Although you can't expect concrete barriers everywhere, there are a few places where there is a narrow (or no) median and traffic moves relatively quickly. This stretch of 16th Avenue being one, and especially west of Home Road, between the Montgomery Safeway and Sarcee. You obviously can't prevent every possible outcome, but these seem like a prime places for a little more separation.
Tragic for all involved, obviously. I hope that it wasn't a text message that caused someone's death, but I guess we'll have to wait for the results of the investigation.
Speed appears to be part of the problem, according to the Calgary Police Service’s traffic section, but investigators have ruled out alcohol as a factor. City police reported a blue 2002 Pontiac Aztek was travelling eastbound on 16th Avenue N.W. above University Drive when the driver, a 36-year-old woman, lost control and vaulted the median into westbound traffic.
The Aztek then careened into a blue 1985 Ford F150 pickup truck, and the F150 was consequently rear-ended by a red 2007 GMC Sierra pickup.
The F150, driven by a 63-year-old man, flipped end-over-end and came to a rest against a large pole 24 metres northwest of the initial impact. Police declared its driver dead at the scene, adding a passenger suffered minor injuries.
The Sierra, driven by 49-year-old man, spun 90 degrees clockwise and came to rest 33 metres northwest of the initial contact. Police said the driver was uninjured.
I'm going to wait before passing judgement, but if findings conclude that the woman was at fault for speeding, I really hope she gets charged with something serious.
McIlwraith estimated vehicle parts were flung as far as 400 metres across both lanes of 16th Avenue. The posted speed limit is 70 km/h in the eastbound direction and 60 km/h on the westbound side.
A crash at those speeds, McIlwraith continued, will spawn some major wreckage.
Although you can't expect concrete barriers everywhere, there are a few places where there is a narrow (or no) median and traffic moves relatively quickly.
Even those relatively weak looking fence things they've put in the median of Deerfoot in the north? Just to provide a bit of resistance to slow her down, at least.
Even those relatively weak looking fence things they've put in the median of Deerfoot in the north? Just to provide a bit of resistance to slow her down, at least.
Those may look weak but they're actually intended to be just as, if not stronger than, the typical cement barrier.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Even those relatively weak looking fence things they've put in the median of Deerfoot in the north? Just to provide a bit of resistance to slow her down, at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valo403
Those may look weak but they're actually intended to be just as, if not stronger than, the typical cement barrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
If we're talking about the steel posts with the braided wire strung between them, those have proven to be the most effective and safe.
Agreed. We're not talking Deerfoot speeds here, but even without speeding, a head-on collision on that stretch of road would be at a combined speed of 130 kph based on the posted limits.
Last edited by Jimmy Stang; 03-20-2013 at 02:00 PM.
Reason: I was never good at math...
Agreed. We're not talking Deerfoot speeds here, but even without speeding, a head-on collision on that stretch of road would be at a combined speed of 130 kph based on the posted limits.
Actually, you cannot "combine" the speed like that. What you (and I) would initially assume, is completely false:
“Two cars crashing head on at 50 mph is the same as one car crashing into a wall at 100 mph” = Wrong.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Actually, you cannot "combine" the speed like that. What you (and I) would initially assume, is completely false:
“Two cars crashing head on at 50 mph is the same as one car crashing into a wall at 100 mph” = Wrong.
Quite true - I knew that someone would correct me as soon as I put a number in there. The point that I was trying to make is much more simple. "Relatively fast traffic + narrow median + no barrier = potential for an ugly head-on collision".
The Following User Says Thank You to Jimmy Stang For This Useful Post:
^ I totally had to readjust my thinking to be honest - at one point I was fully onside the typical assumption of double the damage, etc. Totally wrong on my part for the longest time.
^ I totally had to readjust my thinking to be honest - at one point I was fully onside the typical assumption of double the damage, etc. Totally wrong on my part for the longest time.
Agreed, I think the biggest point most people miss is that while total speed involved is doubled (and thus kinetic energy), you've got 2 cars sharing the energy.
1 x 50 / 1 = 50
2 x 50 / 2 = 50
On topic, horrible crash, especially hate when uninvolved parties are the ones that pay the final price
I'd hate to be thrown off my motorcycle into the deerfoot barrier.
Funny you mention that, In the early eighties driving my bike down DF I dodged a blown semi tire and then 2 cars only to end up on my ass in wet grass where the barrier is now,I wasn't injured and the bike just had a broken signal light and lots of dirt but that was the last day I drove a bike in the city. (your never fully in controy on a bike IMO.
Even today I look at those wires and think I could have been cut into 3 pieces.but since I don't drive a bike anymore I'm glad they are there. They save tonnes of lives.
^ I totally had to readjust my thinking to be honest - at one point I was fully onside the typical assumption of double the damage, etc. Totally wrong on my part for the longest time.
The science works when the two cars are roughly the same mass.
However, it much different when one vehicle is significantly less massive than the other.
The science works when the two cars are roughly the same mass.
However, it much different when one vehicle is significantly less massive than the other.
Technically, its a lot more complicated than that and has less to do with the masses of the cars, but rather their ability to absorb/dissipate the energy involved (aka take damage). In the end the total amount of kinetic energy involved has to be used up somehow by a combination of: a) slowing vehicles down, and, b) doing damage (hence crumple zones designed to use up that energy).
Take this scenario as an extreme:
-One large 10000lb truck travelling @ 50
-One tiny 1000lb car made out of concrete travelling @ 50
Smaller concrete car would absorb a lot less of the energy, thus, a large amount of energy has to be dealt with by the truck.
Same analogy would apply if the truck hit a smart car that was "crunch-resistant". All the energy involved would be used up doing damage to the truck, as well as slowing both down, and then, likely, pushing the smartcar away in the opposite direction.
In real life, sure, a smaller car is going to get f*'d up way more than a big truck just because of the sheer amount of energy involved and the fact it is less able to absorb the quantities involved, rather than just being based on mass.
