chloe16v
Member
Registered: 29th Nov 07
Location: Rotherham
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
quote:
Originally posted by chloe16v
so thats like hitting a brick wall at 60mph.
No it's not, it's like hitting a brick wall at 30mph.
if both cars are traveling at 30mph and hit head on the force of impact is 60mph 
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
I'll repeat it one last time, then you can all go and search before coming back to apologise.
2 cars hitting each other head on at 30mph is exactly like hitting a brick wall at 30mph.
|
daymoon
Premium Member
Registered: 1st Aug 08
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Not sure why
|
Chris x
Member
Registered: 11th Sep 08
Location: Bexhill
User status: Offline
|
The advert about not wearing the seatbelt. The same car as your astra both have a head on collision.
Your car is nowhere near as bad as that. Doesnt even look like the airbags have deployed?
[Edited on 28-09-2010 by Chris x]
|
AlexW
Member
Registered: 25th Oct 08
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
Mythbusters tested the 30mph x2 = 60mph into wall.
John speaks the truth.
|
Chris x
Member
Registered: 11th Sep 08
Location: Bexhill
User status: Offline
|
Tadaaaaaaaa
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL5-L8NS5zk
|
Mike
Organiser: North West and North Wales
Premium Member
Registered: 20th May 06
Location: nr. Skipton, North Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by AW06
Mythbusters tested the 30mph x2 = 60mph into wall.
John speaks the truth.
Right so that would be in a forces on the occupants POV? because cars have crumple zones whereas brickwalls don't but damage wise, it's a 60mph collision, and it was the damage that was being questioned
|
Fad
Member
Registered: 1st Feb 01
Location: Dartford Kent Drives: 330cd
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
What phoning around?
Establishing liability is the job of your insurer.
They are a con. If they were useful I would use one. They are not useful.
I beg to differ I have used them twice when the other party was at fault. Car was picked up and a decent courtesy car supplied, Wilst my insurance company wanted to fanny around with who was liable despite me being statonary both time they took care of everything and I had a car within the hour and was able to choose a body shop of my choice.
If insurance companies were more efficient then there would be no need to use a management company. Until they pull their finger out and look after their customers accident management companies will thrive.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
You can use whatever body shop you want anyway and you could get a car within the hour and claim the money at actual cost from the insurer, same amount of phone calls because you'd be required to call the rental company.
|
chrisritch
Member
Registered: 2nd Sep 08
Location: Northants Drives: V40
User status: Offline
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwQ0H6ic6RU&feature=related
|
bobbyd1
Member
Registered: 19th May 10
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Not sure why
a brick wall is stationary, therefore it doesnt move so the impact speed is 30mph, where as if another car is coming the other way at the same speed, (30mph), the impact speed is 60mph.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mike B
quote:
Originally posted by AW06
Mythbusters tested the 30mph x2 = 60mph into wall.
John speaks the truth.
Right so that would be in a forces on the occupants POV? because cars have crumple zones whereas brickwalls don't but damage wise, it's a 60mph collision, and it was the damage that was being questioned
It's a 30mph collision, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
I'm not sure why people are still posting arguing, I wouldn't have posted it then continued to reinforce the fact if the information proving it wasn't easily available on the internet.
[Edited on 28-09-2010 by John]
|
Fad
Member
Registered: 1st Feb 01
Location: Dartford Kent Drives: 330cd
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
You can use whatever body shop you want anyway and you could get a car within the hour and claim the money at actual cost from the insurer, same amount of phone calls because you'd be required to call the rental company.
Yes but if the the other party contest what actually happend my insurance comapny will only offer to proceed with the repairs to my car if I filed a claim against my own policy. Only once the dispute was resolved would my insurance comany be remibursed which also woudl of meant an outstanding claim two weeks before my renewal. So in short I would also be out of pocket of my excess and facing a hike in my next polcy.
Agreed they cost more money but if someone is willing to waste my time and contest the accident even though they are clearly at fault I couldnt give a monkeys if their insurance comany gets rapped by a management company tbh.
|
Ben D
Member
Registered: 25th Apr 05
Location: South West
User status: Offline
|
Without entering the debate too much but OP stated the collision occured on a bend so therefore the crash was not head on and presumably the 2 forces were not travelling towards each other but in differing directions meaning the impact speed wont be 60mph for sure... That should complicate this little discussion a bit 
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
Things costing money during the claim is passed on to premiums.
I pay premiums. Therefore I worry what claims cost. All that is happening when you appoint a management company is that they foot the bill and claim it back later. That is exactly the same as you being out of pocket until you eventually win, except in the latter case, you'll claim back your costs only. With the management company the other insurer will be billed for your costs plus the fee to administer. Which is a higher bill.
And re the impact speed of two cars both going 30mph, the impact speed is 60mph.
I don't for the record think that the damage on that photo represents a 60mph collision, ie. you weren't both doing 30mph. But the physics facts remain the same. The cars are travelling towards each other and the gap is decreasing at the same rate as if one was stationary and the other moving at the combined speed.
It'll also take off.
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Meaning that the energy imparted by each moving vehicle is dissipated in to both vehicles at the point of impact. Not clear what bearing this has on their closing speed?
|
Graeme
Premium Member
Registered: 26th Jul 04
Location: Northampton
User status: Offline
|
That is not a 60 mph impact, if it was the astra would be well and truley stuffer in, tbh doesn't look
a huge amount of damage, duno if it would be a wright off tbh, depends age and value.
You can get a courtesy car but if the car is written off and from when the insurance offer there first amount. You can become liable for car rental from then.
If the courtesy car is from a bodyshop as soon as they know it's a write off they will take there car back.
Simple.
P.s. John is right! 
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du0JUdCgWrc
So if these trains are both doing 110mph - why does the second one look like it's moving faster than the trees?
Surely the trees are passing at 110mph and the second train is passing at twice that? ie. it is also overtaking the trees in the opposite direction?
|
Ian
Site Administrator
Registered: 28th Aug 99
Location: Liverpool
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
In fact, another point. At the precise moment of collision, the car hitting the wall imparts the energy as a function of it's mass and speed. So 1t of car, 30mph, around 90k joules. The wall offers nothing as it's not moving. The energy is dissipated in to the wall and the rest of the car.
Two cars, both travelling at 30mph, same collision except now at the same moment the first car is trying to impart 90 kilojoules of energy, the other car is presenting the same. All of which needs dissipating somewhere.
Perhaps I have this wrong or you're actually talking about some other calculation here but I actually can't see where that additional energy would go in respect of the other car offering no more energy to the collision than a stationary wall would.
I've even drawn you some nice graphs.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
so if a car is doing 20mph and another 120, the one doing 20mph is like hitting a brick wall at 20?
|
Toby
Premium Member
Registered: 29th Nov 05
User status: Offline
|
Um guessing it would 65 based upon chat john is suggesting Steve.
|
Toby
Premium Member
Registered: 29th Nov 05
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by chloe16v
quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Guess everyone's definition of 'a lot of damage' is different
2 rads, bumper bar, bumper, slam pannel, cracked head lights, bonnet, what more do you want? we was both doing 30mph when we hit, so thats like hitting a brick wall at 60mph. did you want me an the kids layed up with broken backs an necks or something?
Never said that as far as I can see, all I was saying us there is barely any damage for a head on collision, I mean the airing didn't even go off
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ian
quote:
Originally posted by John
every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
In fact, another point. At the precise moment of collision, the car hitting the wall imparts the energy as a function of it's mass and speed. So 1t of car, 30mph, around 90k joules. The wall offers nothing as it's not moving. The energy is dissipated in to the wall and the rest of the car.
Two cars, both travelling at 30mph, same collision except now at the same moment the first car is trying to impart 90 kilojoules of energy, the other car is presenting the same. All of which needs dissipating somewhere.
Perhaps I have this wrong or you're actually talking about some other calculation here but I actually can't see where that additional energy would go in respect of the other car offering no more energy to the collision than a stationary wall would.
I've even drawn you some nice graphs.
http://www.corsasport.co.uk/carimages/3674/closing.JPG
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/05/06/video-mythbusters-put-the-science-of-crashing-cars-to-the-test/
|
Adam-D
Member
Registered: 11th May 02
Location: Cheshire
User status: Offline
|
i havent read the whole post.
but you an everyone is ok. 
|
chloe16v
Member
Registered: 29th Nov 07
Location: Rotherham
User status: Offline
|
courtesy car has arived, any guesses as to what it is?
|
