Show us your crash pics!!

[cedrichn]

seyre1972 said:

Jakg said:

seyre1972 said:

Yes - my thoughts are the lights were glancing blow/not enough to snap them off - just dislodge the top light fitting - drove by earlier - all had been chopped off (Stihl Saw by looks of things) @ about 5 feet tall. Telephone pole definitely snapped at clean off @ base as below



VIDEO

Not mine - so can’t/won’t post it up (yet) likely all part of the evidence they’ll use against the driver.

I know 3 of the houses directly impacted all have CCTV cameras - so likely no shortage as/when it becomes available.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/vqky6r/speeding_in_a_20mph_zone_my_neighbour_just_posted/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

That’s the one !!

Really impressive! Even the Polo and the Ford (SMax ?) have decent damages...done by the tyre and flying object ?
Should be a 6 digit insurance claim I would guess ?

Lucky no one got hurt!

[anonymous-user]

Just down the road from me, the 120mph claim was one of the local FB pages just a guess from a randomer although he was certainly shifting

It's incredibly lucky he hit where he did a couple minutes either way and he's in more densely populated road with houses much closer to the road and pubs, restaurants etc

[havoc]

Instinctively feels like it's got to have been in the region of 100mph...for a small saloon to send a van AND an XC-something clean off the road (presumably that's when he went airborne?) and then still travel >100m requires a lot of KE.

[seyre1972]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I'm sure it will all come out in the wash/incident report - having seen a few other CCTV videos of the car - defo north of 100mph, and direction of travel (if you know the area coming down the hill from past the Junior School ...... ) is slightly downhill.

Either way - driving like a tt - thankfully nobody hurt !!

[seyre1972]

havoc said:

Instinctively feels like it's got to have been in the region of 100mph...for a small saloon to send a van AND an XC-something clean off the road (presumably that's when he went airborne?) and then still travel >100m requires a lot of KE.

That is after taking out a telephone pole cleanly at its base, a section of brick wall (which by sounds of things deflected car away from a direct hit on the house where it hit the Van and Car on their drive, before going to a stop. From telegraph pole to the house where it came to rest - 134metres (google maps measurement)

[anonymous-user]

seyre1972 said:

I'm sure it will all come out in the wash/incident report - having seen a few other CCTV videos of the car - defo north of 100mph, and direction of travel (if you know the area coming down the hill from past the Junior School ...... ) is slightly downhill.

Either way - driving like a tt - thankfully nobody hurt !!

Yeah my nephew goes to that school, its astonishing more people weren't hurt, so many bus stops etc, wasn't even in the witching hour, there is a definitely an issue locally with young men and powerful cars, seen some shocking driving around

[J2daG1990]

Zhou on Sunday

[anonymous-user]

havoc said:

Instinctively feels like it's got to have been in the region of 100mph...for a small saloon to send a van AND an XC-something clean off the road (presumably that's when he went airborne?) and then still travel >100m requires a lot of KE.

Aways makes me laugh when i hear claims of 100 mph impacts! After a genuine 100 mph accident there would be nothing left of the car. Crash energy goes up with the square of speed, so a 100 mph accident has over 6 times more energy that one at 40 mph.

Here are three impacts at 40, 50 and 56 mph, and you can already see a huge difference (56 mph impact is twice the energy of the 40mph one)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZChyjaqNBI&t=...


Here's whats left after a real 100 mph impact into a truely immovable object:

https://youtu.be/XFkn37BDvTw?t=65


So whilst i'm absolutely sure this car was going quite fast, and probably hit the first thing doing some speed, it sure as heck wasn't anywhere near 100 mph.......

[cedrichn]

Max_Torque said:

Here's whats left after a real 100 mph impact into a truely immovable object:

https://youtu.be/XFkn37BDvTw?t=65


So whilst i'm absolutely sure this car was going quite fast, and probably hit the first thing doing some speed, it sure as heck wasn't anywhere near 100 mph.......

1/ The car used in this video was designed in what ? The 90s ? So much computer design and crash test done now, car conception is at an entire different level of absorbing energy
2/ a full frontal crash is totally different than "sliding", hitting from the side, getting airborne, etc...

Just no way you can compare.
(But I get your point about "he must have been doing 200mph because I saw a video and measured the distance on Google" )

[silentbrown]

Max_Torque said:

Aways makes me laugh when i hear claims of 100 mph impacts! After a genuine 100 mph accident there would be nothing left of the car. Crash energy goes up with the square of speed, so a 100 mph accident has over 6 times more energy that one at 40 mph.

That's all very different. A single impact into an immovable object. All energy dissipated in the one impact.
Here's there's any number of impacts (lights, walls, cars, kerbs, and he's losing energy and speed from the very start. (even a little through air resistance while airborne!) CCTV frame-by-frame analysis would give a pretty accurate figure.

Guanyu's Silverstone epic was apparently from 160mph. He went about 250m before reaching the catch fencing.

[PHZero]

cedrichn said:

Max_Torque said:

Here's whats left after a real 100 mph impact into a truely immovable object:

https://youtu.be/XFkn37BDvTw?t=65


So whilst i'm absolutely sure this car was going quite fast, and probably hit the first thing doing some speed, it sure as heck wasn't anywhere near 100 mph.......

1/ The car used in this video was designed in what ? The 90s ? So much computer design and crash test done now, car conception is at an entire different level of absorbing energy
2/ a full frontal crash is totally different than "sliding", hitting from the side, getting airborne, etc...

Just no way you can compare.
(But I get your point about "he must have been doing 200mph because I saw a video and measured the distance on Google" )

Agreed. Perhaps not the best comparison. The car clearly hit / bounced off a few fairly solid objects before coming to a stop. 100mph doesn't seem unrealistic. It's all just conjecture for now anyway of course.

[Bonefish Blues]

silentbrown said:

Max_Torque said:

Aways makes me laugh when i hear claims of 100 mph impacts! After a genuine 100 mph accident there would be nothing left of the car. Crash energy goes up with the square of speed, so a 100 mph accident has over 6 times more energy that one at 40 mph.

That's all very different. A single impact into an immovable object. All energy dissipated in the one impact.
Here's there's any number of impacts (lights, walls, cars, kerbs, and he's losing energy and speed from the very start. (even a little through air resistance while airborne!) CCTV frame-by-frame analysis would give a pretty accurate figure.

Guanyu's Silverstone epic was apparently from 160mph. He went about 250m before reaching the catch fencing.

The tt(s)-in-chief were lucky that they've obviously been spinning,and dissipating energy by destroying every corner of their mighty performance car, as can be seen from the still pics posted this am.

Trees are disappointed.

[Krikkit]

Have to agree with Max_Torque on this one - they may have lost control at 100+, but managed to reign the speed in to a lot less before the impacts, the car would disintegrate even without hitting an immovable object at that speed.

Case in point, there was a crash on the M56 a few weeks ago,
guy in an A8, they'd obviously been going 100+ into the roadworks at the airport, hit the barrier, and the car has quite literally come apart over the course of several hundred metres. What was left of the cabin was unrecognisable, and there was a shower of debris for 400m. The police were busy surveying the scene with a drone as I'd passed.

Sadly the driver was killed.

[anonymous-user]

cedrichn said:

1/ The car used in this video was designed in what ? The 90s ? So much computer design and crash test done now, car conception is at an entire different level of absorbing energy
2/ a full frontal crash is totally different than "sliding", hitting from the side, getting airborne, etc...

Just no way you can compare.
(But I get your point about "he must have been doing 200mph because I saw a video and measured the distance on Google" )

Er, yes modern cars are indeed much better at absorbing crash energy than they used to be, but no, you are not going to survive a 100mph crash in any car if you hit something solid. Even if the car is somehow strong enough the decel forces are enough to kill you instantly anyway.

If they car didn't hit anything solid, or had just a glancing blow, then it wasn't a "100 mph impact". Pretty clear from the frontal damage that the major and impact looks to be consistant to a full frontal at around 35 mph, i'd guess into the wall then the van. A car doing 'just' 50 mph if not being braked or decelerated by impacts is clearly easily going to travel a long distance. In most glancing impacts the drivers hands and feet tend to come off the controls due to the g forces and it takes them a while to regain any positive control impact, plenty enough time for the car to travel a significant distance and have another impact as in this case.

[havoc]

Max_Torque said:

Aways makes me laugh when i hear claims of 100 mph impacts! After a genuine 100 mph accident there would be nothing left of the car. Crash energy goes up with the square of speed, so a 100 mph accident has over 6 times more energy that one at 40 mph.

...

So whilst i'm absolutely sure this car was going quite fast, and probably hit the first thing doing some speed, it sure as heck wasn't anywhere near 100 mph.......

As replied by others above...false equivalence there MT...this was multiple glancing blows, NONE of which to an immovable object (low single-skin wall definitely doesn't count...I could move that with a 12lb lump hammer)

...and besides, I didn't say "100mph impact", I suggested the chap was moving at around that speed.

[Slow]

havoc said:

Max_Torque said:

Aways makes me laugh when i hear claims of 100 mph impacts! After a genuine 100 mph accident there would be nothing left of the car. Crash energy goes up with the square of speed, so a 100 mph accident has over 6 times more energy that one at 40 mph.

...

So whilst i'm absolutely sure this car was going quite fast, and probably hit the first thing doing some speed, it sure as heck wasn't anywhere near 100 mph.......

As replied by others above...false equivalence there MT...this was multiple glancing blows, NONE of which to an immovable object (low single-skin wall definitely doesn't count...I could move that with a 12lb lump hammer)

...and besides, I didn't say "100mph impact", I suggested the chap was moving at around that speed.

132m from first impact to stopping. Isn’t it something like 100-0 mph takes 150+ meters to stop at maximum braking. Your not braking while in mid air and glancing blows aren’t the same as a hard impact for slowing you down.

[rallycross]

Is there any more video of this crash its pretty spectacular amazing no one died!

[PHZero]

rallycross said:

Is there any more video of this crash its pretty spectacular amazing no one died!

There is apparently, but it's not yet in the public domain!

[yanyan]

Two of mine from my youth....

1979 - country road, black ice - travelling far too fast because, of course, at 19 years of age, nothing can stop me...



1983 - A74, torrential rain, blocked culvert, road flooded, car spun and hit the central reservation, leaped over that and came to a halt pointing south on the north bound carriageway...

[AyBee]

Slow said:

132m from first impact to stopping. Isn’t it something like 100-0 mph takes 150+ meters to stop at maximum braking. Your not braking while in mid air and glancing blows aren’t the same as a hard impact for slowing you down.

With the amount of damage to that van, and moving the Volvo, the impacts were harder than "glancing blows" and that was after hitting a couple of lamp posts.