Time spent to travel

[[email protected]]

Apparently on date Wed, 26 May 2004 09:10:33 +0100, "Nom"
<[email protected]> said:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> If something runs out because you aren't nearby, and you are then
>> unable to stop then you probably were going too fast for that road.
>> Course, you may not care about that, plenty don't...
>
>Once it's happened, they will.
>
>I know a guy who needed half a new front-end (grill, headlight, radiator
>etc.) on his Volvo 850 after he hit a pidgeon at 80mph.

I saw a car that had hit a cow at about forty. Both in the car had died
instantly, cow had taken out the windscreen and folded the roof right down.

By the fact that there were no skidmarks on the road, they reckoned the driver
had either not noticed or hadn't cared. Thing is, a cow stays put for an
instant even when you kick its legs out from under it, then falls sideways onto
your nicely smooth bonnet to come through the windscreen backbone first.

Almost no chance, much worse than going head on into a stone wall.

I heard that the cow was unharmed, but it seemed unlikely that it didn't take
*some* damage. Car was really stuffed.

As for things smaller, well I'd not want to hit anything at 80. A small pebble
might just glance off the windscreen but something bigger will be like smacking
the front with a baseball bat. Luckily, I try not to hit things already so it
hasn't been much of an issue as yet.

I did hit a blackbird a couple of years back at speed, made a dreadful mess but
no damage I could find. I dunno why, I'd have thought a bird would be lifted
with the air it's flying in and slide over the roof without hitting the car.
Maybe inertia plays a part there.

 

[[email protected]]

Apparently on date 26 May 2004 16:20:09 -0700, [email protected] (marko)
said:

>Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> And where can we find you, so that you can get the thumping you truly
>> deserve?
>
>ASL?

"Age / Sex / Location"

Probably not in this context, though.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

In news:[email protected],
Nom <[email protected]> typed:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> If something runs out because you aren't nearby, and you are then
>> unable to stop then you probably were going too fast for that road.
>> Course, you may not care about that, plenty don't...
>
> Once it's happened, they will.
>
> I know a guy who needed half a new front-end (grill, headlight,
> radiator etc.) on his Volvo 850 after he hit a pidgeon at 80mph.

I hit a pigeon at 70mph in an LDV Convoy and it left no damage at all.
Except for completely ruining my mood. And its life.

A

 

[PeterE]

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Banning fags should result in a net saving of human life between 10
> times and hundred times the amount that could ever be saved by
> focussing on driving.

Hmm. Banning drugs really works, doesn't it?

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

 

[Mark South]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Apparently on date Wed, 26 May 2004 09:10:33 +0100, "Nom"
> <[email protected]> said:
>
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> If something runs out because you aren't nearby, and you are then
> >> unable to stop then you probably were going too fast for that road.
> >> Course, you may not care about that, plenty don't...
> >
> >Once it's happened, they will.
> >
> >I know a guy who needed half a new front-end (grill, headlight, radiator
> >etc.) on his Volvo 850 after he hit a pidgeon at 80mph.
>
> I saw a car that had hit a cow at about forty. Both in the car had died
> instantly, cow had taken out the windscreen and folded the roof right down.

Saab specifically claims that their larger cars 9000 and then 9-5 were designed
for the occupants to survive hitting a 2000lb moose like this.

> By the fact that there were no skidmarks on the road, they reckoned the driver
> had either not noticed or hadn't cared.

Or had no time to do anything.

> Thing is, a cow stays put for an
> instant even when you kick its legs out from under it, then falls sideways
onto
> your nicely smooth bonnet to come through the windscreen backbone first.

No. At the speed at which they kill you like this, the cow doesn't move at all,
the legs are ripped off annd the car encounters the cow's torso unmoved.

> Almost no chance, much worse than going head on into a stone wall.

At forty, pretty much the same.

> I heard that the cow was unharmed, but it seemed unlikely that it didn't take
> *some* damage. Car was really stuffed.

That part sounds like an urban legend. Moose don't survive these encounters in
Sweden, and cows are far more fragile.

> As for things smaller, well I'd not want to hit anything at 80. A small pebble
> might just glance off the windscreen but something bigger will be like
smacking
> the front with a baseball bat. Luckily, I try not to hit things already so it
> hasn't been much of an issue as yet.

I've heard of people being killed by a rock falling off a truck in front of them
and bouncing to windscreen height. One story involved a small boulder going
through the passenger side of the windscreen at about 70mph. Driver turns to
his wife but she's no longer there.

> I did hit a blackbird a couple of years back at speed, made a dreadful mess
but
> no damage I could find. I dunno why, I'd have thought a bird would be lifted
> with the air it's flying in and slide over the roof without hitting the car.

Your car is designed to flow the air over its surface at the front, since
pushing it out of the way uses much more energy.

> Maybe inertia plays a part there.

A lot of physics does.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

 

[John Wright]

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:20:41 +0100, "PeterE"
<peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

>Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Banning fags should result in a net saving of human life between 10
>> times and hundred times the amount that could ever be saved by
>> focussing on driving.
>
>Hmm. Banning drugs really works, doesn't it?

As did banning handguns
--
John Wright

Jesus is coming. Everyone look busy

 

[Steve Firth]

PeterE <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Hmm. Banning drugs really works, doesn't it?

Anything that brings misery to smokers is fine by me, whether it works
or not. I'm taking a leaf out of the "greens" book whereby they applaud
anything that brings misery to motorists.

--
Having problems understanding usenet? Or do you simply need help but
are getting unhelpful answers? Subscribe to: uk.net.beginners for
friendly advice in a flame-free environment.

 

[Gawnsoft]

On 27 May 2004 03:08:37 -0700,marko wrote (more or less):
>Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
....
>> Advanced Stop Line. Forms a box with a picture of a bike in it
>Ah yes, car parking spaces...

And if you don't demonstrate any regard for the rules of the road
w.r.t. red lights, why should you expect cars to demo any regard for
the rules of the road w.r.t. cycle facilities at red lights?

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[Jon Senior]

marko [email protected] opined the following...
> I'll keep an eye out for a (scotsman?) clad in lycra carrying a stick
> and eyeing up front wheels suspiciously then! ;-)

I'm English doncha know!

> > Advanced Stop Line. Forms a box with a picture of a bike in it
> Ah yes, car parking spaces...

Round these parts they seem to be getting better. Although, the last
time I remarked on this, it was followed by 4 attempts on my life the
following day!

> > Not totally sure that I understand the description
> Entire road of cars parked at 9am, mixture of red and green lights
> along the route, just cycle down the side of the row regardless of the
> colour of the lights as they're not going to be going anywhere and
> it'd be daft to keep stoppign when you're the onl thing moving?

I can kind of see the point, but I'd still stop for the red, if only
because it is even more patronising towards the drivers who are
stationary. "Look... I can obey the traffic signals because I'm actually
moving!"

> > My experience of it, is that it makes junctions considerably less
> > predictable. If red no longer means stop, how do you tell drivers that a
> > pedestrian has right of way?
> Say to drivers "pedestrians have right of way", then nick 'em if they
> don't abide by it. Also nick 'em if they park in the ASL boxes and
> nick the cyclists if they jump reds. We pay for cameras now though,
> not traffic police, so it won't happen. They already think that zebra
> crossing are guidelines here, so the way to go about things is to step
> into the road and look 'em straight in the eye until they stop. (note:
> this does not work for taxis/7.5t trucks/vans, different rules apply
> there)

My experience of the "filter on red" system in Italy was not so good. I
like to be able to look at the lights and predict car movements. If red
doesn't mean stop, then the green man becomes somewhat meaningless.

> Junctions need not be preictable if you're filtering through on red
> becasue you're either the only one there or the only one still moving
> and everything else is parked. You seem to be assumign a busy junction
> or filtering into moving traffic - no, jsut when its empty and the
> light is pointless or when super-busy and nothing else can move.
>
> My assumption is that people can/will go at any minute from any
> direction, and working on that basis its not often wrong; or when it
> is its wrong for the better. Don't the dutch have no signals or
> markings of any description that mean just this - and that people have
> to pay attention/think and have found a reduction in accidents
> comapred to the UK traffic lights and lanes and this and that and
> t'other?
>
> > While I'm sure that you pay the greatest
> > attention when jumping reds; since you don't have priority, if you are
> > hit, it is your fault.
> Aye; cars kill other people, bikes kill their riders (or very
> occasionally a ped if you're being really stupid or they're being
> really careless), seems fair to me. As I'll only go when its safe to
> do so (ie - when the traffic is stationary or there is none), I don't
> get hit. Quite simple...

Fair enough. Your life. I'd still prefer it if people didn't as (as
previously mentioned) it makes it far easier to take the moral high
ground with drivers.

Jon

 

[AndyMorris]

Mark South wrote:
>
> I've heard of people being killed by a rock falling off a truck in
> front of them and bouncing to windscreen height. One story involved
> a small boulder going through the passenger side of the windscreen at
> about 70mph. Driver turns to his wife but she's no longer there.
>

Kemi Olusanya, part of a Jungle Dj team Kemistry & Storm, died when a cats
eys got thrown up by a lorry in front of her on the motorway.


--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK


Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

 

[Jim Higgons]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > According to you, bridleways are roads, but are they included in the
> > > > national road length figures?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > > But not a great proportion of them.
> >
> > How many? Why are some included but not all?
>
> I don't know.
>
> > What about the footpaths?
>
> A few of them too.

Only a few? I guess we all have to be a bit more careful about what we
mean when we refer to "roads".

Jim.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I guess we all have to be a bit more careful about what we
> mean when we refer to "roads".

What do you mean when you refer to "roads" ?

 

[Jim Higgons]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Sorry for still misunderstanding,
>
> > > What did you mean about junior school children?
> > >
> > > e.g. roughly how many cycling trips between home and
> > > junior school when aged 9, on average?
> >
> > I didn't mean anything remotely like *that*.
>
> But what did you mean?

Exactly what I said.

Try reading it again, noting the number of times I used the word "and"
and in what positions. You'll get there in the end.

Jim.

 

[marko]

Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> And if you don't demonstrate any regard for the rules of the road
> w.r.t. red lights, why should you expect cars to demo any regard for
> the rules of the road w.r.t. cycle facilities at red lights?

Err, I don't. I fully expect things with more than 2 wheels to do
exactly as they please.

 

[marko]

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Although, the last
> time I remarked on this, it was followed by 4 attempts on my life the
> following day!

Pah, life would be boring without...

> I can kind of see the point, but I'd still stop for the red, if only
> because it is even more patronising towards the drivers who are
> stationary. "Look... I can obey the traffic signals because I'm actually
> moving!"

I'll spend 3 mintues longer in bed.

> My experience of the "filter on red" system in Italy was not so good. I
> like to be able to look at the lights and predict car movements. If red
> doesn't mean stop, then the green man becomes somewhat meaningless.

"Right of way" and "Not right of way" - not meaningless. Does mean you
have to stop and look and think and decide, rather than blindly obey
the signal. You'd get used to it I think, it is at first alien.

> Fair enough. Your life. I'd still prefer it if people didn't as (as
> previously mentioned) it makes it far easier to take the moral high
> ground with drivers.

See where you're comnig from, but personally think its down to size as
to who gets the respect rather than moral high-grounds.

 

[Jon Senior]

marko [email protected] opined the following...
> Pah, life would be boring without...

I'd rather make my own excitement...

> > I can kind of see the point, but I'd still stop for the red, if only
> > because it is even more patronising towards the drivers who are
> > stationary. "Look... I can obey the traffic signals because I'm actually
> > moving!"
>
> I'll spend 3 mintues longer in bed.

I know it's a joke, but this is a common attitude. I find that I need at
least an extra hour before I notice the difference.

> > My experience of the "filter on red" system in Italy was not so good. I
> > like to be able to look at the lights and predict car movements. If red
> > doesn't mean stop, then the green man becomes somewhat meaningless.
>
> "Right of way" and "Not right of way" - not meaningless. Does mean you
> have to stop and look and think and decide, rather than blindly obey
> the signal. You'd get used to it I think, it is at first alien.

The difficulty is that when filtering on red, that right of way is no
longer obvious. Sure, there's a green man, but there are cars driving
across your crossing. You have to rely on them to cede priority. Few
drivers will jump red lights under the current scheme which makes life
simpler for peds.

> > Fair enough. Your life. I'd still prefer it if people didn't as (as
> > previously mentioned) it makes it far easier to take the moral high
> > ground with drivers.
>
> See where you're comnig from, but personally think its down to size as
> to who gets the respect rather than moral high-grounds.

Depends on location. A good loud "discussion" with a driver who is
obviously in the wrong, in the centre of town, surrounded by pedestrians
and other cyclists... It's quite funny when they realise that they are
centre of attention, and that no-one is backing them up.

Jon

 

[Gawnsoft]

On 28 May 2004 03:40:50 -0700, [email protected] (marko) wrote
(more or less):

>Gawnsoft <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> And if you don't demonstrate any regard for the rules of the road
>> w.r.t. red lights, why should you expect cars to demo any regard for
>> the rules of the road w.r.t. cycle facilities at red lights?
>
>Err, I don't. I fully expect things with more than 2 wheels to do
>exactly as they please.

In the same way you lead drivers to expect cyclists to do just as they
please?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

 

[[email protected]]

Apparently on date Thu, 27 May 2004 22:25:47 +0200, "Mark South"
<[email protected]> said:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Apparently on date Wed, 26 May 2004 09:10:33 +0100, "Nom"
>> <[email protected]> said:
>> >[email protected] wrote:
>> >
>> >I know a guy who needed half a new front-end (grill, headlight, radiator
>> >etc.) on his Volvo 850 after he hit a pidgeon at 80mph.
>> I saw a car that had hit a cow at about forty. Both in the car had died
>> instantly, cow had taken out the windscreen and folded the roof right down.
>
>Saab specifically claims that their larger cars 9000 and then 9-5 were designed
>for the occupants to survive hitting a 2000lb moose like this.

They may design it, but an incident doesn't always happen according to design,
and anyway there is simply no way to stop 1 ton of moose being bad news for 1
ton of car when they are traveling at relatively large speeds, particularly
when the car has to be designed to crumple and the moose doesn't.

>> By the fact that there were no skidmarks on the road, they reckoned the driver
>> had either not noticed or hadn't cared.
>
>Or had no time to do anything.

Well he or she would have time to slam on the brakes, ineffectually. This would
make skidmarks (assuming no ABS, which this car didn't have, I suppose, given
the analysis).

Optionally they didn't realise there was a cow there (and wouldn't brake) or
did realise and thought it didn't matter (and didn't brake).

AIR, this was a small car, much like a focus but a fair bit older. I don't know
what, it was trashed so bad I didn't know what it was and I don't know the
story is true, but the car I saw was really badly trashed and had a cow-shaped
inward bulge in the front so I don't see any reason to doubt the story.

Apart from anything else, I do realise how quick cars usually go (120 feet in a
second is routine) and what happens when a big, robust object hits a
lightweight, spaceframe object.

>> Thing is, a cow stays put for an
>> instant even when you kick its legs out from under it, then falls sideways
>onto
>> your nicely smooth bonnet to come through the windscreen backbone first.
>
>No. At the speed at which they kill you like this, the cow doesn't move at all,
>the legs are ripped off annd the car encounters the cow's torso unmoved.

Well, much the same result.

>> Almost no chance, much worse than going head on into a stone wall.
>
>At forty, pretty much the same.

A wall interferes with the bumper, then the engine and wings and similar, then
begins to threaten the passenger compartment in various ways. This fell into
the car via the windscreen and didn't slow the car down much first.

>> I heard that the cow was unharmed, but it seemed unlikely that it didn't take
>> *some* damage. Car was really stuffed.
>
>That part sounds like an urban legend. Moose don't survive these encounters in
>Sweden, and cows are far more fragile.

I agree, I think the cow would have been damaged. The story wasn't urban, it
was from the side of a field with the wrecked car in the grass verge with the
farmhand saying what he heard about what did it.

I can't see any *good* reasons for this to be a lie, so I think the cow was a
lucky cow and in most cases of this type it would be hurt badly - at least
damaged legs - but I have no real issue with this.

>> As for things smaller, well I'd not want to hit anything at 80. A small pebble
>> might just glance off the windscreen but something bigger will be like
>smacking
>> the front with a baseball bat. Luckily, I try not to hit things already so it
>> hasn't been much of an issue as yet.
>
>I've heard of people being killed by a rock falling off a truck in front of them
>and bouncing to windscreen height. One story involved a small boulder going
>through the passenger side of the windscreen at about 70mph. Driver turns to
>his wife but she's no longer there.

Doesn't take much. 70 mph means the boulder is doing about 100 feet per second.
This is to do with the car, the boulder can be bouncing and of arbitrary
weight, it can be quite a lot heavier than the car and is going to pass through
it unless it hits something that can absorb the energy (e.g. an occupant or the
engine, etc)

It's rare to find this situation and this is why we travel at 100 feet per
second (and some faster) without worrying about it. But we shouldn't fall into
the trap of thinking it's not important. Sometimes it is.

>> I did hit a blackbird a couple of years back at speed, made a dreadful mess
>but
>> no damage I could find. I dunno why, I'd have thought a bird would be lifted
>> with the air it's flying in and slide over the roof without hitting the car.
>
>Your car is designed to flow the air over its surface at the front, since
>pushing it out of the way uses much more energy.

Some goes through the radiator, of course.

>> Maybe inertia plays a part there.
>
>A lot of physics does.

Yeah.

 

[Mark South]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Apparently on date Thu, 27 May 2004 22:25:47 +0200, "Mark South"
> <[email protected]> said:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> Apparently on date Wed, 26 May 2004 09:10:33 +0100, "Nom"
> >> <[email protected]> said:
> >> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I know a guy who needed half a new front-end (grill, headlight, radiator
> >> >etc.) on his Volvo 850 after he hit a pidgeon at 80mph.
> >> I saw a car that had hit a cow at about forty. Both in the car had died
> >> instantly, cow had taken out the windscreen and folded the roof right down.
> >
> >Saab specifically claims that their larger cars 9000 and then 9-5 were
designed
> >for the occupants to survive hitting a 2000lb moose like this.
>
> They may design it, but an incident doesn't always happen according to design,
> and anyway there is simply no way to stop 1 ton of moose being bad news for 1
> ton of car when they are traveling at relatively large speeds, particularly
> when the car has to be designed to crumple and the moose doesn't.

The car is designed to be able to deflect the moose up and over the passenger
compartment. The car will be wrecked, as will the moose, but the incident is
survivable.

> >> By the fact that there were no skidmarks on the road, they reckoned the
driver
> >> had either not noticed or hadn't cared.
> >
> >Or had no time to do anything.
>
> Well he or she would have time to slam on the brakes, ineffectually. This
would
> make skidmarks (assuming no ABS, which this car didn't have, I suppose, given
> the analysis).
>
> Optionally they didn't realise there was a cow there (and wouldn't brake) or
> did realise and thought it didn't matter (and didn't brake).

More likely: "Is that something in the road, no it can't be...OH SHITE!?
*BANG*!!"

> AIR, this was a small car, much like a focus but a fair bit older. I don't
know
> what, it was trashed so bad I didn't know what it was and I don't know the
> story is true, but the car I saw was really badly trashed and had a cow-shaped
> inward bulge in the front so I don't see any reason to doubt the story.
>
> Apart from anything else, I do realise how quick cars usually go (120 feet in
a
> second is routine) and what happens when a big, robust object hits a
> lightweight, spaceframe object.

Ohhh yes.

> >> Thing is, a cow stays put for an
> >> instant even when you kick its legs out from under it, then falls sideways
> >onto
> >> your nicely smooth bonnet to come through the windscreen backbone first.
> >
> >No. At the speed at which they kill you like this, the cow doesn't move at
all,
> >the legs are ripped off annd the car encounters the cow's torso unmoved.
>
> Well, much the same result.

Indeed.

> >> Almost no chance, much worse than going head on into a stone wall.
> >
> >At forty, pretty much the same.
>
> A wall interferes with the bumper, then the engine and wings and similar, then
> begins to threaten the passenger compartment in various ways. This fell into
> the car via the windscreen and didn't slow the car down much first.

There is no car on earth that will allow the passengers to escape unscathed
going head-on into a solid wall at forty. The damage to all involved will be
severe.

> >> I heard that the cow was unharmed, but it seemed unlikely that it didn't
take
> >> *some* damage. Car was really stuffed.
> >
> >That part sounds like an urban legend. Moose don't survive these encounters
in
> >Sweden, and cows are far more fragile.
>
> I agree, I think the cow would have been damaged. The story wasn't urban, it
> was from the side of a field with the wrecked car in the grass verge with the
> farmhand saying what he heard about what did it.

The cow-shaped indentation suggests the cow encountered significant transfer of
momentum.

Suburban legend, then

> I can't see any *good* reasons for this to be a lie, so I think the cow was a
> lucky cow and in most cases of this type it would be hurt badly - at least
> damaged legs - but I have no real issue with this.

I think that cow has been eaten, and the steaks did not need tenderising.

> >> As for things smaller, well I'd not want to hit anything at 80. A small
pebble
> >> might just glance off the windscreen but something bigger will be like
> >smacking
> >> the front with a baseball bat. Luckily, I try not to hit things already so
it
> >> hasn't been much of an issue as yet.
> >
> >I've heard of people being killed by a rock falling off a truck in front of
them
> >and bouncing to windscreen height. One story involved a small boulder going
> >through the passenger side of the windscreen at about 70mph. Driver turns to
> >his wife but she's no longer there.
>
> Doesn't take much. 70 mph means the boulder is doing about 100 feet per
second.
> This is to do with the car, the boulder can be bouncing and of arbitrary
> weight, it can be quite a lot heavier than the car and is going to pass
through
> it unless it hits something that can absorb the energy (e.g. an occupant or
the
> engine, etc)

Yes, the boulder is just stationary in the air like a fixed, solid wall of
exactly passenger size and section.

> It's rare to find this situation and this is why we travel at 100 feet per
> second (and some faster) without worrying about it. But we shouldn't fall into
> the trap of thinking it's not important. Sometimes it is.

A stone the size of a golf ball will go through a windscreen like a bullet at
that speed.

> >> I did hit a blackbird a couple of years back at speed, made a dreadful mess
> >but
> >> no damage I could find. I dunno why, I'd have thought a bird would be
lifted
> >> with the air it's flying in and slide over the roof without hitting the
car.
> >
> >Your car is designed to flow the air over its surface at the front, since
> >pushing it out of the way uses much more energy.
>
> Some goes through the radiator, of course.

A very, very tiny fraction in a modern car, and that is scooped carefully from
the airflow that would have gone under the car.

> >> Maybe inertia plays a part there.
> >
> >A lot of physics does.
>
> Yeah.

Moral, beware of boulders.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

 

[Tony Raven]

Mark South wrote:
>
> The car is designed to be able to deflect the moose up and over the
> passenger compartment. The car will be wrecked, as will the moose, but the
> incident is survivable.
>

Moose strike is a fairly common problem in Scandinavia in winter despite the
moose fencing alongside many roads. The moose tend to stand on the road as
its warmer and cause about 7,000 accidents a year. It was the famous moose or
elk test that derailed Mercedes launch of their A-Class

Tony