4x4 driver tried to mow down cyclist and ploughed into hair salon

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Bikepot

I feel bad I left you alone jabbering into the evening. I thought we had finished as we agreed on something:)

I think it time to put this to bed now.

So to summarise, your were wrong and I was right

Fairly normal reasoning from many 4x4 drivers. Dodged the questions, ignored basic physics, decided you were right anyway regardless of the safety of others.

vonhelmet wrote:

It's a while since I studied physics, and I'm far from an expert in collisions, but is it energy or momentum that is more relevant? Energy scales with mass and the square of velocity, but momentum scales with mass and velocity, so the vehicle speed isn't the huge factor it is in calculating energy.

Anyone?

Maybe it depends on whether you're likely to be flung by the impact. After all, hitting a person will send them flying, and the speed they "fly" off at will be determined by momentum. If you hit a building, it's not going anywhere as such. I guess if you're being flung by a car the energy will be spent flinging you rather than breaking your bones... That will come when you land.

Either way, I'd rather be hit by the corsa than the q7.

Elasticity is what matters. Rigid bodies will conserve momentum, which is great because it means I can play pool badly and get away with it. The physics in a car crash are complex, as it's all about crumple zones and absorbing the energy. The greater the KE, the greater the crumpling of the car and whatever else is involved.

SteppenHerring wrote:

I think the point bikebot is making is that, for heavier more powerful vehicles, there should be a higher standard of driving test - as there is for PSVs, HGVs etc. For anyone who actually needs a 2.5 Tonne 4x4 - e.g. farmers, landscape gardeners - then it's not too much of an obstacle. For the arms-race on the school run, it's a deterrent.

There are issues with the higher, heavier vehicles. It's not unknown for SUVs to be reversed over small children because the visibility out the back doesn't extend to so far down. The higher centre of gravity means that they are more likely to tip over in high-speed swerves. If you've got an utter bell-end driving near you, would you rather they were in a Micra or a Q7?

But I can kind of see both sides. For any weapon to be dangerous, it requires someone to use it dangerously. SUVs don't kill people - people kill people.

You got it exactly, and the last comment is very pertinent. Many people have drawn parallels about the arguments made for cars and those made for guns. An automatic assault rifle is a perfectly reasonable gun for anyone to own without any more restriction than a small handgun, because... you know, it's people that kill, not guns.

The licensing and regulatory requirements should increase with the potential for harm of whatever is being operated. That's a fairly universal principle across all kinds of machinery.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Nutter + Nissan leaf = dangerous driver
Nutter + Q7= dangerous driver
Nutter + transit = dangerous driver

See above common denominator

Sensible driver + Nissan leaf = safe driver
" "
" "
" "

Completely different outcome.

The driver in this case would of been dangerous in a little car. She was a grenade waiting to go off. Fortunately no one died and she is going to be punished severely

Tell that to the shop owner.

So this also happened near to me - http://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/13792983.UPDATED/

If that had been a Q7, the child would almost certainly have died.

2.5T Q7 + bad driver = dead child.
1.5T Hatchback + bad driver = injured child.

See the difference?

Whatever next, is someone going to start defending speeding as perfectly safe. Some of these replies are sounding a wee bit ABD.

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Nutter + Nissan leaf = dangerous driver
Nutter + Q7= dangerous driver
Nutter + transit = dangerous driver

See above common denominator

Sensible driver + Nissan leaf = safe driver
" "
" "
" "

Completely different outcome.

The driver in this case would of been dangerous in a little car. She was a grenade waiting to go off. Fortunately no one died and she is going to be punished severely

Tell that to the shop owner.

If that had been a Q7, the child would almost certainly have died.

2.5T Q7 + bad driver = dead child.
1.5T Hatchback + bad driver = injured child.

See the difference?

Shop are only bricks and mortar

You cannot make that assessment between the two vehicles. A smaller vehicle can have as much destructive force as a big vehicle. Too many variables, speed and pace of acceleration being two obvious ones

CXR94Di2 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Nutter + Nissan leaf = dangerous driver
Nutter + Q7= dangerous driver
Nutter + transit = dangerous driver

See above common denominator

Sensible driver + Nissan leaf = safe driver
" "
" "
" "

Completely different outcome.

The driver in this case would of been dangerous in a little car. She was a grenade waiting to go off. Fortunately no one died and she is going to be punished severely

Tell that to the shop owner.

If that had been a Q7, the child would almost certainly have died.

2.5T Q7 + bad driver = dead child.
1.5T Hatchback + bad driver = injured child.

See the difference?

Shop are only bricks and mortar

You cannot make that assessment between the two vehicles. A smaller vehicle can have as much destructive force as a big vehicle. Too many variables, speed and pace of acceleration being two obvious ones

Car size, car weight, engine power, all factors.

No a smaller vehicle cannot "have as much destructive force as a big vehicle."

Because physics, duh.

And shops aren't only "brick and mortar", they usually have people in them. I've seen the aftermath of three such incidents in the last year or so, including this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704040/Did-think-drive-Driver-c...

Again, thank God that Corsa driver wasn't another person that bought into this nonsense that the car makes no difference, it would have been a much worse story.

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Nutter + Nissan leaf = dangerous driver
Nutter + Q7= dangerous driver
Nutter + transit = dangerous driver

See above common denominator

Sensible driver + Nissan leaf = safe driver
" "
" "
" "

Completely different outcome.

The driver in this case would of been dangerous in a little car. She was a grenade waiting to go off. Fortunately no one died and she is going to be punished severely

Tell that to the shop owner.

If that had been a Q7, the child would almost certainly have died.

2.5T Q7 + bad driver = dead child.
1.5T Hatchback + bad driver = injured child.

See the difference?

Shop are only bricks and mortar

You cannot make that assessment between the two vehicles. A smaller vehicle can have as much destructive force as a big vehicle. Too many variables, speed and pace of acceleration being two obvious ones

Car size, car weight, engine power, all factors.

No a smaller vehicle cannot "have as much destructive force as a big vehicle."

Because physics, duh.

And shops aren't only "brick and mortar", they usually have people in them. I've seen the aftermath of three such incidents in the last year or so, including this one

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2704040/Did-think-drive-Driver-c...

Again, thank God that Corsa driver wasn't another person that bought into this nonsense that the car makes no difference, it would have been a much worse story.

Your missing the point it's the driver who is the danger

Yes a smaller vehicle can have more destructive force. Just punch in different weights and speeds into your calc. You will see that a small car can have more kinetic energy

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Your missing the point it's the driver who is the danger

Yes a smaller vehicle can have more destructive force. Just punch in different weights and speeds into your calc. You will see that a small car can have more kinetic energy

Are you really bad at maths as well as physics?

Pick a velocity, type into into the equation with the weight of a small car, see result. Now replace with weight of a large car, see result. Bigger car carries more energy. Honestly, I think they teach this at year five now.

It seems very strange to me to question that, as that principle is already used throughout our road traffic laws and vehicle licensing framework. The only appropriate question is whether the current level of graduation is sufficient, and I don't believe it is.

If you think I've missed the point about the driver being the source of the danger, you haven't understood my rather lengthy post above about raising the licensing requirements for those that chose to drive larger vehicles. It's entirely about the driver and ensuring that as their potential for harm increases so does the appropriate licensing requirement.

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Your missing the point it's the driver who is the danger

Yes a smaller vehicle can have more destructive force. Just punch in different weights and speeds into your calc. You will see that a small car can have more kinetic energy

Are you really bad at maths as well as physics?

Pick a velocity, type into into the equation with the weight of a small car, see result. Now replace with weight of a large car, see result. Bigger car carries more energy. Honestly, I think they teach this at year five now.

It seems very strange to me to question that, as that principle is already used throughout our road traffic laws and vehicle licensing framework. The only appropriate question is whether the current level of graduation is sufficient, and I don't believe it is.

If you think I've missed the point about the driver being the source of the danger, you haven't understood my rather lengthy post above about raising the licensing requirements for those that chose to drive larger vehicles. It's entirely about the driver and ensuring that as their potential for harm increases so does the appropriate licensing requirement.

2

Calm down chappy

I said there were too many variables to say one vehicle is more dangerous than another

You were ranting on that bigger cars are more dangerous than smaller, no they are not. It's the driver that makes one more dangerous than another

Eg

Vehicle 1
Mass 1000kg
Speed 50 mph
kinetic energy 1250000 joules

Vehicle 2
Mass 2000kg
Speed 30mph
Kinetic energy 900000 joules

You see smaller vehicles can have more destructive energy. Then there is the shape of the car, length of bonnet yadda yadda.....

Which one would you like to bounce off now

CXR94Di2 wrote:

Calm down chappy

I said there were too many variables to say one vehicle is more dangerous than another

You were ranting on that bigger cars are more dangerous than smaller, no they are not. It's the driver that makes one more dangerous than another

Eg

Vehicle 1
Mass 1000kg
Speed 50 mph
kinetic energy 1250000 joules

Vehicle 2
Mass 2000kg
Speed 30mph
Kinetic energy 900000 joules

You see smaller vehicles can have more destructive energy. Then there is the shape of the car, length of bonnet yadda yadda.....

Which one would you like to bounce off now

So you're arguing that those that drive these large vehicles should have lower speed limits? Rough calculation, someone in a Q7 would have to stick to 20mph in a 30 zone, so that if it were involved in a collision its potential for harm is the same as a typical hatchback.

That seems rather draconian to me. I just want to raise the licensing requirements to ensure that those who drive such a vehicle are less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, and so that we can take those cars away from them if they can't operate them safely.

bikebot wrote:

So you're arguing that those that drive these large vehicles should have lower speed limits? Rough calculation, someone in a Q7 would have to stick to 20mph in a 30 zone, so that if it were involved in a collision its potential for harm is the same as a typical hatchback.

That seems rather draconian to me. I just want to raise the licensing requirements to ensure that those who drive such a vehicle are less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, and so that we can take those cars away from them if they can't operate them safely.

You're going off topic, small cars can have more destructive energy than larger. Do you agree?

All drivers of cars should be required demonstrate a sufficient level of competency to drive a car. Those who drive dangerously should be punished in accordance with their offence.

Nutter+ car(any size) = dangerous driver

Sensible safe +car ("") = safe driver

CXR94Di2 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

So you're arguing that those that drive these large vehicles should have lower speed limits? Rough calculation, someone in a Q7 would have to stick to 20mph in a 30 zone, so that if it were involved in a collision its potential for harm is the same as a typical hatchback.

That seems rather draconian to me. I just want to raise the licensing requirements to ensure that those who drive such a vehicle are less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, and so that we can take those cars away from them if they can't operate them safely.

You're going off topic, small cars can have more destructive energy than larger. Do you agree?

All drivers of cars should be required demonstrate a sufficient level of competency to drive a car. Those who drive dangerously should be punished in accordance with their offence.

Nutter+ car(any size) = dangerous driver

Sensible safe +car ("") = safe driver

It's my argument, I'll chose how to make it.

On a like for like basis (same roads, same speed limits, same driving conditions) small cars are safer than large cars. Do you still disagree?

Nutter in a big car has the potential to cause greater damage and injury than nutter in small car in the event of a collision.

You are either agree with that or you don't, but if you don't you're not arguing against me but our entire vehicle licensing system as it already exists. The law already accepts that principle, the only question is over the graduation.

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

So you're arguing that those that drive these large vehicles should have lower speed limits? Rough calculation, someone in a Q7 would have to stick to 20mph in a 30 zone, so that if it were involved in a collision its potential for harm is the same as a typical hatchback.

That seems rather draconian to me. I just want to raise the licensing requirements to ensure that those who drive such a vehicle are less likely to be involved in an accident in the first place, and so that we can take those cars away from them if they can't operate them safely.

You're going off topic, small cars can have more destructive energy than larger. Do you agree?

All drivers of cars should be required demonstrate a sufficient level of competency to drive a car. Those who drive dangerously should be punished in accordance with their offence.

Nutter+ car(any size) = dangerous driver

Sensible safe +car ("") = safe driver

It's my argument, I'll chose how to make it.

On a like for like basis (same roads, same speed limits, same driving conditions) small cars are safer than large cars. Do you still disagree?

Nutter in a big car has the potential to cause greater damage and injury than nutter in small car in the event of a collision.

You are either agree with that or you don't, but if you don't you're not arguing against me but our entire vehicle licensing system as it already exists. The law already accepts that principle, the only question is over the graduation.

I am not arguing with anyone. If you think I am arguing with you you're pushing on an open door.

I was pointing out that having arbitrary arguments blaming one size of car is worse than another is misguided. You're blaming the wrong element. It's the driver which is dangerous.

CXR94Di2 wrote:

It's the driver which is dangerous.

"Guns don't kill people."

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

It's the driver which is dangerous.

"Guns don't kill people."

I agree. Small gun big gun is dangerous in the wrong hands. People kill

Keep your points brief, battery running low, plus my film starts in 30 mins

CXR94Di2 wrote:

bikebot wrote:

CXR94Di2 wrote:

It's the driver which is dangerous.

"Guns don't kill people."

I agree. Small gun big gun is dangerous in the wrong hands. People kill

Keep your points brief, battery running low, plus my film starts in 30 mins

So as well as all motor vehicles having a flat approach to licensing, you think the same thing makes sense for firearms. Sidearms, shotguns and assault rifles should all be treated the same?