Gruesome reading

http://www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/death1.htm

 

A rather long-winded way of saying 'if you hit a tree at 55mph, you'll die'.

 

Im sorry for my indifference but in respect of the bike collision example
that is something of a generalisation applying for the unlucky few?

In my case I had a collision side on with a car at 25-30Mph and got
catapulted rather fortunately OVER the tank, missed the car rear completely,
and landed nicely on my front suffering only a scratched visor, and
leathers. If however the speed was any different and I hit the central
pillar of the car; well that would be another story.
You can't treat all accidents the same, as by merits thats the complication
of traffic accidents - its very difficult to find two exactly the same.
And sometimes, a SLOW accident can be as bad if not more deadly than a fast
one.
A gruesome read nonetheless!

 

John Collins has died again? He must be fed up with it by now.
I wonder in which bit of Merkinland Hill Place is.

 

There's a bit of a counting problem here:

"Death in less than a second"

(Motorcycle)

15ms
25ms
63ms
55ms
80ms
105ms

The motorcycle and rider fall motionless to the road.

TIME ELAPSED - 1.42 seconds

Bit of time travel and time bending there.

 

And I thought my CSE Grade 4 grammar was bad!

 

Alternative version. Crumple zones and airbags do their job. Probably
survived, possibly uninjured.

On the other hand, if he had hit a tree side-on at 100mph or so..........
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A52F2155C

 

It's bollox.
The actual crash and injuries will occur in less than 0.1 of a second.

Without been arsed to work it out.
At 55mph you will be travelling approx 80 feet per second.

 

Quite a bit slower actually.
100KPH

 

I'm pretty sure that's almost word-for-word from a "belt up" leaflet
that I picked up in a motorway service station around the time that the
mandatory front seat belt law came in.

I remember it, partly because Timothy Spall was filling his SIII XJ6 up.

But after that, on the way home, I read the leaflet many, many times. I
remember being confused about the part with the "legs, ramrod-straight,
snap at the knee joint". I was reading it, in a car, and I look around,
and thought that whomever wrote that could never have been in a car
before.

 

Bollocks - just because the speedo stopped at 100kph it doesn't mean that
was the actual speed at impact. Lobbing an Audi at a tree at only 100kpk or
(62 mph approx) would not result in that amount of damage.

 

I'm sure we've discussed this before and come to the conclusion that this
isn't a real set of accident photos.

The damage to the car is all wrong - how does a complete engine block just
jump out and land nowhere near the rest of the car, for example?

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

TMack wrote

Depends on the tree dunnit?

Some of them can be right nasty when the sap is rising.

 

Worst case cobblers.

I see a certain 'Kev' has written at the bottom. I wonder if that is
'Uno Who' from uk.rec.cars.* . Same style.

 

When the car is airborne, hits a tree sideways on at 100mph or more and
wraps around the tree - the inertia of the engine rips it out of the front
of the car, just before the car rips in half (initially assisted by the
inertia of the engine whilst it was still attached). Accidents of this
severity are very rare and all kind of weird things can happen. Weird
things often happen in accidents.........
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2215265C
In a perverse kind of way you might see the engine as evidence of it being
genuine - who would go to all that trouble and yet put the engine in what
appears to be an unlikely position? Of course another possibility is that
the engine was removed/moved after the crash. Having said that it could be
fake. Anything/everything that we see as image rather than reality might
have been faked.

 

Yup, both Kevs sound like pompous twats.

--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1, Fiat Coupe 20v Turbo
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, DS#5, COSOC# Suspended, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

1983, are you sure?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/media/video/otdvideo/83/01/31/884
_31-01-83?size=4x3&bgc=6699CC&nbram=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&news=1

Your point still stands though.

 

Was a bit of a mess. It's from the BBC site, contemporary report on the
front seat belt law from January 1983. Fantastic footage of Frank Bough,
Tory under minister for frumpy dresses and 70's motors.

On this page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/31/newsid_2505000
/2505871.stm

Not that that's any better.

Rear seat belts were 1991, which may be when you mean.

 

Ohh, I thought you meant you were filling a car at the petrol station, as
well as Timothy Spall.

In that case I'll just mention I've met Eric Morecambe.

 

Sure about what part?

Oh, Christ, I'll never get that working.

"artistic licence"