This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Pretty dumb driving here
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/great-escape-car-smashes-lorry-121900903.htm...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/great-escape-car-smashes-lorry-121900903.htm...
In reply to woolsack:
Dumb driving is too polite to say the least. Could have been far worse. The lorry driver deserves a medal for preventing a serious situation.
Dumb driving is too polite to say the least. Could have been far worse. The lorry driver deserves a medal for preventing a serious situation.
In reply to woolsack:
... and this, boys & girls, is what happens when the convention of letting people out of junctions onto motorways is assumed is going to happen rather than assuming that it's your responsibility to get onto the motorway.
... and this, boys & girls, is what happens when the convention of letting people out of junctions onto motorways is assumed is going to happen rather than assuming that it's your responsibility to get onto the motorway.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
The car driver was an idiot. But frankly it was not very defensive driving of the lorry driver, when he saw that the car driver was clearly about to pull a stupid trick like that, not to start braking immediately and let the car out rather than create a more dangerous situation as the car ran out of slip-lane.
So the lorry driver, as the video explained, was not blamed legally and no insurance claim was made against his policy, but if I were him I'd certainly have felt some moral responsibility had the car driver been killed/injured.
To be properly safe you have to drive such that you assume everyone else is an idiot or worse out to kill you, and accommodate their idiocy for the greater good of everyone else on the road. He very clearly didn't.
Neil
The car driver was an idiot. But frankly it was not very defensive driving of the lorry driver, when he saw that the car driver was clearly about to pull a stupid trick like that, not to start braking immediately and let the car out rather than create a more dangerous situation as the car ran out of slip-lane.
So the lorry driver, as the video explained, was not blamed legally and no insurance claim was made against his policy, but if I were him I'd certainly have felt some moral responsibility had the car driver been killed/injured.
To be properly safe you have to drive such that you assume everyone else is an idiot or worse out to kill you, and accommodate their idiocy for the greater good of everyone else on the road. He very clearly didn't.
Neil
Post edited at 12:36
In reply to Removed User:
He took sensibly chosen action once the accident had occurred and avoided it getting any worse, yes. But by backing off slightly and letting the car carry out its manoeuvre, the accident would have been avoided completely.
Surely that would have been the best outcome for all involved, no?
Neil
He took sensibly chosen action once the accident had occurred and avoided it getting any worse, yes. But by backing off slightly and letting the car carry out its manoeuvre, the accident would have been avoided completely.
Surely that would have been the best outcome for all involved, no?
Neil
In reply to Neil Williams:
If you say so.
However, consider the following. There might have been other things that the lorry driver was looking out for. And when you are a long way up in one of those things it is not always easy to see everything, yes they are provided with lots of mirrors but your eyes can't be everywhere. I'll bet you've missed things that were, or could have been easily in your view by one means or another. Moreover, we are seeing it from the view of a fisheye lens that is mounted at the top of the windscreen, so not the view the lorry driver has. Now, watch the video again and look how at the last second the car driver takes his foot off the accelerator, and the car slows down, and has he falls back he still commits to the manoeuvre. I'm guessing, but I'll bet that the lorry driver using his judgement knew the car would get in front of him, but due to the deceleration it didn¡¦t. In my opinion the car driver fvcked up.
> (In reply to rocky57)
> Surely that would have been the best outcome for all involved, no?
If you say so.
However, consider the following. There might have been other things that the lorry driver was looking out for. And when you are a long way up in one of those things it is not always easy to see everything, yes they are provided with lots of mirrors but your eyes can't be everywhere. I'll bet you've missed things that were, or could have been easily in your view by one means or another. Moreover, we are seeing it from the view of a fisheye lens that is mounted at the top of the windscreen, so not the view the lorry driver has. Now, watch the video again and look how at the last second the car driver takes his foot off the accelerator, and the car slows down, and has he falls back he still commits to the manoeuvre. I'm guessing, but I'll bet that the lorry driver using his judgement knew the car would get in front of him, but due to the deceleration it didn¡¦t. In my opinion the car driver fvcked up.
In reply to Removed User:
"In my opinion the car driver fvcked up."
Of course he did, and that's why the insurance claim went 100% against the car driver.
But I think there's a chance the lorry driver might have avoided it if he backed off or braked as soon as the car was there. That said, it is true that the car might have been 100% in the blind spot so that might not have been possible.
FWIW, I also think the lorry driver was a bit close to the lorry in front - but that said trying to keep a proper distance is a constant battle on the motorway as people keep pulling into it (like the offending car!).
You see my point on defensive driving - it is better to accommodate an idiot if at all possible than it is to hit them. If nothing else it avoids a load of paperwork.
Neil
"In my opinion the car driver fvcked up."
Of course he did, and that's why the insurance claim went 100% against the car driver.
But I think there's a chance the lorry driver might have avoided it if he backed off or braked as soon as the car was there. That said, it is true that the car might have been 100% in the blind spot so that might not have been possible.
FWIW, I also think the lorry driver was a bit close to the lorry in front - but that said trying to keep a proper distance is a constant battle on the motorway as people keep pulling into it (like the offending car!).
You see my point on defensive driving - it is better to accommodate an idiot if at all possible than it is to hit them. If nothing else it avoids a load of paperwork.
Neil
Post edited at 13:08
In reply to woolsack:
Wow - lucky driver. That happened to me, but the (foreign) lorry pulled into me (in the centre lane) when I was unfortunate enough to be in his blind spot. I span off onto the hard shoulder.
Lesson learned. When over taking lorries, accelerate through the blind spot next to the cab if possible or over take leaving a lane's grace and always pull back into the middle lane in a position ahead of the lorry where they can see you.
Wow - lucky driver. That happened to me, but the (foreign) lorry pulled into me (in the centre lane) when I was unfortunate enough to be in his blind spot. I span off onto the hard shoulder.
Lesson learned. When over taking lorries, accelerate through the blind spot next to the cab if possible or over take leaving a lane's grace and always pull back into the middle lane in a position ahead of the lorry where they can see you.
In reply to ByEek:
Agreed. Changing lanes "onto" a lorry or coach (i.e. when alongside them) is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, as they won't then know you are there.
Neil
Agreed. Changing lanes "onto" a lorry or coach (i.e. when alongside them) is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, as they won't then know you are there.
Neil
Post edited at 13:11
In reply to Removed User:
So you'd smash into the guy, possibly killing or seriously injuring one of you and at best causing you both a lot of delay and inconvenience, purely to make the point that his manoeuvre wasn't particularly well judged?
> If you say so.
So you'd smash into the guy, possibly killing or seriously injuring one of you and at best causing you both a lot of delay and inconvenience, purely to make the point that his manoeuvre wasn't particularly well judged?
In reply to Removed User:
It scares me how many people think asserting your right of way is appropriate even if that has a higher likelihood of causing an accident than not doing so.
This does not make the car driver anything other than a (lucky) idiot. But if you don't want to die an early death on the road or at least be filling in an awful lot of insurance claim forms, you need to deal with idiots by giving them space to be idiots, because you won't change them but you might well end up with them crashing into you.
Neil
It scares me how many people think asserting your right of way is appropriate even if that has a higher likelihood of causing an accident than not doing so.
This does not make the car driver anything other than a (lucky) idiot. But if you don't want to die an early death on the road or at least be filling in an awful lot of insurance claim forms, you need to deal with idiots by giving them space to be idiots, because you won't change them but you might well end up with them crashing into you.
Neil
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Quite.
Lorries are fitted with bright lights and very loud horns if you *must* get that point across having backed off to let them in.
Neil
Quite.
Lorries are fitted with bright lights and very loud horns if you *must* get that point across having backed off to let them in.
Neil
In reply to Ramblin dave:
At what point in my reply(ies) have I said I'd smash into the guy and possibly kill him. I don't even drive a lorry. I don't have a point to make either! I, like everyone else is, have been looking at it and making assumptions, and even worse judgements, as to what the drivers of both vehicles should have, or could have, done. If I'd been in that lorry, I would have made decisions based on what I could see was going to happen in my opinion, and I would have done whatever I could in order to prevent an accident. What we all don't know is the other things going on at the time. For all we know there might have bee a 52 seater coach up the backside of the lorry that had just pulled in close behind and and the driver of the lorrry knew that so made the decision not to brake hard in order not to have the coach ram him from behind, Which could have been worse. There is a lot of What's, If's and But's.
> (In reply to rocky57)
>
> [...]
>
> So you'd smash into the guy, possibly killing or seriously injuring one of you and at best causing you both a lot of delay and inconvenience, purely to make the point that his manoeuvre wasn't particularly well judged?
>
> [...]
>
> So you'd smash into the guy, possibly killing or seriously injuring one of you and at best causing you both a lot of delay and inconvenience, purely to make the point that his manoeuvre wasn't particularly well judged?
At what point in my reply(ies) have I said I'd smash into the guy and possibly kill him. I don't even drive a lorry. I don't have a point to make either! I, like everyone else is, have been looking at it and making assumptions, and even worse judgements, as to what the drivers of both vehicles should have, or could have, done. If I'd been in that lorry, I would have made decisions based on what I could see was going to happen in my opinion, and I would have done whatever I could in order to prevent an accident. What we all don't know is the other things going on at the time. For all we know there might have bee a 52 seater coach up the backside of the lorry that had just pulled in close behind and and the driver of the lorrry knew that so made the decision not to brake hard in order not to have the coach ram him from behind, Which could have been worse. There is a lot of What's, If's and But's.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Everyone on the road should be courteous to all other road users - If they can. Sometimes it is not always possible, there could be other reasons as to why you can't.
> (In reply to rocky57)
>
> It scares me how many people think asserting your right of way is appropriate even if that has a higher likelihood of causing an accident than not doing so.
>
> This does not make the car driver anything other than a (lucky) idiot. But if you don't want to die an early death on the road or at least be filling in an awful lot of insurance claim forms, you need to deal with idiots by giving them space to be idiots, because you won't change them but you might well end up with them crashing into you.
>
>
> It scares me how many people think asserting your right of way is appropriate even if that has a higher likelihood of causing an accident than not doing so.
>
> This does not make the car driver anything other than a (lucky) idiot. But if you don't want to die an early death on the road or at least be filling in an awful lot of insurance claim forms, you need to deal with idiots by giving them space to be idiots, because you won't change them but you might well end up with them crashing into you.
>
Everyone on the road should be courteous to all other road users - If they can. Sometimes it is not always possible, there could be other reasons as to why you can't.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Never having driven an HGV I could be talking crap but can you even see a car that is that tight in to the nearside wing. It's in front of the mirrors and something relatively short and low at the front like a Civic may not yet be visible above the lower edge of the windscreen. My guess is you'd need one of those centrally mounted pedestrian-in-front-of-cab mirrors to even see that car from the driving position, the video doesn't appear to show one fitted.
jk
> So the lorry driver, as the video explained, was not blamed legally and no insurance claim was made against his policy, but if I were him I'd certainly have felt some moral responsibility had the car driver been killed/injured.
Never having driven an HGV I could be talking crap but can you even see a car that is that tight in to the nearside wing. It's in front of the mirrors and something relatively short and low at the front like a Civic may not yet be visible above the lower edge of the windscreen. My guess is you'd need one of those centrally mounted pedestrian-in-front-of-cab mirrors to even see that car from the driving position, the video doesn't appear to show one fitted.
jk
In reply to woolsack:
I think the HGV driver was pretty lucky to have that camera fitted, can you imagine the roasting he'd have got on here without video evidence?
I think the HGV driver was pretty lucky to have that camera fitted, can you imagine the roasting he'd have got on here without video evidence?
In reply to Removed User:
From near tragic personal experience. Yes, I do. If you change lanes into the blind spot of a lorry that simultaneously decides to change lanes, you have had it. When I had my accident, I managed to get a bit of paint on the bumper of the lorry. My car was a write-off.
> If you say so.
From near tragic personal experience. Yes, I do. If you change lanes into the blind spot of a lorry that simultaneously decides to change lanes, you have had it. When I had my accident, I managed to get a bit of paint on the bumper of the lorry. My car was a write-off.
In reply to ByEek:
It's probably a good rule of thumb to try as hard as you can not to enter the blind spot of another vehicle other than by overtaking in the next lane on the right hand side, and to leave it as soon as you possibly can.
Example: even on a busy motorway where all 3 lanes are moving at the same speed, aim to be slightly forward of the car to your left or right, or vice versa, then they can see you either out of the windscreen or in the mirror, and you can see them and what they might be doing.
This is particularly important on multi-lane roundabouts where people get confused and change lanes without warning and without looking properly. Again entirely their fault if they did, but nonetheless it's best not to get crashed into regardless of whose fault it is.
Neil
It's probably a good rule of thumb to try as hard as you can not to enter the blind spot of another vehicle other than by overtaking in the next lane on the right hand side, and to leave it as soon as you possibly can.
Example: even on a busy motorway where all 3 lanes are moving at the same speed, aim to be slightly forward of the car to your left or right, or vice versa, then they can see you either out of the windscreen or in the mirror, and you can see them and what they might be doing.
This is particularly important on multi-lane roundabouts where people get confused and change lanes without warning and without looking properly. Again entirely their fault if they did, but nonetheless it's best not to get crashed into regardless of whose fault it is.
Neil
Post edited at 14:20
In reply to woolsack:
maybe .... everyone should cycle a few miles and drive a truck before passing their car test, it does help to see the other guys point of view
maybe .... everyone should cycle a few miles and drive a truck before passing their car test, it does help to see the other guys point of view
Having seen the model of car involved I will (controversially) say I'm not surprised.
Rear visibility in the newer generation Civics is nothing short of atrocious - whatever bright spark signed off a design that includes a beam across the section of the rear window you look through needs to be given a new job. Having driven a fair few as hire cars it's an unforgiveable design flaw - particularly in the dark when head lights are hidden perfectly.
Anyone willing to buy a Civic after going on a test drive clearly has no concept of using their mirrors and, therefore, pays no attention to what's around them. I work on the theory that anyone who drives one of the more recent generation Honda Civics is obviously a poor driver and I genuinely change my driving approach when near them. Rear visibility wasn't the cause of this particular crash.... but someone driving badly definitely was!
Mike.
PS All the above is a pity really - my last two cars have been previous generation Civics and I love them. Shame my next car will have to be something different
Rear visibility in the newer generation Civics is nothing short of atrocious - whatever bright spark signed off a design that includes a beam across the section of the rear window you look through needs to be given a new job. Having driven a fair few as hire cars it's an unforgiveable design flaw - particularly in the dark when head lights are hidden perfectly.
Anyone willing to buy a Civic after going on a test drive clearly has no concept of using their mirrors and, therefore, pays no attention to what's around them. I work on the theory that anyone who drives one of the more recent generation Honda Civics is obviously a poor driver and I genuinely change my driving approach when near them. Rear visibility wasn't the cause of this particular crash.... but someone driving badly definitely was!
Mike.
PS All the above is a pity really - my last two cars have been previous generation Civics and I love them. Shame my next car will have to be something different
In reply to Removed User:
Seemed to chicken out at the last second (when the truck driver probably couldn't see him).
> ... In my opinion the car driver fvcked up.
Seemed to chicken out at the last second (when the truck driver probably couldn't see him).
In reply to Neil Williams:
very true.
Are there any countries (iirc there are- is that what priorité à droite is all about?) where the law is that one must give way to indicating traffic. So, for example, if you are driving your BMW along the outside lane of a dual carriageway, your duty would be to let someone who is indicating out into the outside lane rather than close the gap to stop them. Also, once you've let them out, not to drive 12 inches from their rear bumper whilst (optional this) flashing your headlights.
Some folk seem to regard it as an outrage if they have to touch the brake pedal...
very true.
Are there any countries (iirc there are- is that what priorité à droite is all about?) where the law is that one must give way to indicating traffic. So, for example, if you are driving your BMW along the outside lane of a dual carriageway, your duty would be to let someone who is indicating out into the outside lane rather than close the gap to stop them. Also, once you've let them out, not to drive 12 inches from their rear bumper whilst (optional this) flashing your headlights.
Some folk seem to regard it as an outrage if they have to touch the brake pedal...
Post edited at 19:49
In reply to Siward:
In free flowing traffic you shouldn't be indicating in the first place unless you can immediately pull out without obliging someone to break. Read the thread title (HINT: mirror comes before signal)
> Your duty would be to let someone who is indicating out into the outside lane...... Some folk seem to regard it as an outrage if they have to touch the brake pedal...
In free flowing traffic you shouldn't be indicating in the first place unless you can immediately pull out without obliging someone to break. Read the thread title (HINT: mirror comes before signal)
In reply to Otis:
It's a fairly rubbish design, I agree, but it is possible to drive a car perfectly safely using the side mirrors and blind spot checks alone, e.g. when the back of your car is very full of luggage.
However, it is true that most drivers would not consider that as an option unless they had previously driven a van or similar.
Neil
It's a fairly rubbish design, I agree, but it is possible to drive a car perfectly safely using the side mirrors and blind spot checks alone, e.g. when the back of your car is very full of luggage.
However, it is true that most drivers would not consider that as an option unless they had previously driven a van or similar.
Neil
In reply to Siward:
Priorite a droite is a different way of handling unmarked junctions in some countries. In the UK such junctions are rare, and where there is an unmarked junction usually there is an obvious main road by convention, though technically in such cases nobody has priority.
In Switzerland they are often marked with a triangle of dotted lines. If you cross a dotted line, you give way. The UK equivalent is probably a mini roundabout, though it works the opposite way round.
In the rare case of priority going to joining roads on a roundabout (these only occur in the UK on pseudo roundabouts like the one on the main road at one end of Kendal) there is normally a give-way line indicating this.
Neil
Priorite a droite is a different way of handling unmarked junctions in some countries. In the UK such junctions are rare, and where there is an unmarked junction usually there is an obvious main road by convention, though technically in such cases nobody has priority.
In Switzerland they are often marked with a triangle of dotted lines. If you cross a dotted line, you give way. The UK equivalent is probably a mini roundabout, though it works the opposite way round.
In the rare case of priority going to joining roads on a roundabout (these only occur in the UK on pseudo roundabouts like the one on the main road at one end of Kendal) there is normally a give-way line indicating this.
Neil
Post edited at 20:00
In reply to Robert Durran:
It can aid the flow of a motorway if someone visibly coming up to an obstruction of some kind indicates that they wish to overtake it, then the person overtaking them in lane 2 can move to lane 3.
Not per the highway code, but it's another "unofficial" one like flashing lights to cede priority, so long as you don't do it if the person to your right can't move over one and you wait for them to move (if they do) before moving out yourself.
Neil
It can aid the flow of a motorway if someone visibly coming up to an obstruction of some kind indicates that they wish to overtake it, then the person overtaking them in lane 2 can move to lane 3.
Not per the highway code, but it's another "unofficial" one like flashing lights to cede priority, so long as you don't do it if the person to your right can't move over one and you wait for them to move (if they do) before moving out yourself.
Neil
In reply to woolsack:
I witnessed, far too closely, a broadly similar incident on the Forth Road Bridge many years ago.
That FRB case was not quite as simple as the one shown on Yahoo. The car driver had not intended to change lanes but had been harassed by an aggressive driver in the car following him. In response to this harassment, he moved from right to left lane, and like the driver in the recent clip, was spun round by a truck and pushed sideways.
I was on a motorcycle behind the truck. Braking hard when I saw this happen was not enough to prevent me from being showed with car parts.
During the time it took for the truck to draw to a halt, the car was folded along its length by the crushing force so that in cross-section it was now an inverted V.
Wait. That's not the remarkable bit.
When the truck came to a halt, some of the forces folding the car were released. It moved out sideways across the right lane (clear because of observers braking) and then onto the raised steel grid that formed the central reservation on this first part of the bridge and onto the opposite carriageway.
By chance, the opposite carriageway was clear, though traffic was approaching at speed. Whether by the driver's action or the state of the steering, I do not know, but the car turned 180 degrees and bounced back onto the central reservation, where it came to rest. As it came to rest, traffic passed by on the opposite carriageway.
So long as I live, I never expect to to see another living breathing human being as ashen white as the driver who stepped unhurt from that V-shaped car.
I witnessed, far too closely, a broadly similar incident on the Forth Road Bridge many years ago.
That FRB case was not quite as simple as the one shown on Yahoo. The car driver had not intended to change lanes but had been harassed by an aggressive driver in the car following him. In response to this harassment, he moved from right to left lane, and like the driver in the recent clip, was spun round by a truck and pushed sideways.
I was on a motorcycle behind the truck. Braking hard when I saw this happen was not enough to prevent me from being showed with car parts.
During the time it took for the truck to draw to a halt, the car was folded along its length by the crushing force so that in cross-section it was now an inverted V.
Wait. That's not the remarkable bit.
When the truck came to a halt, some of the forces folding the car were released. It moved out sideways across the right lane (clear because of observers braking) and then onto the raised steel grid that formed the central reservation on this first part of the bridge and onto the opposite carriageway.
By chance, the opposite carriageway was clear, though traffic was approaching at speed. Whether by the driver's action or the state of the steering, I do not know, but the car turned 180 degrees and bounced back onto the central reservation, where it came to rest. As it came to rest, traffic passed by on the opposite carriageway.
So long as I live, I never expect to to see another living breathing human being as ashen white as the driver who stepped unhurt from that V-shaped car.
In reply to Otis:
Does this go for people that drive vans or convertibles or other vehicles with poor central-rear visibility as well? I'm sure you're exaggerating for effect but it makes you look like a bit of a reactionary fool.
Split rear windows like the Civic has are likely to become a feature on lots of new cars for aerodynamic/efficiency reasons.
jk (a pretty average driver who just uses the other two rear facing mirrors when the center one is partially obscured)
> Anyone willing to buy a Civic after going on a test drive clearly has no concept of using their mirrors and, therefore, pays no attention to what's around them. I work on the theory that anyone who drives one of the more recent generation Honda Civics is obviously a poor driver and I genuinely change my driving approach when near them. Rear visibility wasn't the cause of this particular crash.... but someone driving badly definitely was!
Does this go for people that drive vans or convertibles or other vehicles with poor central-rear visibility as well? I'm sure you're exaggerating for effect but it makes you look like a bit of a reactionary fool.
Split rear windows like the Civic has are likely to become a feature on lots of new cars for aerodynamic/efficiency reasons.
jk (a pretty average driver who just uses the other two rear facing mirrors when the center one is partially obscured)
In reply to jkarran:
... purely styling reasons, barely supported by aerodynamic considerations and flagrantly disregarding the safe function of the vehicle.
This has been happening since the 60s. For instance, every Hillman Avenger (1969) had a small vertical crease in its rear panel, sometimes referred to as Avenger Lamp-post Disease because the driver could never judge what was behind him.
And good mirror work is largely dependent on good exterior mirrors and good shoulder-checks rather than being drawn into the tiny world of the interior mirror.
> Split rear windows like the Civic has are likely to become a feature on lots of new cars for ...
... purely styling reasons, barely supported by aerodynamic considerations and flagrantly disregarding the safe function of the vehicle.
This has been happening since the 60s. For instance, every Hillman Avenger (1969) had a small vertical crease in its rear panel, sometimes referred to as Avenger Lamp-post Disease because the driver could never judge what was behind him.
And good mirror work is largely dependent on good exterior mirrors and good shoulder-checks rather than being drawn into the tiny world of the interior mirror.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Not true. A gradual transition from roof to shallow angled rear window keeps the flow attached without requiring visually and aerodynamically messy boundary layer energizers on the roof (see Mitsubishi Lancer Evo for an example of bodging a 3-box saloon to re-attatch the flow to the rear window). Smoothly releasing that flow at the trailing edge without developing a big unstable vortex (drag and noise) requires a sharp transition to the rear surface, something you can't easily achieve in glass hence the glazing bar. The necessarily shallow angled rear window / rear glass roof terminates too high to afford good rear vision so a small rear window is usually included below it. This also preserves a lot of internal cabin space unlike a coupe roof.
The styling around the feature may change with fashion and brand but there is a sound engineering reason for the basic design that is only getting more important as fuel prices rise and emissions regulations tighten.
Same goes for pinched rear roof and wing lines, sloped side windows, improved underfloor design, smaller grilles, smoother bonnet-screen and screen-roof transitions, neater detailing around windscreens and mirrors, ribs on rear light clusters... It may look like fashion because they're all doing similar things at the same time but it's all driven by the same basic requirement, drag reduction while preserving a car-like appearance.
It doesn't show up in any of the google pics I can see and it's a little before my time but if it's there a vertical crease would be purely for styling.
jk
> ... purely styling reasons, barely supported by aerodynamic considerations and flagrantly disregarding the safe function of the vehicle.
Not true. A gradual transition from roof to shallow angled rear window keeps the flow attached without requiring visually and aerodynamically messy boundary layer energizers on the roof (see Mitsubishi Lancer Evo for an example of bodging a 3-box saloon to re-attatch the flow to the rear window). Smoothly releasing that flow at the trailing edge without developing a big unstable vortex (drag and noise) requires a sharp transition to the rear surface, something you can't easily achieve in glass hence the glazing bar. The necessarily shallow angled rear window / rear glass roof terminates too high to afford good rear vision so a small rear window is usually included below it. This also preserves a lot of internal cabin space unlike a coupe roof.
The styling around the feature may change with fashion and brand but there is a sound engineering reason for the basic design that is only getting more important as fuel prices rise and emissions regulations tighten.
Same goes for pinched rear roof and wing lines, sloped side windows, improved underfloor design, smaller grilles, smoother bonnet-screen and screen-roof transitions, neater detailing around windscreens and mirrors, ribs on rear light clusters... It may look like fashion because they're all doing similar things at the same time but it's all driven by the same basic requirement, drag reduction while preserving a car-like appearance.
> This has been happening since the 60s. For instance, every Hillman Avenger (1969) had a small vertical crease in its rear panel, sometimes referred to as Avenger Lamp-post Disease because the driver could never judge what was behind him.
It doesn't show up in any of the google pics I can see and it's a little before my time but if it's there a vertical crease would be purely for styling.
jk
In reply to woolsack:
Think there's a point being missed here. That vid's an advert for in car "dashcams". Not sure that's a route I want to travel
Think there's a point being missed here. That vid's an advert for in car "dashcams". Not sure that's a route I want to travel
In reply to toad:
It's also a great example of just how strong and survivable modern cars are. Try that with an old school Mini and I doubt the driver would be walking away like that.
> Think there's a point being missed here. That vid's an advert for in car "dashcams". Not sure that's a route I want to travel
It's also a great example of just how strong and survivable modern cars are. Try that with an old school Mini and I doubt the driver would be walking away like that.
In reply to jkarran:
Not a reactionary fool in the slightest – just a considered and reasonable opinion, having driven lots of different cars
For the day job I design things for a living and I know the lengths I have to go to to ensure my designs are safe to be unleashed into the big wide world. I wouldn’t expect an obvious flaw in my work to make it as far as construction. If they did, and people got hurt as a result of them, I could realistically expect to go to jail. This isn’t me being ‘reactionary’ – it’s me complying with the safety legislation that governs my industry.
My gripe with the Civic is that vanity has resulted in a fundamentally flawed car design being put into production. Yes, good driving and use of wing mirrors can go some way to managing this risk (as it does in vans/HGVs, where lack of internal mirrors is obviously a necessary evil) but why should the consumer be forced to adapt to a manufacturers mistake on safety issues?
If someone offered to belay you with their poorly designed belay plate attached to their iffy harness arrangement you’d quite rightly give them a wide berth.......why are dodgy car designs any different?
Not a reactionary fool in the slightest – just a considered and reasonable opinion, having driven lots of different cars
For the day job I design things for a living and I know the lengths I have to go to to ensure my designs are safe to be unleashed into the big wide world. I wouldn’t expect an obvious flaw in my work to make it as far as construction. If they did, and people got hurt as a result of them, I could realistically expect to go to jail. This isn’t me being ‘reactionary’ – it’s me complying with the safety legislation that governs my industry.
My gripe with the Civic is that vanity has resulted in a fundamentally flawed car design being put into production. Yes, good driving and use of wing mirrors can go some way to managing this risk (as it does in vans/HGVs, where lack of internal mirrors is obviously a necessary evil) but why should the consumer be forced to adapt to a manufacturers mistake on safety issues?
If someone offered to belay you with their poorly designed belay plate attached to their iffy harness arrangement you’d quite rightly give them a wide berth.......why are dodgy car designs any different?
In reply to Otis:
Fair enough, how we are in life and how we come across on the internet are often different. My point really is that I'd refrain from judging the skill/ability of others on what they drive. How they drive is a different matter.
Likewise.
And my contention (having also driven one) is that it's neither fundamentally flawed nor shaped as it is out of vanity. I think the rear visibility is easily good enough to drive safely without special effort and I explained earlier why manufacturers are adopting the split rear window.
jk
> Not a reactionary fool in the slightest – just a considered and reasonable opinion, having driven lots of different cars
Fair enough, how we are in life and how we come across on the internet are often different. My point really is that I'd refrain from judging the skill/ability of others on what they drive. How they drive is a different matter.
> For the day job I design things for a living and I know the lengths I have to go to to ensure my designs are safe... If they did, and people got hurt as a result of them, I could realistically expect to go to jail.
Likewise.
> My gripe with the Civic is that vanity has resulted in a fundamentally flawed car design being put into production.
And my contention (having also driven one) is that it's neither fundamentally flawed nor shaped as it is out of vanity. I think the rear visibility is easily good enough to drive safely without special effort and I explained earlier why manufacturers are adopting the split rear window.
jk
In reply to wintertree:
Correct. I have seen a two foot wide MkIII Mini many years ago on a three-lane road. She was still pretty but she was very dead.
> It's also a great example of just how strong and survivable modern cars are. Try that with an old school Mini and I doubt the driver would be walking away like that.
Correct. I have seen a two foot wide MkIII Mini many years ago on a three-lane road. She was still pretty but she was very dead.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Yes the lorry driver just have slammed his brakes on causing a pile up instead of driving in a perfectly predictable and calm manner. Which ended up saving this car driver's life.
Yes the lorry driver just have slammed his brakes on causing a pile up instead of driving in a perfectly predictable and calm manner. Which ended up saving this car driver's life.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...