🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Dr3t2.2422$DA.3489455@newshog.newsread.com>,
  russotto@wanda.vf.pond.com (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article <790a28$n2e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Mark Orton  <markorton@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> }A head-on collision where both cars are moving at 40 mph has the same effect
> }(on the occupants of the cars) as hitting a parked car at 80 mph.  However,
> }it does *not* have the same effect as hitting an immovable object at 80 mph.
> }It has the same effect as hitting an immovable object at 40 mph.
> }
> }A large tree, rooted firmly in the earth, is effectively an immovable object.
> }So if you have your choice of hitting a tree or hitting an oncoming car, it
> }makes no difference as far as your own survival is concerned.
>
> I'd hazard a guess that hitting the tree is worse, as the impact is
> more concentrated -- hitting an object in such a way that the impact
> is distributed across the whole frontal area of the car probably
> results in less chance of intrusion into the passenger compartment
> than an impact that is concentrated on a foot or two.

Maybe, maybe not.  It also depends on which part of the car hits - if it's the
passenger side corner and you don't have any passengers, there probably isn't
too much danger of that.  And if you hit the other car not quite head-on, so
only the corners of the cars collide, it could be just as bad.

If you want a better comparison, substitute a wide, strong stone wall for the
tree.

-Mark-

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own