Gory pseudo accident ads

[ZorsT]

I have difficulty understanding how someone who wasn't wearing their seat-belt and who crashed, suddenly changed direction from going frontwards to sidewards. He then hits his girlfriend/wife who is in the drivers seat.

- this smilie is cool AD is correct

[ajturbo]

Can't say that I have looked at those ads close enough to notice.


Then if all else fails, aim for the driver because it is gonna hurt and you might as well inflict pain on the culprit.

[Sniper]

It takes her 4 seconds from impact to land on the bonnet, that gives her a forward velocity after impact of 2.5 m/s and a vertical velocity of 20 m/s. The trajevtory angle of incidence would be 78 degrees, therefore the velocity of the car imediately prior to commencing braking would be sqrt(20^2 + 2.5^2)/cos 78. This gives a speed at commencement of braking of 168 m/s or 604 km/h.

This ad would have belivable if sh had have landed 40 m or more away from the impact, or if the time to landing had only been 1 second. But the LTSA must think we are all thick or something.

Ummm, I lable myself as thick. I was never any good at maths, and what you just wrote boggles my mind

[Krayy]

Nah, it's asphalt. He lands on boxes that were removed post production... I know the digi effects artist who did it.

Now heres something stupid....a few years back when I wasn't so wise, a bunch of us were installing some computers on a weekend in a large office sapce. As each computer was in a box, the boxes ended up stack against a wall at the end of an aisle, which made us think it was a perfect run up space. So of course the boxes all got laid out neatly and we took turns doing the old superman dive onto them. Now heres the trick, if you're planning on doing this yourself, don't use boxes made of thick cardboard as the sides won't collapse and you'll bruise a rib like I did. It frickin hurts. I assume that stunt people use special boxes that have thinner sides that collapse easier.

P.S. Did meet a cute nurse while getting the rib taped up though

[Skunk]

Name dropper!

Pfft!

[Holy Roller]

I wish the LTSA would stop wasting time and money on these ads in a lame attempt to shock us and maybe replaced them with some ads to educate people that the national speed limit on a single carriage way (no passing) road is 100kph NOT 80kph and that if you have to do 80kph on such a road then don't speed up when you get to a passing lane.
Or stopping to give way on merging lanes that are designed to allow traffic to get up to speed to merge safely ..... or how about a slogan like...."People who don't allow traffic to merge in are bloody idiots!"
etc etc.....

That would certainly help in stopping accidents especially on the Bombay to Thames road, where slow drivers frustrate others into doing something silly and the road there is not at all forgiving to silly manoeuvers. The thing I find most frustrating is the stopping at merging lanes

[spudchucka]

I have difficulty understanding how someone who wasn't wearing their seat-belt and who crashed, suddenly changed direction from going frontwards to sidewards. He then hits his girlfriend/wife who is in the drivers seat.

- this smilie is cool AD is correct

Haven't seen that add but unrestrained people bounce all over the place in a crashing car. Sometimes they go flying out th efront windscreens, other times they bounce around and come out a back or side window. Othertimes they bounce all around in side and then just sit there being dead.

[Jantar]

So now the LTSA want us to believe that a 90kmh impact is the same as falling from the 1st floor of a building. Gee, they got that one wrong.

Using V^2 = U^2 + 2gd where g = 9.81m/s^2 and d is the distance fallen:

90 kmh = 25 m/s
25^2 = 0^2 + 2 * 9.81 * d
or d = 625 / 19.62
d = 31.85 m.

According to the ad an impact at 90 kmh is the same as falling from the 1st floor. How many buildings do you know of where the 1st floor is almost 32 m above the ground.

A more correct statement is that an impact at 90 kmh is the same as falling from the 8th floor.

Similarly for 110 kmh

d = 47.56 m, or the equivilent of falling from the 12th floor


and for 125 kmh

d = 61.44 m, or the equivilent of falling from the 15th floor.


Or perhaps they want us to believe that cars are installed with some totally different laws of physics to the rest of the universe.

[Beemer]

I think your time would be better spent doing this weekend's Grand Challenge (I see you claim to be a Rusty Nuts survivor) than dazzling us with your fifth form physics. Do what most of us do, mute the ads and read a book! You obviously watch WAY too much television!

[Ixion]

..

A more correct statement is that an impact at 90 kmh is the same as falling from the 8th floor.

..

Or perhaps they want us to believe that cars are installed with some totally different laws of physics to the rest of the universe.

Perhaps they are are allowing for the crumple factor in a car ?

[Jantar]

Perhaps they are are allowing for the crumple factor in a car ?

Yes, that's possible. But as a car falling has tyres and suspension that act the same as a crumple zone, along with the fact that the occupied part of the car is suspended between the suspension mounts, the difference would not be great. It may however reduce the effective height by up to 30%, but not by 7 floors.

[Waylander]

Mate, did you not notice that at the end of the ad when the dropped the highest car it started to go front first? Don't think they were thinking about it landing on it's wheels.