Wrecked Car!!! -- not mine :p

[5lab]

big al - i've hit enough on a non-motorbike to know how those bikes handle when you hit something - i'd imagine a motorbike is the same.. the rear end pitches up, throws you off (9 times out of 10) then settles back down..

[malfunction]

Al - I'd have to agree with 5lab on that one in theory (though either is possible) as the bike is not only a lot heavier than the person on it but is also already (at least partly) inside the car as it pitches up and the car is collapsing, absorbing it's force... If the car was rigid enough to withstand the impact then the bike would probably go up and over too - but not as far as the rider would as again it weighs a lot more (probably 5-10 times more than the rider - though that obviously depends on the bike and the rider!)

[Allen]

Yeah, I see what your saying there, it could... I'd still like to know exactly what happened in this accident though.

[5lab]

malfunction has hinted on another point as to why a bike would do that much damage..

think about this, a car t-bones another car, doing 60mph. the front of the tboner absorbs the impact by buckling, the engine compresses a bit and absorbs lots of the impact energy, while the tbonee absorbs the rest. on a bike however, nothing is built to bend.. the frame might (and in this case probably did) bend quite a bit, but its not designed to, and thus nearly all of the energy had to be absorbed by the car, rather than some of it being absorbed by the bike.. anyone get that?

[Capt Doufos]

Small car... probably no side impact protection. You ever seen the Crash tests of cars hitting stationary objects at even 30mph? You would be suprised at the damage caused.

I would say even if that bike was doing 40-50mph and the car was effectivley stationary when hit at that speed that sort of damage would be caused. The forces involved will be huge. Take into account no side impact protection bars etc...

As for saying he deserved it... It's a appaulling to say that. If you don't know what happened you cannot comment. The Car driver COULD have been drunk, The cars brakes COULD have failed, the car COULD have been speeding, and the list goes on. Saying someone deserved to die is a VERY VERY harsh comment. Wishing death on people is just wrong.

[Allen]

Yes, I did say it as I was angry at the time due to how I feel about speeding (which no-one had proved he wasn't yet), but FFS read my other posts! I have withdrawn that comment and even said I was wrong.

Can we now please STOP rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishting on me coz I hate speeding?

[TeePee]

Bad news everybody.
When a bike hits the passenger cabin of the car, so does the rider. The rider only has a chance of being thrown over if he hits the bonnet area since it's lower.

[Big RICHARD]

Bad news everybody.
When a bike hits the passenger cabin of the car, so does the rider. The rider only has a chance of being thrown over if he hits the bonnet area since it's lower.

What if he knows he's going to hit a car so stands up?

[BlueBot]

Ok, just to take this as an example, ask any motorcyclist if they think that if they were going 90 and had an accident with a car, would they survive. Then ask yourself this, if they knowingly break the speed limit knowing they could die, do they deserve (ok, deserve is probably the wrong word, but I've used it now) to?

I get on a plane and go SCUBA diving knowing that my feet may never touch land again, but I still do it as I minimize the risks as much as I can. That's what has to be done with speeding.

It is plain daft to say that some government stated limit is the safe speed to do on roads!!! For a start governments rarely get things right... For seconds when speed limits were introduced (back end of the 60's I believe) cars didn't have ABS, had smaller tyres, didn't have crumple zones, didn't have airbags, didn't have side impact bars, didn't have seatbelts, didn't have automatical fuel cutoff devices, etc.

Therefore to say that a 1970's and a modern day car both have their maximum safe speed at 70 on a motorway if nonsense! Also driving exams have become more rigorous.

Also speed on any particular road should be in accordance to road conditions, 90mph is fine on an open motorway in a modern car with excellent weather conditions, but as the conditions worsen your speed should decrease.

This is why so many people want more policeman and less GATSO's etc as the police can be more subjective than a computer circuit board!!!

Steve

ps whether the biker hit the car or not, the sheer force of the impact probably caused massive internal bleeding, he may have looked fine from the outside, but internally his organs would probably be in a soupy mush

pps Big_Al we are not shtting on ya mate, just that everyone has diff. views, infact I do agree with you partly about the merits of speeding.

[5lab]

Also speed on any particular road should be in accordance to road conditions, 90mph is fine on an open motorway in a modern car with excellent weather conditions, but as the conditions worsen your speed should decrease.


no its not..

if a modern car, which weighs a lot more than an old car, hits a crash barrier @ 90, chances are it might go right thru it, onto oncoming traffic. why do you think lorries are limited to 60?

[BlueBot]

lorries are actually limited to 56, but I see your point. Although a fully loaded HGV will weigh in at around 30 times the weight of an average family car.

Why are cars getting heavier? Bigger engines maybe, but looking at models such as the new Jaguar XJ, it's over 120KG's lighter than its previous model, which was lighter than it's previous model etc. They are fundamentally safer in so so so many ways! Crash barriers are also a relatively recent invention, and therefore are designed to cope with modern day cars.

Steve

ps I am not disputing the fact that cars maybe getting hevier, tbh I don't really know, are they???