Accident on Solomons Bridge

FireBrand

FireBrand

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I really don't understand all of the anxieties.
The Gov.Thomas Johnson Bridge is a wonderful scenic drive.
In fact, I'm going to be putting it up for sale here real soon.
Would anyone like to make a reasonable offer :shrug:
 
Last edited:
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
dizzydevilrules said:
And some of these roads have no shoulders to escape someone crossing the yellow line, like Flat Iron Road.
Click to expand...


Shoulder or no shoulder, someones coming at you at 50 MPH, putting it into the trees at 30 or 40 I'd say your chances would be better. It seems everyone believes you're safer staying on the road no matter what. I'd think that in most cases, where an oncoming car/truck are concerened, staying between the lines may be the worst choice.
 
GWguy

GWguy

*
itsbob said:
Shoulder or no shoulder, someones coming at you at 50 MPH, putting it into the trees at 30 or 40 I'd say your chances would be better. It seems everyone believes you're safer staying on the road no matter what. I'd think that in most cases, where an oncoming car/truck are concerened, staying between the lines may be the worst choice.
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather hit another car. Cars are designed with crumple zones and impact absorbing frames which transfer the impact away from the occupant. You hit another car, and they both "bounce". Trees are dead weight, immovable objects. All the energy of an impact is directed back into the vehicle.
 
willie

willie

Well-Known Member
GWguy said:
I think I'd rather hit another car. Cars are designed with crumple zones and impact absorbing frames which transfer the impact away from the occupant. You hit another car, and they both "bounce". Trees are dead weight, immovable objects. All the energy of an impact is directed back into the vehicle.
Click to expand...
Depends on how fast the tree is going.
 
desertrat

desertrat

0_0
GWguy said:
I think I'd rather hit another car. Cars are designed with crumple zones and impact absorbing frames which transfer the impact away from the occupant. You hit another car, and they both "bounce". Trees are dead weight, immovable objects. All the energy of an impact is directed back into the vehicle.
Click to expand...

You'd have a lot of decisions to make in a kind of hurry. If its just a small car take the car. If it is a big truck you might be better off with a tree. Also if you run off the road, the other driver recovers, continues on without stopping and there are no witnesses, what will your insurance do?
 
smilin

smilin

BOXER NATION
itsbob said:
Shoulder or no shoulder, someones coming at you at 50 MPH, putting it into the trees at 30 or 40 I'd say your chances would be better. It seems everyone believes you're safer staying on the road no matter what. I'd think that in most cases, where an oncoming car/truck are concerened, staying between the lines may be the worst choice.
Click to expand...

The old American/European driving debate: Is a vehicle safer when it is designed to get you out of the way of an accident or is better to design it to passively absorb the damage?
I suppose the best of both worlds would be perfect, however not everyone can afford a Benz/Japanese lux mondo car with blind spot, braking, ice, rain, low flying seagull (only with sunroof/convertible option) sensors. Etc ad nauseum.
I prefer driving skill and nimble car option, even though I know most don't appreciate driving skills, so that's a waste of time.
 
JunkShip

JunkShip

Pastafarian
GWguy said:
I think I'd rather hit another car. Cars are designed with crumple zones and impact absorbing frames which transfer the impact away from the occupant. You hit another car, and they both "bounce". Trees are dead weight, immovable objects. All the energy of an impact is directed back into the vehicle.
Click to expand...


Except the relative impact with oncomming traffic (save braking time) will be 100mph....
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
GWguy said:
I think I'd rather hit another car. Cars are designed with crumple zones and impact absorbing frames which transfer the impact away from the occupant. You hit another car, and they both "bounce". Trees are dead weight, immovable objects. All the energy of an impact is directed back into the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Do you watch Mythbusters??

What I got from one of their episodes is.. two cars traveling 50 MPH impacting is the same force as a single car going 50 MPH into a Concrete wall..

So if you're going 30, and the oncoming car/truck is going >50, less damage would likely occur if you hit a cement wall, or a tree, at 30.. v. both cars hitting each other at a combined speed of 80MPH (or to take the assumption one step further, a 40 MPH crash into a cement walls worth of damage)
 
RPMDAD

RPMDAD

Well-Known Member
itsbob said:
Do you watch Mythbusters??

What I got from one of their episodes is.. two cars traveling 50 MPH impacting is the same force as a single car going 50 MPH into a Concrete wall..

So if you're going 30, and the oncoming car/truck is going >50, less damage would likely occur if you hit a cement wall, or a tree, at 30.. v. both cars hitting each other at a combined speed of 80MPH (or to take the assumption one step further, a 40 MPH crash into a cement walls worth of damage)
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I saw that one too, and i was a little surprised by the reults, but they did prove it out. However it did come with typical MB warning "do not try this at home we are trained professionals"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top