if you smash 2 modern cars together like above then both occupants will be dead. the law of physics stipulate energy has to be dissipated. And if non of the cars give the occupants are going to cop it. no matter how many 100 million airbags and crap you fit.
Drive slower, less physics to deal with when you crash.
poppy62,
Mar 21, 8:30am
"The law of physics" (that you're on about) stipulate energy has to be dissipated". Is Done so! by the crumple zones on the car. That is why the newer cars are safer than the old ones. 2 modern cars smash together probably means no lives are lost.
apollo11,
Mar 21, 12:55pm
Hey, go easy on intrade. He managed to spell morons correctly.
apollo11,
Mar 21, 1:01pm
Or don't crash. Lots of people driving on autopilot without speeding. The guy who t-boned me off my motorbike never even saw me (my lights were on). Half asleep and thinking about what he was going to be doing at work.
tygertung,
Mar 22, 3:14am
Maybe the government needs to put out a road safety message of "Don't crash".
Our road toll will reduce to zero!
apollo11,
Mar 22, 3:29am
Or we could drive at 5 km/ hr. Far less 'physics' to worry about then. The government WERE looking at reducing motorway speeds down to 80 at one time, not sure what ever came of that. You'd save on deaths/ injuries and fuel costs too. Pehaps it didn't work out on whatever economic cost benefit equation they run to work out the viability of this sort of change.
intrade,
Mar 22, 4:45am
33 # exactly i thik 70kph is the danger zone so 45kph head on =90kph impact= you are potentially dead . its all just total bull. $.t if you dont crash you dont die if you avoid a head on you reduce death by a huge ammount. if you have a tank you can plow thru anything= old against new car. To reduce accidents everyone would need to be able to know how to avoid a accident and have driving skills of what is dangerous and how to brake without abs etc. so wha make all roads 30 kph and only new cars to not have accidents. you can be sure they would run over pedestrians and kill them at 30 also. so what stay in bed and be tube feed like in them alien movies insted next?
curlcrown,
Mar 22, 5:02am
Question. If two vehicles of indentical mass have a head on colision each going 50km/h at the time of impact the colision would be equevilent to one car hitting a massive soild imoveable object at what speed?
tygertung,
Mar 22, 5:48am
It is much safer to get run over at 30 km/h than 60. At 30 you just sort of roll over the bonnet.
cjohnw,
Mar 22, 6:03am
The limit has been reduced to between 60 - 80 kmph on SH6 between Nelson and Blenheim as a trial for the rest of the country. Not sure when that trial finishes.
apollo11,
Mar 22, 8:24am
Hit an elderly person at thirty and you'd probably kill them. I've always managed to avoid before running over people. Perhaps it's more a matter of staying alert and driving to the conditions.
trouser,
Mar 22, 9:29am
50 and your point is?
tygertung,
Mar 22, 10:19am
I was speaking from the perspective of the person getting run over, not the villain driving the car.
apollo11,
Mar 22, 11:04am
My point is that you are in control of a potential weapon. You shouldn't be having a car crash at all, regardless of your speed. Drive to the conditions. Stay alert. Avoid risk.
tygertung,
Mar 22, 12:11pm
I don't think you understand. I was speaking from the position of the pedestrian. The pedestrian isn't in control of a potential weapon. A pedestrian would rather get run over by someone going slower than faster.
apollo11,
Mar 22, 12:28pm
Or not get run over at all, which is my point.
gunhand,
Mar 22, 12:47pm
Really?
slarty45,
Mar 22, 1:12pm
If an old car with solid hood ornament, it might hook the ped & stop him/her from smashing the windshield
tygertung,
Mar 22, 2:11pm
Look, if it were that simple: "Don't crash", "Don't get run over", the road toll would be zero.
Clearly it isn't that simple as the road toll is greater than zero.
apollo11,
Mar 22, 2:24pm
"Don't speed" is clearly not working either. What we need is better drivers.
tygertung,
Mar 22, 3:05pm
Just reduce the speed limit to reduce the physics.
cattleshed,
Mar 22, 3:38pm
Oh dear this video is still doing the rounds! Polite response is that it is dishonest! Check out the ACTUAL chassis used in the 59. It was NOT your standard chassis by ANY stretch of the imagination. Do the research and see otherwise you are promoting the same nonsense. I am not talking safety of modern v older JUST the fact that this was a test against a car that had KNOWN faults (not to mention the rust that was pointed out). When you know the facts concerning THAT chassis you will realise how unethical skewed and dishonest the 'test' is.
toenail,
Mar 22, 4:18pm
safety can be brought with money. like with most things in life.
One can be 100% sure if they spend $160k+ on a top of the line large sedan or SUV, they will be better off than some run of the mill car modern or not.
so lets not pretend better engineered crash systems doesn't make a difference.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.