OT Rant - Idle Essex Polis again

Stefek Zaba wrote:

Ah yes... I was suffering from a units bypass! That would be 40m/s^2 which (near enough) is indeed 4g
v = u + at
0 = 40 + a * 1
-40 = a
(Which for a crash from 80 does not sound like much really!)
From 80 to rest in say 1m may be more realistic... Time taken for arrest would be time to cover 1m at avg speed (20 m/s) or 50ms
0 = 40 + a * 50e-3
40 / 50e-3 = 800 m/s^2 or 80g
That sounds a bit more like the sort of "oops I have just powdered my sturnum!" kind of force required ;-)
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Rumm wrote:

Vastly different guesstimates, aren't they! You're right to point out that taking a whole second to decellerate from 40m/s to 0 would require you to cover a non-trivial distance - 20m (vee-squared = 1600 2.40.20). Somewhere between our two oversimplified, uniform-acceleration estimates lies what would actually happen in a crash at high speed: the crumple zone will indeed spread out the body's decelaration over a greater distance and time than the 1m you mention, but there'll be a far from uniform decelleration both over time and for different parts of the body - heads being heavy and less well restrained than torsos and legs.
Stefek
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stefek Zaba wrote:

Even 20g on an unrestrained head sounds quite nasty... bit like lying on your front, with your head over a drop, and having four people stand on the back of your head!
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

25G is actually sustainable for over a minute, conscious. If prone, and the force is pushing you down on your back. Bloody nasty, but survivable. (not exactly relevant to car crashes, as the delta-v rarely approaches 10km/s)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But only in ideal circumstances (ie. where all your bits are correctly supported). If your head is flaying around the place, you'll likely break your neck.
a
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
al wrote:

Yes, the point being that a head flying about puts peak G > 200 on certain parts of your anatomy.
My whole thesis is that really, no one inside a car needs to die in just about any crash they could possibly have up to about 150mph.
The fact that they do is car design and driver habit.
This doesn't solve the pedestrian/cyclist/motorcycle problem however.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stefek Zaba wrote:

4g is nothing. Not even bruising.
Work out what g it takes to stip a car from 30mph in the space of its crumple zone. That is a very survivable accident.
I've seen a racing mini go from 100mph to 0 in the space of 10 feet of tyrewall. The driver got out and walked away.
Michael Schumacher only broke his legs hitting a tyrewall at 130mph estimated. Decelerative distance about 20 feet max. Modern F1 cars would not even cause that injury anymore.
Conversely I have seen a woman killed by being hit at 20mph. She landed on her head and broke her neck. A fall of less than 8 feet onto the road is actually what KILLED her after the car had tossed her up over its bonnet.
Perhaps we should build houses that do not hacve upper floors in case people fall out of them.
And add disabled ramps to all the cliffs in britain, to stop people pushing their wheelchairs over them.

I'd rather reserve that for those who actually get involved in accidents.
Now the last person in my experience who wrote off a car, was my dear old mum, who drove into the back of a stationary trailer stopped in the middle of the road, on a bright, clear, dry, day. with at least 100 yards visibility doing no more than her customary 25mph.
She continiued to drive for 4 years after that, until an accident at home put a stop to it. She still insists she is perfectly safe to drive, despite the fact that she can't remember my name half the time, and has no clear idea of what town she currently lives in.
The lads in the BMW's are only half the problem. In my list of accidents I have witnessed/been involved in, only one of many were in that category..Sunday drivers with full family on board having a row...2.
Old lady stepping on front of car doing under speed limit ..1
Old boy dithering and doddering at a pedestrian crossing, and completely confusing the cars behind before finally deciding to slam on the brakes and stop in the MIDDLE of the crossing...1
Poor road design leading to unforeseen blind spots...2
White van man with no rear three quarter vision pulling out in front...1..almost killed me that one did. Poor van design? They have better mirrors these days. I don't hold it against him.
Temporary road surface, no markings, and in shocking condition ....3
No. Most accidents are caused by drivers behaving in what they think are perfectly reasonable (nad indeeed perfectly legal) ways, but being totally unaware of how unreasonable they really are. And that's an issue for the very inexeperienced, and the very old.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Me thinks he was mistaken. I've pulled 3.5G in a max rate turn on a plane. Makes you ill after a while, but nothing fell off!!! Also, F1 cars pull 4G's in corners.
a
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
al wrote:

yup. 5-6g is where you start to black out/red out if persisted with.. but in a pressure suit up to 10g is doable for minutes on end...10-50g will black you out pretty much instantly, but won't kill you but make bruise..50-200g is more or less bruising, including internal bruising, loss of consciusness, but may not be permanent damage. Over 200 things start getting seriuosly damaged, and beyond about 500g death is probably guranteed.
So up to 5g not a lot happens at all...5-20g will mess up blood flow, but not do any permanent damage..20g-50g is bruises...50-200g is severe and possibly dangerous bruising, but no broken bones...200-500g is lots of bad bruising and broken bones, and over 500 is dead.
Using v^2*s where v is velocity, s is distance, and a is acceleration, its instructive to see what a 30mph crunch into a totally immovable object in a car with a progressive 4 foot of crumple zone actually does to the passenger cell..I make it a piffling 7.5g. I.e. totally survivable if the passngeer cell remains intact and you don't get whiplash or bash your head on anything and are wearing a belt.
100 mph to nothing in 4 feet is 83g. Shaken up, but if well belted in, a walk away job.
200 mph to nothing in 4 feet - that's a high speed crash into a concrete wall at indianapolis - is about 350g. No one has walked away from one of those, but quite a few have survived with smashed legs etc.
Now out of sheer morbid curiousiy, let's look at the acceleration of a brain that say stops in an inch when falling from a height of 6 feet...
The ratio of the deceleration to the acceleration, assuming terminal velocity is approached, is the ratio of the two distances - 72:1 = 72g So in fact a fall from 6 foot onto a fairly hard surface - i.e. tripping over backwards on a carpet over concrete, IS JUST A ALMOST AS DANGEROUS AS BEING WELL STRAPPED IN A CAR WITH A DECENT PASSENGER CELL STOPPING FROM 100mph IN JUST 4 FEET!!!!
If all motorists drove cars equipped as racing and rally cars are, with safety cages, full harness strapped up tight, and crash helmets, and equipped with crumple zones, thats the sort of *walkaway* accident you could have. Head on at 100mph into a concrete bridge pillar.
Now where pedestrians are concerned, as I have said earlier, and out of personal experience, a fall onto tarmac from 8 feet on yer head will kill someone. Its the hardness of the tarmac that does it. Or a particularly unfortunate angle that breaks a neck...
The energy to raise eg. a 10 stone (140lb) person 8 feet is a 1120 pound feet or 36,000 foot poundals. To guarantee less kinetic energy than that in a one ton car (a small one) means a speed of 4 feet per second, or about 3 mph....
What this means that in places where pedestrians don't exist, head on accidents of 100 mph - either one car into concrete - or two 50mph cars head on, both built to best safety standards with passengers well contained, are simply walkaway shocked and shaking, but not injured, type accidents.
But where pedestrians are concerned, there is no safe speed whatseover above a 3mph crawl. And arguably even that would not someone tripping and falling under the wheels. Or falling flat on their backs onto concrete.
The figures show just how important it is to have a crash helmet on, by the way - even an inch of padding that crushes, will _hugely_ reduce peak acceleration on the skull, and neck supports that prevent spinal dislocation, are also massively useful - all F1 drivers wear them.
The answers are staring you in the face. Where pedestrians/motorcyclists/cyclists are not, speed limits of 60mph on single, and 120mph on dual, are probably about right, if you expect these sorts of collisions.
This leaves entirely out of the equation whether such accidents are likely at all, more likely travelling fast, or in fact less likely travelling fast. IME a fast collison is a long and slow one to happen - cars go all over the place, rolling and tumbling...but do not come to a halt quickly. Whereas 30mph into a lamp post is pretty hard stuff.
And pedestrians, and cyclists should be totally and completely separated from traffic. There is *no safe speed in residential below which survival is guaranteed*.
Motorcycles and horses which have no safety cells are inherently dangerous, and anyone who rides one should do so at their own risk. You can kill yourself just falling off a horse onto concrete or tarmac with no crash helmet.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 2 situations quoted are very different.
At 2x the speed a car has 4 times the kinetic energy.
OTOH a head-on crash would not be very different to a collision with a stationary and unyielding object at the same speed.
Roger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger wrote:

On reflection you are right, the head on crash at 50 is a lesser event in terms of loss of energy, being equivalent to two cars simultaneously driving into opposite sides of a bridge at 50.
Well that is even less argument in favour of low speed limits.
Since we can see that at similar weights, a head on collision between two cars at 100mph each is the same as hitting a solid wall at 100mph...

All you are stying is there is no such thing as a herad on crash..its alwsy some kind of glancing blow.
When saw the mini hit a wall at 100mph, the thing actually rose up on its rearwheels about 6 feet. So the deceleration of the driver was a lot less than that of the front bumper, even without teh crimpling effects of the engine area. .
As I said, the driver walked away. The same could not be said of the front bumnper...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. I am saying much the same as your paragraph above. Just giving myself a little leeway to cover the fact that head-on crashes aren't an exact mirror image match.
--
Roger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem with all of these calculations, while mathematically correct, they don't take account of the tremendous kinetic energy of the event and for foreign objects, shapes of cars, etc. Unfortunately, actual crashes aren't uniform and thing protrude into cabin space, hit at funny angles, snap things like necks that weren't braced for impact, etc. etc.
In a racing car, you're strapped hard into the correct position and usually braced for impact. However, at 50mph, a stray wheel could hit you in the head and decapitate you, long after your team-mate has walked away from a 220mph spin through a gravel trap and into a nicely designed tyre wall.
Chaos theory keeps the world dangerous and unusual!
a
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
al wrote:

Or you get a susspension wishbone going straight in one side of your helmet and out the other - with your head still in it!
IIRC that is what happened to Ayton Senna.
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
al wrote:

Thats is not actually an issue. So teh car gets broken and hotter, as does the wall.

That is a matter of design. Aytron senna died because trackriod punched through his helmet, not because he ran into a wall at 150mph.

That is design. Not intrinsically irrevocable. Yes, the parcel in the back seat can smash your skull. Put it in the boot.

Which is why they are tied on these days.
All I am saying is that with good car design, crashes can be made infinitely more surviveable for the passengers. We have seen huge strides amde with soft collapsible steering columns, air bags, safety belts, crumple zones, side impact bars and head restraints, none of which were on the cars I learnt to drive.
Nor were disk brakes - vented discs and 4 pot calipers were not really even invented - radial tyres, low profile tryes, ABS, traction control or anything.
A head on at 30mph often resulted in driver death and severe passneger injuries. These days its almost a non event.

Indeed. buit statistics means that if cars are better designed with crumple zones oustidee a tough passenger shell that is well padded, and te passengers are bolted down, far far highre impact speeds than most people think are een surviveable, will result in very little physical damage.
IF we lifted speed limits on motorways, would we in fact get better flow, reduced journey times, less trafiic as a result, less bunching and less tailgaiting?
The german experience suggest that its possible. There you can always make up time you lose in congestion on the empty streches at 115mph,...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

80mph will

But they won't 'shatter', look up the meaning of the word you utter moron.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think "splatter" might have been a better choice for him. But he's not really very good with words ...
a
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
al wrote:

He isn't really very good with anything.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

will
Odd. Pretty sure I saw plenty of cars hit Monaco's barriers a week ago at way over that speed without injury. And I've hit a tree in a rally at that speed and simply got out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doctor Evil wrote:

I hit a pidgeon at that speed once.... still here (unlike the pidgeon)!
--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.