home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!newsun!dseeman
- From: dseeman@novell.com (Daniel Seeman)
- Subject: Re: Okay, it's not the inverse sprinkler problem...
- Message-ID: <1993Jan12.212140.21724@novell.com>
- Sender: news@novell.com (The Netnews Manager)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: db.sjf.novell.com
- Organization: Novell Inc., San Jose, Califonia
- References: <schnitzi.726849584@eola.cs.ucf.edu> <1993Jan12.160756.14894@linus.mitre.org>
- Distribution: sci
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:21:40 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <1993Jan12.160756.14894@linus.mitre.org> m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White) writes:
- >Mark Schnitzius writes:
- >> At first it seems that "hitting the clutch" would be the
- >> proper answer, so your car would provide the least resistance
- >> to the oncoming car. But consider -- shouldn't your goal
- >> be to reduce the sudden acceleration that you will be
- >> experiencing? If that's the case, then maybe hitting the
- >> brake would be the correct answer.
- >
- >It might be, if your car was incompressable. In fact, most of
- >your injuries would probably stem from deformation of the car, and
- >subquent crush injuries and rupture of the gas tank and fire/explosion.
- >You did't give enough information to answer the question: is the car in
- >question a Volvo or a Pinto?
- >
- Good point. You might add the Chevy truck to the Pinto reference. Their gas
- tanks can explode after impact too although you might find more fire and the
- like if the Chevy gets hit from the side (T-boned, so to speak)...
-
- dks.
-