Lunacy on the M40
Discussion
B'stard Child said:
hooblah said:
Shirley that depends on the mass of each vehicle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4IRL, rather than test conditions, there will be other differences.
In the head on scenario, both drivers are going to have half the reaction and braking time. Assuming both divers do react correctly and emergency brake they are still going to both suffer higher peak G, which is what causes injury, than either striking a stationary object seen at the same initial distance.
A heavier vehicle such as a Forester with Caravan is going to push the lighter vehicle backwards, 'transferring' some peak G to the occupant(s) of the lighter vehicle, in this case the Mondeo.
A faster vehicle, say one reacts correctly and one doesn't so final speeds are 70-50 instead of 50-50, is also going to push the slower vehicle backwards, again 'transferring' some peak G. In this case, the Forester, doesn't react at all to oncoming traffic. So it seems likely they didn't or reacted very late in the collision.
So here, the Modeo occupant is likely to have suffered high peak G for two reasons.
This scenario actually seems like an example of the prisoner's dilemma, if you both react then both parties have a better chance, if only one reacts then they actually suffer a worse situation than the unreactive one. If neither react, then both suffer greatly.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Wednesday 17th October 10:06
I'm not sure what people are arguing about here - two cars hitting head on at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 150mph. Hitting a stationary car at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 75mph either. Hitting a car isn't the same as hitting a wall.
What's the assertion being disputed?
What's the assertion being disputed?
GT119 said:
The severity of an impact is going to be closely linked to the energy dissipated, and of course the duration of the dissipation.
Energy is a function of mass and the square of velocity.
A single car travelling at 150 mph carries four times the energy of the same car at 75 mph.
So a 150 mph crash is potentially twice as bad as a head on between two similar cars travelling at 75 mph.
As Mary le bone said and shown in BChilds videoEnergy is a function of mass and the square of velocity.
A single car travelling at 150 mph carries four times the energy of the same car at 75 mph.
So a 150 mph crash is potentially twice as bad as a head on between two similar cars travelling at 75 mph.
otolith said:
I'm not sure what people are arguing about here - two cars hitting head on at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 150mph. Hitting a stationary car at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 75mph either. Hitting a car isn't the same as hitting a wall.
What's the assertion being disputed?
Someone said the two cars had a 150mph impactWhat's the assertion being disputed?
Frik said:
Although a join at J7 does seem likely (it’s not a great junction), it seems people saw them before then. J8 seems most logical then.
Well done to the Transit driver and others for flashing oncoming traffic. Always good to pay some attention to the other carriageway.
A couple of times with fast vehicles on the other carriageway approaching an accident, I've use the slowdown hand signal. Well done to the Transit driver and others for flashing oncoming traffic. Always good to pay some attention to the other carriageway.
It's not perfect, but I feel it is a bit more obvious than flashing something is amiss, which can been seen used by tailgaters more often than not.
saaby93 said:
otolith said:
I'm not sure what people are arguing about here - two cars hitting head on at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 150mph. Hitting a stationary car at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 75mph either. Hitting a car isn't the same as hitting a wall.
What's the assertion being disputed?
Someone said the two cars had a 150mph impactWhat's the assertion being disputed?
The person then threw his toys in the corner and was abusive rather than saying "thanks didn't know that"
Shall we cover a plane taking off on a conveyor belt - that's always a good one too
saaby93 said:
otolith said:
I'm not sure what people are arguing about here - two cars hitting head on at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 150mph. Hitting a stationary car at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 75mph either. Hitting a car isn't the same as hitting a wall.
What's the assertion being disputed?
Someone said the two cars had a 150mph impactWhat's the assertion being disputed?
Still thinking about the crash, going down the wrong slip road you end up on L1, if you realised what you had done, and knowing it ain't easy to reverse a van, why not move from L1 to the hard shoulders and either call plod (which is the right thing to do), or drive very very slowly to the next junction which isn't a good idea.
But why bomb along in L3, suicide maybe. The picture of the slip shown earlier is just so stupid to be beyond belief.
But why bomb along in L3, suicide maybe. The picture of the slip shown earlier is just so stupid to be beyond belief.
Very worrying for the future. The current generation of people who will be old in 20 years time have much more pomposity and feelings of entitlement about them than current old folk.
Self driving cars are just pie in the sky rubbish being as we cant even design a junction right to stop idiots doing something like this.
I would guess the problem will be legislated off the road at some stage.
Maybe a little quiz you do on a cars touch screen before the engine will start.
Self driving cars are just pie in the sky rubbish being as we cant even design a junction right to stop idiots doing something like this.
I would guess the problem will be legislated off the road at some stage.
Maybe a little quiz you do on a cars touch screen before the engine will start.
otolith said:
I'm not sure what people are arguing about here - two cars hitting head on at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 150mph. Hitting a stationary car at 75mph isn't the same as hitting an immovable object at 75mph either. Hitting a car isn't the same as hitting a wall.
What's the assertion being disputed?
Functionally the outcome is the same though. Everyone dies, the only question is how small the pieces are. What's the assertion being disputed?
I don't think more plod would make any difference to this at all. It was clearly a mistake, the question of whether he might get caught didn't enter his mind. The only point at which they could have made a difference is at the point where he got the turn wrong - and even then someone who is willing to drive up a motorway the wrong way probably wouldn't be overly bothered by a load of blue lights behind them.
Edited by rxe on Wednesday 17th October 11:20
PulsatingStar said:
Vipers said:
But why bomb along in L3, suicide maybe. The picture of the slip shown earlier is just so stupid to be beyond belief.
Every time an OAPs does this they seem to end up in lane 3 though. They must just be oblivious to the mistake and carry on blindly. 
PulsatingStar said:
Every time an OAPs does this they seem to end up in lane 3 though. They must just be oblivious to the mistake and carry on blindly.
Blindly is I think often the case.There was the case a few weeks ago were one almost run into a Police car whilst trying to join a slip road the wrong way
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dr...
PulsatingStar said:
Every time an OAPs does this they seem to end up in lane 3 though. They must just be oblivious to the mistake and carry on blindly.
It's just mind boggling that they got that far on an obviously very busy motorway, you'd have to cross two lanes of oncoming traffic without getting wiped out by an artic lorry to get to L3 in the first place.Panic, confusion? Why are all these idiots going the wrong way?
I doubt they braked at all as they had already driven several miles.
Maybe this will make people think a bit more about visibility beyond the car in front. I often move over into a bigger gap/space if I can't see past the van/4x4/MPV in front. nearly everyone travels too close on motorways.
I doubt they braked at all as they had already driven several miles.
Maybe this will make people think a bit more about visibility beyond the car in front. I often move over into a bigger gap/space if I can't see past the van/4x4/MPV in front. nearly everyone travels too close on motorways.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff