Ukrainian man tested for drugs, alcohol after Russian women killed in Phuket head-on collision

[balo]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:45 AM, Old Croc said:

There is video of the crash in this news summary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=18&v=Yaks9Jt3v7o

 

It answers all questions about -   position on road (van nearly off the left side), speed (van virtually stationary at impact),  car airbags (deployed) and fault (Ukrainian driver 100% to blame imo).

 

Thank you for posting the video , the dash cam recording starts from 1:58  . 

 

It clearly show the Ukrainian driver of the Nissan Almeira is 100% guilty . He must have fallen asleep for a few seconds , and maybe the old ladies in the car were sleeping as well .  However it looks survivable to me , so I am pretty sure they were not wearing the seat bealts . 

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by balo

[cat handler]

On 23/01/2018 at 10:20 AM, oilinki said:

No. Two equally weighted cars head on collision at 36Km/h gives same impacts to each car separately as one car gets in a head on collision at 36Km/h to a brick wall aka sudden stop.

 

Do you actually think that? Let me simplify it for you then, say one car is doing 200kph and another car is doing 25kph, do you think the car doing 25kph hitting the other car head on is the same as if he hit a wall at 25kph? No, didn’t think so, 2 cars doing 36kph has a combined impact event of 72kph.

[NamKangMan]

On 1/23/2018 at 1:20 PM, oilinki said:

No. Two equally weighted cars head on collision at 36Km/h gives same impacts to each car separately as one car gets in a head on collision at 36Km/h to a brick wall aka sudden stop.

 

Ahhhh, no.  The brick wall does not have a crumple zone.  The brick wall does not "absorb" the impact like another vehicle would. Right?  

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, cat handler said:

 

Do you actually think that? Let me simplify it for you then, say one car is doing 200kph and another car is doing 25kph, do you think the car doing 25kph hitting the other car head on is the same as if he hit a wall at 25kph? No, didn’t think so, 2 cars doing 36kph has a combined impact event of 72kph.

Newtonian physics 101 presented by Mythbusters. They are using very clever clay model for the test to prove what happens.
 

 

[cat handler]

31 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Newtonian physics 101 presented by Mythbusters. They are using very clever clay model for the test to prove what happens.
 

 

 

They actually confirmed what I said, however they made a mistake in their conclusions, here’s where they went wrong

1) A pendulum of a fixed weight rigged with mush-able clay is dropped from height A against an immovable object. The clay gets mushed to P% of it’s original thickness.

2) The same pendulum rigged the same way is dropped from height B where (B=2A). The clay gets mushed to 2P% of its original thickness. This simulates the effects of a 50 mile per hour and a 100 mile per hour collision with a fixed concrete wall, respectively. 

3) The same pendulum is matched up to an identical opposing pendulum. They are dropped simultaneously from height A. The clay cylinders are found to mush down to P%, not 3P%. Myth busted in scale model.

Then, of course, they do it with cars.

1) A car is driven at 50 mph against a solid wall. It gets mushed.

2) A second car is driven at 100 mph against the wall. It gets much more mushed. 

Here are the two cars, the red one was driven at 50 mph, the yellow one at 100 mph:

3) Two cars are then driven at each other at 50 mph, head-on. They are both mushed the same as the red car shown above. Neither car seems to experience a “100 mph” collision.

So, the myth is busted in full scale with the actual objects that the myth is about (cars).

But hold on a second, not so fast. The following two things are also true:

1) With the clay, when two pistons were used, there was sufficient energy to mush two lumps of clay down to the A-height amount, not just one. 

2) With the cars, two cars each suffered the effects of a 50 mph collision. 

Once you either run this all through in your head, or watch the episode, if you previously thought that a pair of cars hitting each other head on at 50 mph would cause one of them to experience a 100 mph collision, then you will absolutely change your mind. But, if you now think that two cars running into each other at 50 mph each is the same as one car running into a concrete wall at 50 mph, then you’ve got that wrong. Because, when in the end, you’ve got two recked cars not one, and the energy used to wreck each of those cars as per a 50 mph collision is twice the energy it would have taken to wreck one of them.

So it is like a 100 mph collision, shared evenly by two cars (so each gets 50 mph worth!)

 

The impact on the driver would be more pronounced, remember it’s not the physical crushing of the cars as much as the forces impacted on the driver during a crash which causes broken necks and back. Think a crash test dummy in a ANCAP Safety Test. 

 

 

Edited January 27, 2018 by cat handler

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, cat handler said:

 

Unfortunately it doesn’t answer the question of what I said earlier in regards to the occupants inside a car, as I said it’s not the crush that kills as much as the effects of the impact, think the motions of a crash test dummy during a ANCAP Safety Test. 

The video and the physics does show exactly that. 

[cat handler]

45 minutes ago, oilinki said:

The video and the physics does show exactly that. 

 

Actually the in the video they made a critically error, and the physics supports me. They made a mistake in comparing ONE clay model doing 50kph and striking a wall with only ONE clay model striking another, but the damage was doubled (the other clay model wasnt compared), to get the correct conclusion they should have measure the impact of the one clay model and and compared it with the combined compression of both clay models in the second test. Or as physics puts it 

 

To analyze this example, first we need to consider the kinetic energy with which the car is moving. The equation for kinetic energy for the car is:

The object stopping this car will have to do some work which should be equivalent to the Kinetic Energy of the car. Now if the car stops at a distance “d” (after the crash) then the equation for Force is:

When we plug in the variables of an average car, with a mass of roughly 1.6 tons, we find that a large amount of force is created even from slow-moving vehicles.

Imagine a car is moving at 30 mph (about 50 km/hr) and strikes a wall, crumpling and stopping after 1 foot. Let’s assume that the car weighs 3200 pounds (about 1450 kgs). By calculating the initial kinetic energy of the car and the force required by a wall/tree/driver to stop a car, we find that the total force of that impact is roughly 48 tons per sq foot.

If you have a head-on collision with another car moving the same speed, but from the opposite direction, then the kinetic energy doubles (because the other car also has the same kinetic energy) and thus the force doubles. In that case the total impact is roughly 96 tons per sq ft.

 

remember, it’s not how much crushing the cars get, it’s the forces generated on a human body, like the ANCAP Dummies. My information above comes from a scientific journal, not 2 blokes from a TV show who use to do stunts for films.

 

here, you can read it, it makes interesting reading on the effects of collisions https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/does-doubling-the-speed-of-a-vehicle-on-a-highway-only-double-the-impact-force-of-an-accident.html

Edited January 27, 2018 by cat handler

[Guest]

11 hours ago, cat handler said:

. But, if you now think that two cars running into each other at 50 mph each is the same as one car running into a concrete wall at 50 mph, then you’ve got that wrong. Because, when in the end, you’ve got two recked cars not one, and the energy used to wreck each of those cars as per a 50 mph collision is twice the energy it would have taken to wreck one of them.

.. and what I said earlier.. 

 

On 23/01/2018 at 9:20 AM, oilinki said:

No. Two equally weighted cars head on collision at 36Km/h gives same impacts to each car separately as one car gets in a head on collision at 36Km/h to a brick wall aka sudden stop.

 

 

[Old Croc]

No brick walls in this incident. The van was stationary at time of impact, but rebounded a number of feet, unlike a wall.

How does that affect the math? 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Old Croc

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

No brick walls in this incident. The van was stationary at time of impact, but rebounded a number of feet, unlike a wall.

How does that affect the math? 

The impact to the sedan passengers is less than when colliding with a immovable object, because the van absorbs some of the impact energy.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Guest

[cat handler]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

The impact to the sedan passengers is less than when colliding with a immovable object, because the van absorbs some of the impact energy.

 

You didn’t read the physics did you, time to wake up and have a read, the force of the impact is doubled.when two moving objects travelling at the same speed and of the same weight collide.

[cat handler]

On 28/01/2018 at 12:11 PM, oilinki said:

.. and what I said earlier.. 

 

 

And no you never said that earlier, you claimed a car doing 50 hitting a brick wall creates the same energy as 2 cars colliding head on at 50kph. You then brought out junk science from 2 TV show hosts to prove your claim, but they are wrong according a scientist.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cat handler said:

And no you never said that earlier, you claimed a car doing 50 hitting a brick wall creates the same energy as 2 cars colliding head on at 50kph. You then brought out junk science from 2 TV show hosts to prove your claim, but they are wrong according a scientist.

What? LOL! You are too funny. I'm sure you are able to scroll back the thread and check what I wrote previously.  

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, cat handler said:

 

You didn’t read the physics did you, time to wake up and have a read, the force of the impact is doubled.when two moving objects travelling at the same speed and of the same weight collide.

" The van was stationary at time of impact, ", so not 2 moving objects.

[cat handler]

On 29/01/2018 at 3:03 PM, stevenl said:

" The van was stationary at time of impact, ", so not 2 moving objects.

 

On 29/01/2018 at 3:03 PM, stevenl said:

" The van was stationary at time of impact, ", so not 2 moving objects.

 

Where does it say that? Did you witness it? Why is the van in the middle of the road if it was stationary?

[Old Croc]

14 minutes ago, cat handler said:

Where does it say that? Did you witness it? Why is the van in the middle of the road if it was stationary?

Instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself, try viewing the video of the crash linked in previous posts!

The van WAS stationary, the left front wheel had dropped off the road surface just before it stopped and it was shunted backwards by the other car some feet towards the middle of the lane!

[LivinginKata]

1 hour ago, cat handler said:

 

 

Where does it say that? Did you witness it? Why is the van in the middle of the road if it was stationary?

 

There a clear video of the crash which is as good as a self witness. Look at it. Make up your own mind. I see a minibus trying to escape way to side of the road and almost stopped while the car swerves across the road into the bus.

[anon789561]

1 hour ago, cat handler said:

 

 

Where does it say that? Did you witness it? Why is the van in the middle of the road if it was stationary?

that might have something to do with another car driving into it at high speed. look at the video. he may have witnessed that

[cat handler]

19 hours ago, LivinginKata said:

 

There a clear video of the crash which is as good as a self witness. Look at it. Make up your own mind. I see a minibus trying to escape way to side of the road and almost stopped while the car swerves across the road into the bus.

 

Oh so now it’s  almost stopped, as opposed to the earlier comment when it was stationary, can you make up your mind? Would you be a woman by chance?

Edited February 1, 2018 by cat handler

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, cat handler said:

 

Oh so now it’s  almost stopped, as opposed to the earlier comment when it was stationary, can you make up your mind? Would you be a woman by chance?

Why don't you just look at the video in stead of making a fool of yourself.

 

Oops, sorry, too late for that.

[cat handler]

On 01/02/2018 at 4:48 PM, stevenl said:

Why don't you just look at the video in stead of making a fool of yourself.

 

Oops, sorry, too late for that.

 

Its not me whose been made to look like a fool, im the instigator and I apologies for doing that to you, just you make it so damn easy.

now can you provide the link to this mysterious video of the crash?

[stevenl]

29 minutes ago, cat handler said:

 

Its not me whose been made to look like a fool, im the instigator and I apologies for doing that to you, just you make it so damn easy.

now can you provide the link to this mysterious video of the crash?

If you read the thread you can come up with it yourself.

[metisdead]

13 hours ago, cat handler said:

 

Its not me whose been made to look like a fool, im the instigator and I apologies for doing that to you, just you make it so damn easy.

now can you provide the link to this mysterious video of the crash?

 

There is a link to the news video is in the following post, fast forward to the 1:52 mark:

 

 

[metisdead]

Inflammatory posts and replies have now been removed. 

 

A baiting post and an inflammatory reply has been removed.  

Edited February 3, 2018 by metisdead