home  bbs  files  messages ]

      ZZUK4448             uk.legal.moderated             12811 messages      

[ previous | next | reply ]

[ list messages | list forums ]

  Msg # 14 of 12811 on ZZUK4448, Wednesday 11-04-25, 11:05  
  From: SPIKE  
  To: SIMON PARKER  
  Subj: Re: Right to safety in one's own back ga  
 [continued from previous message] 
  
 >> 78cm above the water in your design. It won’t even touch the water until 
 >> the wreck, now with a horizontal velocity of zero, falls into it, the 
 water 
 >> having played no part in a slowing-down process. 
 >> 
 >> Legally speaking, this is perhaps a very similar case to the skip filled 
 >> with rubble that could involve GNM should anyone in the car be killed as a 
 >> result. 
 >> 
 >> The vehicle needs to reach the water in order to be slowed, and at 44m/s 
 >> that is going to take distance as has been calculated. 
 >> 
 >> Ye canna bend the laws of physics, Cap’n. 
 > 
 > As the forces in play at 100mph are too great, I suggest we need to get 
 > that speed down before the pond / water trap / whatever.  Perhaps cat 
 > claws and an LGV sized steel tyre stop (or more likely multiple steel 
 > tyre stops) might be a better proposition? 
  
 Yes, tyre barriers are used in F1, as well as Tecpro, but usually as a 
 barrier in front of Armco or other rigid structures. 
  
 In the case in question, a barrier of heavy lorry tyres, perhaps six high 
 and three deep and as long as thought necessary, strung out either side of 
 the expected impact point and secured together vertically and horizontally 
 with strong rope or cord, would offer the possibility of a progressive 
 retardation of the impacting vehicle, as more tyres were dragged into play 
 as the vehicle slowed as it penetrated the barrier. In effect, the 
 retardation would increase with increasing distance of penetration into the 
 tyre barriers, and although it might be uncomfortable for the vehicle 
 occupants, a progressive deceleration is perhaps the best method of 
 reducing the risk of death or serious injury. 
  
 If considered, such a system would of course need to be carefully 
 engineered, but does offer the possibility of the least damage being 
 visited on the fewest people. 
  
 > But we're leaving the realms of legal discussion here and heading over 
 > into science. 
  
 > In any case, I am grateful to you for sharing your calculations.  Thank 
 you. 
  
 You’re welcome. 
  
 > Regards 
 > 
 > S.P. 
  
  
 -- 
 Spike 
 Sign the ”No to ID” petition here: 
   
 BlackBeltBarrister opinion here: 
   
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2) 
    

[ list messages | list forums | previous | next | reply ]

search for:

328,100 visits
(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca