Poor Yellow Pony (*Car) :-(

[mobobuff]

"I'm an excellent driver."

 

[Fingers]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP
jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

a bad driver is a bad driver period. stop blaming the gun/truck/whatever and start blaming the idiot behind the wheel. a guy in a civic can kill people on motorcycles but you won't see a single person screaming "ban civics!" because they'll blame the driver and not the vehicle.

That's the point. A bad driver in one of these trucks is far more likely to do significant damage than a civic. The point of a driver's license, or at least it used to be before they started just handing them out, is to weed out bad drivers.

I am NOT in favor of banning lifted or large vehicles, I AM in favor of making it mandatory to obtain a separate license (and demonstrate competent ability) to operate them.

Larger truck arn't harder to rive at all. At least I don't think so. Only difference being parking in a tight area witht he long wheelbase. Other than that I really don't see much of a difference.

About the special liscence thing what about people with 2 wheel drive cars driving in the snow or other really bad weather. shouldn't they need a special liscnece to operate the car since it is so much harder than a 4 wheel drive truck and could become a danger to the 4X4 owners driving safely.

Not trying to get into a big argument here, just pointing out differenced that would go the other way.

 

[RagingBITCH]

How about a nice round of "OMG, WHO GIVES A FVCK?"

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
i've seen a minivan do that much damage to a car before, it's more the speed than the fact it was lifted. altho in that case the whole back of the car was smashed in (no more trunk or back seats) not just the top half.

stop being ignorant.

oh, btw, go by your ford/chevy/dodge dealership, you can get a pickup truck with a ride height like that off the lot these days. i was surprised how high they are stock even without the offroad packages.

You are wrong, the wheels are still behind the back seat and the floor of the trunk is still behind the rear wheels. Those areas would have absorbed some of the impact if the truck's bumper had hit the Mustang's bumper. The truck's bumper hit around the trunk lid and sheared off most of the body above the crumple zone.

Look at the pictures again. :roll:

let me say it again. i witnessed with my own eyes a minivan take out a car going a little bit slower (hydroplaning, the cops said about 45mph on impact) than that truck. a minivan is smaller. it wasn't lifted. it was however going fast. the bumper trunk and back seats of the car were compacted into a 2-3' space behind the front seats. the wheels and the floor of the trunk did NOTHING to "absorb the impact" of ANYTHING. i can see the pictures, if anything the fact that it WAS lifted wasn't such a bad thing because there wasn't as much debris pushed up into the front of the car.

Obiviously you are a great physicist and can tell with your trained eyes where and to what extent the energy and momentum were transfered.

If you had any clue, you'd realize that the frame and chassis will absorb and distribute far more energy than the windshield, thereby making the impact to the cabin significantly reduced; but you post on ATOT and you have "seen" a car accident, so you obviously knew that already.

well no i was in the accident. but thanks for putting in your 2 cents. i'm not blinded by stupidity, i'm simply tired of the whining because you people don't get your way and we aren't all rolling on dubs in 82 caprices.

You were in the accident, OH, that makes you WAY more qualified.

82 caprices? WTF are you talking about?

yes. it's called first hand knowledge. it has nothing to do with being a physicist, but being educated and seeing (and feeling, ouch) in person what happens in rear end accidents at those kinds of speeds helps. i finished school, perhaps your G.E.D. wasn't such a great path to take afterall.

sorry, not 82 caprices, maybe ground scraping civics with big wings.

 

[IAgolf4evr]

wow

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

Ah yes, because 20 year old vehicle safety standards and the possibility of non-US conforming bumpers REALLY apply to this situation.

it's simply a picture of a non-lifted vehicle hitting a car and doing as much damage as was shown in the pics posted. period. it's what i could find on short notice and i'm not really intested in digging through crash site pics on the internet all afternoon.

I don't think you understand.

The crumple zones, door beams, etc. reduce the energy transferred to the cabin. Lifting a vehicle negates these measures and transfers more of the energy to the passengers often at head level. Whether or not the driver is Michael Schumacher or not, drunk or not, is irrelevant. These automobiles are inherently more dangerous than smaller cars, it's physics.

Would that amount of damage been done by a civic? or a small, unlifted SUV?

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: Fingers

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: DP
jules, don't forget to ban log trucks and every other semi that transports goods....

That's a stupid argument. You need a special license to drive a semi or heavy truck, which demonstrates the capability of the driver. You should need a special license to drive a lifted automobile or exceedingly large automobile.

hehe you don't know jack about the trucking industry then. most of these guys are driving on a few hours sleep in the back of their cabs. a special license doesn't make you any better of a driver. you also need a special license to drive a motorcycle but that doesn't stop people from doing wheelies at 85mph on the highway.

a bad driver is a bad driver period. stop blaming the gun/truck/whatever and start blaming the idiot behind the wheel. a guy in a civic can kill people on motorcycles but you won't see a single person screaming "ban civics!" because they'll blame the driver and not the vehicle.

That's the point. A bad driver in one of these trucks is far more likely to do significant damage than a civic. The point of a driver's license, or at least it used to be before they started just handing them out, is to weed out bad drivers.

I am NOT in favor of banning lifted or large vehicles, I AM in favor of making it mandatory to obtain a separate license (and demonstrate competent ability) to operate them.

Larger truck arn't harder to rive at all. At least I don't think so. Only difference being parking in a tight area witht he long wheelbase. Other than that I really don't see much of a difference.

About the special liscence thing what about people with 2 wheel drive cars driving in the snow or other really bad weather. shouldn't they need a special liscnece to operate the car since it is so much harder than a 4 wheel drive truck and could become a danger to the 4X4 owners driving safely.

Not trying to get into a big argument here, just pointing out differenced that would go the other way.

No, the standard driving test SHOULD deal with that. It is a sad sign of driving conditions that it does not.

 

[Ophir]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Ophir

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: fisher
i've seen a minivan do that much damage to a car before, it's more the speed than the fact it was lifted. altho in that case the whole back of the car was smashed in (no more trunk or back seats) not just the top half.

stop being ignorant.

oh, btw, go by your ford/chevy/dodge dealership, you can get a pickup truck with a ride height like that off the lot these days. i was surprised how high they are stock even without the offroad packages.

You are wrong, the wheels are still behind the back seat and the floor of the trunk is still behind the rear wheels. Those areas would have absorbed some of the impact if the truck's bumper had hit the Mustang's bumper. The truck's bumper hit around the trunk lid and sheared off most of the body above the crumple zone.

Look at the pictures again. :roll:

let me say it again. i witnessed with my own eyes a minivan take out a car going a little bit slower (hydroplaning, the cops said about 45mph on impact) than that truck. a minivan is smaller. it wasn't lifted. it was however going fast. the bumper trunk and back seats of the car were compacted into a 2-3' space behind the front seats. the wheels and the floor of the trunk did NOTHING to "absorb the impact" of ANYTHING. i can see the pictures, if anything the fact that it WAS lifted wasn't such a bad thing because there wasn't as much debris pushed up into the front of the car.

Obiviously you are a great physicist and can tell with your trained eyes where and to what extent the energy and momentum were transfered.

If you had any clue, you'd realize that the frame and chassis will absorb and distribute far more energy than the windshield, thereby making the impact to the cabin significantly reduced; but you post on ATOT and you have "seen" a car accident, so you obviously knew that already.

well no i was in the accident. but thanks for putting in your 2 cents. i'm not blinded by stupidity, i'm simply tired of the whining because you people don't get your way and we aren't all rolling on dubs in 82 caprices.

You were in the accident, OH, that makes you WAY more qualified.

82 caprices? WTF are you talking about?

yes. it's called first hand knowledge. it has nothing to do with being a physicist, but being educated and seeing (and feeling, ouch) in person what happens in rear end accidents at those kinds of speeds helps. i finished school, perhaps your G.E.D. wasn't such a great path to take afterall.

sorry, not 82 caprices, maybe ground scraping civics with big wings.

Maybe that's our problem. I never got a GED, maybe I should dump this useless Engineering BS and my coursework for a Bioengineering MS, and get one. Maybe then we'll be at the same level of ignorance.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
No, because they are only endangering themselves and anyone stupid enough to ride with them not other (innocent) people.

It is obvious that the height of the truck caused the damage. Personal attacks against me aren't going to change that fact.

*snip nested hell*

*devil's advocate*
It's obvious the height of the car caused the damage.

The same argument goes for vehicles that have been slammed. Should the Mustang's bumper be lowered for those cars? Not that it would be as large a difference as this case, but this case isn't the "average", more like the extreme.

 

[Rock Hydra]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: RockHydra11
And ban segways because...well, I couldn't think of anything better to ban.

I can think of something better to ban...LIFTED TRUCKS!

REPOST!!!!!!111111oneoneoneone

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
No, because they are only endangering themselves and anyone stupid enough to ride with them not other (innocent) people.

It is obvious that the height of the truck caused the damage. Personal attacks against me aren't going to change that fact.

*snip nested hell*

*devil's advocate*
It's obvious the height of the car caused the damage.

The same argument goes for vehicles that have been slammed. Should the Mustang's bumper be lowered for those cars? Not that it would be as large a difference as this case, but this case isn't the "average", more like the extreme.

The proliferance of lifted trucks in recent years is not making this an "extreme" example anymore though.

Also, you are turning this around the wrong way, with a slammed car the victim is the driver of the modified car. With the raised trucks the victim isn't the driver of the modified vehicle it is the innocent driver of pretty much every stock passenger car on the road. Asking everyone else to change is unreasonable. By that logic the Mustang owner should have installed a raised crash cage on the rear of his car just in case he/she was hit by a raised truck. That argument doesn't fly.

The burden shouldn't be on the rest of the public at large to protect themselves from idiot drivers of raised trucks. It should be on the truck owners to not make their trucks into overly dangerous vehicles.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The burden shouldn't be on the rest of the public at large to protect themselves from idiot drivers of raised trucks. It should be on the truck owners to not make their trucks into overly dangerous vehicles.

As a Civic driver, I wholeheartedly agree.

- M4H

 

[AdamK47]

Poor car. It was the 300HP 4.6L 3V GT too.

I see so many of the new stangs around here now. The cars don't even seem unique anymore. The worst part is that they are mostly V6s and the drivers think their hot stuff when comparing to my LS1 Z28. I just let them talk while I just smile.

 

[Tremulant]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The burden shouldn't be on the rest of the public at large to protect themselves from idiot drivers of raised trucks. It should be on the truck owners to not make their trucks into overly dangerous vehicles.

As a Civic driver, I wholeheartedly agree.

- M4H

As an Altima driver, I wholeheartedly agree.

--

IMO, normal trucks aren't a problem. The problem is when the truck is lifted unneccesarily.

That is all.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup, lifted trucks are a menace. people who purposely defeat any safety design need to go to hell. its irresponsible to everyone else on the road. while normal trucks might not exactly line up bumper to bumper with cars, the engineers do try to direct the forces so they impact the lower part of a car where it can be absorbed best. one has no chance when being hit so high up. its not a simple matter of just mass, or else there would be no differences in crash tests between vehicles of the same weight.

what gets me is these hicks who drive these insane trucks are probably religious. i've seen plenty with a hanging cross or whatever on the rear view mirror. wtf are they thinking? jesus wants you to kill people? a total reckless disregard for the lives of others is sickening

where are the right to lifers on this culture of life my ass.

 

[TBone48]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yup, lifted trucks are a menace. people who purposely defeat any safety design need to go to hell. its irresponsible to everyone else on the road. while normal trucks might not exactly line up bumper to bumper with cars, the engineers do try to direct the forces so they impact the lower part of a car where it can be absorbed best. one has no chance when being hit so high up. its not a simple matter of just mass, or else there would be no differences in crash tests between vehicles of the same weight.

what gets me is these hicks who drive these insane trucks are probably religious. i've seen plenty with a hanging cross or whatever on the rear view mirror. wtf are they thinking? jesus wants you to kill people? a total reckless disregard for the lives of others is sickening

where are the right to lifers on this culture of life my ass.

Way to turn this into an anti-christian thing! That's quite a leap, from morons driving debatedly dangerous vehicles to "religious hicks" driving them in disregard for the lives they are about to destroy. Does the drivers religious affiliation or lack thereof really make a difference? I think the driver of that truck was reckless, stupid, and irresponsible. I dont particularly care what his beliefs are.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: fisher

Originally posted by: Skoorb

and the car absorbed it all and in an area not designed to take that sort of impact

WINNAR

uhhhh. no. once again. a large mass. high rate of speed. smaller mass not moving. impact. bang.

car hit by a shuttle van. not a lifted truck. notice the rear end carnage.

anyway. i'm not speaking spanish or french here. a big mass collides with a non-moving smaller mass at a high rate of speed and destruction will occur. i understand crumple zones (probably more than you being in a really bad accident where a crumple zone saved my ass) but there's only so much they can do. and a crumple zone does just that, crumple. with that much force hitting that car it would have most likely crumpled the truck and back seat up against the front seats. i'm not sure what you people are expecting, maybe that the back end of the mustang would be pushed in a few feet?

I'd actually say that this link goes against your point. The BMW had the entire trunk area crushed, and the rear seat pushed toward the front seat a bit, but the truck that hit it did not intrude into the rear passenger area the way the truck did in the Mustang pictures.

The kids in the back of that BMW lived because the truck hit the bumper and used the full crumple zone, and probably crumpled the impacting truck more as well. Anybody in the back of that mustang would have died because the truck rode over the crumple zone.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
Good thing no-one was in the rear seat....like anyone could fit in the back seat of a 'stang anyways
Text

My Dad has got an awesome tool set, I believe I can fix it.

 

[dpopiz]

http://www.evansplumbinginc.com/emilee/4.jpg
looks like a spiffy rice rocket or almost like a porsche or something in that pic -- with the flatened trunk

 

[Fenixgoon]

damn.. and he had a sexy '05 too! at least he's alive:thumbsup:

 

[iskim86]

Originally posted by: eakers
thankgod there was nobody in the backseat

i can just picture all the blood and gore..... good god. looked like a HARD hit

 

[jagec]

My MR2 may be a deathtrap if I hit someone else, but having the engine behind me is an advantage if I get rear-ended

I agree with the idea that bumper height could be regulated, so people with lifts need to lower their bumpers if they wish to drive on public roadways.

For the off-road guys, I'm sure some company could come up with a "retractable" bumper design that can lift up to give you ground clearance off-road. I'm sure if you can afford gas, insurance, tires, and the lift kit itself, you can afford something like that.

Originally posted by: Fingers

Case and point though, if you don't feel safe in a little car driving around then do something about it. Nobody made you purchase such a small car.

Economics did.:roll:

 

[32fear]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
Good thing no-one was in the rear seat....like anyone could fit in the back seat of a 'stang anyways
Text

I'm glad that rear bumper on that mustang was sticking out as far as DOT requires :roll:

Why are those fvcking lift kits still legal on registered cars? Honestly whats the point of having DOT required 5mph bumpers and reinforced door beams when the bumper on a hickmobile like that will go thru your window?

I happen to drive a lifted Jeep. It IS my daily driver and in IL, it is mandatory that when driven on the road, you need to meet DOT specs for bumper height. I have to take off my bumper and put on two 2x8s in order to keep mine legal. I see nothing wrong with that guy driving that on the road, but like others said, it is him, not the vehicle's fault. I also have a lot of friends that have lifted vehicles, some who comply and some who don't. None of us have been so dumb as to get in accidents like that and if we did, we'd accept the consequence. I'm going to stop myself before I begin to preach.

 

[32fear]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
The solution is simple, and has been suggested for several decades. Federaly mandated bumper hieghts. If the jacked up F350's' bumpers matched the Mustang's this woulnd't be so bad.

Banning higher profile vehicles is not the solution any more than banning lower profile vehicles.

Show me one single raised truck where the owner modified the bumper height so that it remains at the same level as it was when the vehicle was stock. I've NEVER seen one.

You want me to PM you pics? I have a stock located bumper on a vehicle with 11.5 inches of lift on 37s.

 

[Evadman]

My God, some people have serious problems. I would go off on another rant at the pure stupidity in this thread, but I will not. Mostly because I am feeling lazy tonight.

Let me just say this. F350 Vs. Mustang = F350. Doesn't matter weather it is lifted or not. Mass always wins, there are no exceptions. DraftHorsePower (the driver of that mustang) lost the battle before it started. As soon as the driver of the truck decided to not pay attention, DraftHorsePower's fate was sealed.

If the truck was not lifted, the result would have been nearly the same. The same amount of kenetic energy would have been disapated by the mustang. The only difference would have been less of an intrusion into the passenger compartment becuase the force would have been disaped by members in the frame designed to absorb the stress, instead of the C pillars. If there was someone in the back seat, they were toast lifted truck or not.

100% of the fault lies with the driver of the truck. Zero on the truck itself. The driver needs to have his licence suspended until the end of time.