my parents Saab 900, which given they were built like tanks, was some effort oh her part!!

I hope she did the right thing and handed in her licence, then.

[StanleyT]

TooMany2cvs said:

nyxster said:

The last group was the ones I were referring to, who obviously don’t make up the entire 2200 reported incidents

And there we go. We're in agreement. Group hug. Was it really worth getting to exercised about? You'll do yourself a mischief.

nyxster said:

but is a significant enough thing to be something that has passed into urban lore

"Urban myth", more like. With more than a vague ring of this ancient, but still steaming, bks about it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lights-out/

I grew up near the A61 South Sheffield bypass, about a seven mile stretch of until dual carriageway. One of the rights of passage after passing your car test (together with hitting the Milthorpe to Barlow hump fast enough to take off) was to go at night wrong way down there, in the dark, all vehicle lights off, a test of the nerve of the newbie driver, with your Witness mates on the correct side to "flash" any oncoming traffic". However, that was a DC that was almost not needed, many a time you could run the length in daytime and never see another car back in the day. But I'd say 2/3 cars a night on a Friday and Saturday in the late 80s would be running up / down there lightless, so multiply 2.5 *2 *52 and that is 250 "ghost cars" on one bit of UK DC alone. How many elsewhere? When we used to go on Scottish climbing trips there was a test for the driver to be blindfoldered up the A74 (pre M74) and use the "rumble-strips" and camber to judge steering, passengers only allowed to interject if other vehicles were about (we'd be running up at 1-3am). I believe the Guinness record was 42 miles, everyone always chickened on the windy bit near Beatoock. All very ttish and probably actually impossible 40 years on now UK roads are busy 24 /7 but 2200 incidents, i.e. 6 per night, across the whole of Germany, i.e. less then 1 in 10,000,000 residents being a tt doesn't sound unreasonable. Certainly sounds a lot lower incident rate of ttish racing / blocking / car shunting / crash for cash / drug drivers / racing fails than in North Mancs or Bratford for example per day.

Oh, and having read this thread, imagine how my pants were tonight on the Southbound M5 in a 50 mph zone. The lorry in front of me swerved from Lane 1 to 2. All I saw was the cab of an artic facing me. I was about to go full anchors when I realised it was one of three artics cabs on a lorry transporter. But it did make me thing, there but for the Grace of God and how fast you would have to react in the actual scenario someone was coming towards you........

[Solocle]

Cfnteabag said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Not quite what the article says, is it?

87yo with dementia.
Licence revoked two years earlier.
Police called two months earlier - PC who visited him didn't check he had a licence/insurance/etc - and was sacked.
Drove wrong way along 30 miles of M42/A42/M1 before collision - albeit at 2am.
Reports logged got carriageways wrong, so when police closed the m'way, they closed the wrong side.

Dead guy's family said "should have had car taken away". Right, but he couldn't have bought another...
Family previously said "should have retests for retired". Right, but he didn't have a licence anyway...

Obviously, there are procedures for dealing with "wrong-wayers" - close the road ahead. Not quite sure what else they're meant to do - but I'm sure they'd be open to suggestions.

It does actually

BBC article said:

The family, through their solicitor, accused Leicestershire Police and Warwickshire Police for having no set policy to deal with a vehicle travelling on the wrong side of the motorway.

Leicestershire Police said there was no "national policy addressing this scenario" and there were "limited tactical options to deal with contraflow driving".

Limited tactical options? I vote this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMKkF7SgZfA

[anonymous-user]

nyxster said:

Lord Marylebone said:

Point of order:

As I'm sure you are well aware, two cars colliding head on at 75mph each, does not mean an increased impact, and certainly not a combined impact speed of 150mph.

If both cars are travelling at 75mph and collide head on, the deceleration force on each vehicle is the same as hitting a stationary object.

Assuming equal mass - a HGV weighing 30 tonnes at 75mph has greater kinetic energy than a car weighing a ton. Otherwise a freight train hitting an oncoming passenger car would come to a dead stop and not simply smash the car to smithereens.

Of course.

I didn't mention HGV's or freight trains.

That's why I said 'two cars', in response to the other poster claiming an impact speed of 150mph between 'two cars'.

[carl_w]

Lord Marylebone said:

Point of order:

As I'm sure you are well aware, two cars colliding head on at 75mph each, does not mean an increased impact, and certainly not a combined impact speed of 150mph.

If both cars are travelling at 75mph and collide head on, the deceleration force on each vehicle is the same as hitting a stationary object.

An immovable, stationary object -- which does not exist.

[anonymous-user]

carl_w said:

n immovable, stationary object -- which does not exist.

Have you ever hit a large tree or concrete barrier in a car?

I've seen videos of it, and believe me, they don't move.

[Solocle]

Lord Marylebone said:

carl_w said:

n immovable, stationary object -- which does not exist.

Have you ever hit a large tree or concrete barrier in a car?

I've seen videos of it, and believe me, they don't move.

I imagine that a monolith of Osmium would barely even shudder.

[anonymous-user]

kapiteinlangzaam said:

Take your point of order and shove it up your arris. Does pedanticism have to invade everywhere on PH?

Oh, stupid question.

It's isn't pedantry. It's science/maths/physics.

I tried to politely educate you, and you tell me to shove it up my arse.

Unfortunately you seem somewhat representative of this horrific 'culture' we seem to have acquired in 2018 where people have 'had enough of experts' and think that it's totally fine to be incorrect.

It's depressing.

If someone took the time to explain something that like that to me, I would have found it quite interesting, and thanked them.

[saaby93]

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

Quite correct Saaby.

[anonymous-user]

Lord Marylebone said:

saaby93 said:

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

Quite correct Saaby.

Yes, and you’d be better off hitting a stationary one than one coming at you at 75mph.

[saaby93]

REALIST123 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

saaby93 said:

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

Quite correct Saaby.

Yes, and you’d be better off hitting a stationary one than one coming at you at 75mph.

Isnt it doubtful the subaru and caravan were doing 75mph

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

saaby93 said:

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

Quite correct Saaby.

Yes, and you’d be better off hitting a stationary one than one coming at you at 75mph.

How so?

[saaby93]

Lord Marylebone said:

REALIST123 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

saaby93 said:

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

Quite correct Saaby.

Yes, and you’d be better off hitting a stationary one than one coming at you at 75mph.

How so?

With a stationary one you're using both crumple zones so if the cars are the same type the impact is shared between them.
Wont it help that the cars arent rooted to the ground too?

[anonymous-user]

saaby93 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

REALIST123 said:

Lord Marylebone said:

saaby93 said:

A tree is a solid object not so much due to the mass of the tree, but because it's firmly anchored to the ground
Cars on the hand are supposed to collapse progressively to minimise transferring impact loads to passengers,

Quite correct Saaby.

Yes, and you’d be better off hitting a stationary one than one coming at you at 75mph.

How so?

With a stationary one you're using both crumple zones so if the cars are the same type the impact is shared between them.
Wont it help that the cars arent rooted to the ground too?

He was talking about a tree coming towards you at 75mph.

If we are talking about cars being either stationary or moving, that is different.

The matter of cars hitting each other head on at speed vs hitting a stationary object has all been done to death by Mythbusters if anyone wants to watch the science in action.

[saaby93]

The smart car crash test is a useful one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-s1sIoLhU
In a collision with a large car it can use the deformation of that larger car to its advantage
its not so good with a tree