Fatigued driver nearly hits police car

[sprint347dave]

Fatigued driver nearly hits police car,,,,,how calm is the copper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7BdY...ture=topvideos

[munkky]

i saw this on the news but i dident know it was a cop car

[flappist]

Yep....that is how it happens.

It was disappointing that they still manage to put the "combined speed" myth into it.

Be safe out there........

[vztrt]

Least they were ok.

There was a head on couple days ago with a friend of mines little brother and step dad were involved and amazingly survived. Other driver fell asleep.

[mik]

nice evade job by the officer, cool as they come, that lady owes him big time.

[Kryton]

Originally Posted by flappist

It was disappointing that they still manage to put the "combined speed" myth into it.

I had to laugh at that as well.

[Ben73]

Hmm a combined speed of 120 means the other car would of been doing 50ish since they said the cop was doing 70... no doubt if they crashed the first thing that would of been was was "Speed was a factor"
They were lucky anyway.

[sprint347dave]

whats the combined speed myth all about?

[Jack91]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

whats the combined speed myth all about?

Because its not true.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by sprint347dave

whats the combined speed myth all about?

That if 2 cars hit at 100km/h it is the same as hitting a wall at 200km/h.

It is actually the same as hitting a wall at 100km/h.

In the case of the video he stated that there was a combined speed of 120km/h ( a number that just happens to be above every speed limit in NSW) which would have been fatal.

This is a much more effective beat up and spin than "they would have pranged at 60km/h" because that could not possibly be fatal, it is under the speed limit.......

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

No one mentions any of the vehicles speeding, they simply state the facts, that it was a combined speed of 120km/hr, which would more than likely be fatal, I would hate to have been in either car if they had a head on.

I don't think any beat up is intended or needed the footage in itself is enough, and goes to demonstrate how well trained Police drivers are, as it would have possibly been a very different outcome if 'Granny May' was driving the other way

[Airmon]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

No one mentions any of the vehicles speeding, they simply state the facts, that it was a combined speed of 120km/hr, which would more than likely be fatal, I would hate to have been in either car if the had a head on.

Mostly to do with Crumple zones and what happens to the energy of the impact.
Its been done to death before, you can search for it if you like.

But lets try not to get into this debate again.

[GS608]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

No one mentions any of the vehicles speeding, they simply state the facts, that it was a combined speed of 120km/hr, which would more than likely be fatal, I would hate to have been in either car if they had a head on.

Here we go..

[Keepleft]

My local HWP.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Airmon

Mostly to do with Crumple zones and what happens to the energy of the impact.
Its been done to death before, you can search for it if you like.

But lets try not to get into this debate again.

Well have not been here long enough to have been part of this debate I guess, but would love to see some scientific evidence to support this, as it makes no sense at all to me.

[Jack91]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

No one mentions any of the vehicles speeding, they simply state the facts, that it was a combined speed of 120km/hr, which would more than likely be fatal, I would hate to have been in either car if they had a head on.

I don't think any beat up is intended or needed the footage in itself is enough, and goes to demonstrate how well trained Police drivers are, as it would have possibly been a very different outcome if 'Granny May' was driving the other way

Revive the old thread if you want to debate it, even though you are wrong.

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

No one mentions any of the vehicles speeding, they simply state the facts, that it was a combined speed of 120km/hr, which would more than likely be fatal, I would hate to have been in either car if they had a head on.

I don't think any beat up is intended or needed the footage in itself is enough, and goes to demonstrate how well trained Police drivers are, as it would have possibly been a very different outcome if 'Granny May' was driving the other way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GuqiAHGGT4

[vztrt]

XB GS 351 Coupe the thread is below.

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...ght=head+crash

[burnz]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

No one mentions any of the vehicles speeding, they simply state the facts, that it was a combined speed of 120km/hr, which would more than likely be fatal, I would hate to have been in either car if they had a head on.

I don't think any beat up is intended or needed the footage in itself is enough, and goes to demonstrate how well trained Police drivers are, as it would have possibly been a very different outcome if 'Granny May' was driving the other way

the impact energy is shared between two, 2pi R..
60kph in a solid block unshared versus 120kph shared between the two..

[Riksta]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

How is it not true

So you recon two vehicles having a head on at 60km each will not combine to a 120km impact????

[Fled74]

Originally Posted by Riksta

This, plus 100.

[sprint347dave]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GuqiAHGGT4

ok watched the 1st clip,,and then you go to watch part 2 and it comes up saying you cant for what ever reason,,,soooooooooo what happened in part 2

[Scott]

Part 2 (there is a bit in between where they dragged the yellow car into the wall at 100mph)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4

[Jason[98.EL]]

the cars were stuffed

I wouldn't want to be in a head on even at 60ks

the damage was from memory worse than the car hitting the wall but not as bad as if it hit at 120ks ( rough conversion from mph )

saw this over a year ago so going on memory

[mik]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Well have not been here long enough to have been part of this debate I guess, but would love to see some scientific evidence to support this, as it makes no sense at all to me.

mythbusters did a comprehensive test and proved that 2 cars travelling at 100 kph in a head on does not equel 200 kph, its the same as hitting a brick wall(which is gonna hurt anyway).

[flappist]

There is a lot of engineering and physics that does not make sense to an untrained person.

Do you understand how an aircraft flies?
How radio or television work?
What the sound barrier really is?
How you can talk when traveling faster than sound?
Why ice floats?
Why twice as much power does not make you go twice as fast?
Why twice as much power does not use twice as much fuel?
Why if you are going twice as fast it takes 4 times the distance to stop?
If an aircraft on a conveyor belt can take off

AFF is full of engineers and other trained professionals. These argument has been fought many times.

If you do not understand the maths or physics involved then a lot of things seem very contradictory.
If you really want to understand it then google is you friend.

But remember that often what you see on TV is written and/or read by people who really have no idea whatsoever and more than often are pushing an agenda.

Look here for more info.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/veh/veh.htm

[sprint347dave]

cheers guys,,,but will the drunk guy down the pub really believe me,,

[pottery beige]

Originally Posted by flappist

There is a lot of engineering and physics that does not make sense to an untrained person.

Do you understand how an aircraft flies?
How radio or television work?
What the sound barrier really is?
How you can talk when traveling faster than sound?
Why ice floats?
Why twice as much power does not make you go twice as fast?
Why twice as much power does not use twice as much fuel?
Why if you are going twice as fast it takes 4 times the distance to stop?
If an aircraft on a conveyor belt can take off

AFF is full of engineers and other trained professionals. These argument has been fought many times.

If you do not understand the maths or physics involved then a lot of things seem very contradictory.
If you really want to understand it then google is you friend.

But remember that often what you see on TV is written and/or read by people who really have no idea whatsoever and more than often are pushing an agenda.

Look here for more info.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/veh/veh.htm

lots of lifes questions answered here also......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIYCR7gXXFo

[tankclare]

holy crap the video in the original post was at sandy hollow..can tell it from a mile away..only a 20 minute drive from here, I go through there all the time..Its also a 60km/h zone there and they say the officer was doing about 70..thought that was funny

Have also met that officer before but for the wrong reasons lol

[mik]

Originally Posted by pottery beige

lots of lifes questions answered here also......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIYCR7gXXFo

i used to love watching Julius s. as a young buk, "WHY IS IT SO"