€7000 in fines for doing donuts.

Marcusm

CiniO wrote: »

Well I can guarantee you can be easily killed if run over by a quad.

You can possibly be killed in a collision with a quad but you can more easily be killed in a same speed collision with a car (likely weighing 4 times as much). A person can be killed in a collision with another person or even a person on a push bike.

Miike

Marcusm wrote: »

You can possibly be killed in a collision with a quad but you can more easily be killed in a same speed collision with a car (likely weighing 4 times as much). A person can be killed in a collision with another person or even a person on a push bike.

F = 2mv/t

Average quad bike is around 225-250 KG? The average mid size car is around 1,600 KG. If a quad bike hit you at the same velocity as car hits you, the impact of the car hitting you will have around 7.2 times the impact force of the quad. Given the choice, I'll take the hit from a quad bike instead of a car

marcus001

CiniO wrote: »

You dont' have control what's behind the bend or the conditions, but you can see both. You can see what are the conditions and you can see what is behind the bend.

Obviously if it's blind bend and you can't see, then there's no way to do any skid there as cars might be oncoming.

Can you show us on Google street view some of these corners with "perfect visibility"?

CiniO

marcus001 wrote: »

Can you show us on Google street view some of these corners with "perfect visibility"?

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.491448,-9.5614101,3a,75y,329.77h,85.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8aTWg2cYfV_W8iM7dtOTEQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.6662424,-9.7815006,3a,75y,152.95h,64.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smR9MPtCpuPmfjN5c29oewA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

dr.fuzzenstein

bladespin wrote: »

It does raise all sorts of questions about what qualifies as evidence imo.

Well, a video of a certain ethnic group sulky racing on a main road in front of a rolling road block, holding everyone up and forcing oncoming cars onto the hard shoulder wasn't sufficient evidence.
Of course there was no tire squealing and engine revving so the "Jaysis 'tis fierrce dangerous!" brigade wasn't out in force.
But "dem boy racers" are an easy target. If the Gards put half the effort into combating slow coaches, maniacs in Mondeos and housewives behaving badly, the roads would be a better place.
But this way the gards get to go out sometimes, catch a few guys in souped up cars and then can go back the Centra deli counter.

grogi

bladespin wrote: »

It does raise all sorts of questions about what qualifies as evidence imo.

Anything that proofs something?!

A video titled drunk driving proofs nothing for drink driving case. Depends how the person was driving it actually might be a good evidence in dangerous driving case.

MaceFace

A few months back I was out and about and came across two cars doing donuts at an intersection. I am sure that they could see in the distance each of the four ways, so in their minds it was not a problem to others.

However, my immediate thought was oh no, joyriders. I was then fearful that they would tear up towards be and clatter into me for a laugh.
As it happened, they then tore off in a different direction.

No one would know who is doing donuts, so no way of knowing the outcome. So, I slowed down and was apprehensive to approach the junction with them there.
It changed my behaviour as I stopped in a winding country road with these two cars taking my focus away from other things I should be aware of while driving.

grogi

Miike wrote: »

F = 2mv/t

Average quad bike is around 225-250 KG? The average mid size car is around 1,600 KG. If a quad bike hit you at the same velocity as car hits you, the impact of the car hitting you will have around 7.2 times the impact force of the quad. Given the choice, I'll take the hit from a quad bike instead of a car

Really?! REALLY? ROTFL...

Are you seriously trying to model a collision, that's neither elastic nor plastic, with simple formula like this?

bladespin

grogi wrote:

Anything that proofs something?!

grogi wrote:

A video titled drunk driving proofs nothing for drink driving case. Depends how the person was driving it actually might be a good evidence in dangerous driving case.

Yes but this was not an original video, it had been downloaded/streamed, for me this leaves huge questions about potential editing, with an original there are ways of verifying it is untouched, not so simple with a youtube video.

grogi

bladespin wrote: »

Yes but this was not an original video, it had been downloaded/streamed, for me this leaves huge questions about potential editing, with an original there are ways of verifying it is untouched, not so simple with a youtube video.

Unfortunately in digital era there isn't such thing as "original recording". Everything is chewed by processors and encoders multiple times before reaches the SD card...

murphthesmurf

MaceFace wrote: »

A few months back I was out and about and came across two cars doing donuts at an intersection. I am sure that they could see in the distance each of the four ways, so in their minds it was not a problem to others.

However, my immediate thought was oh no, joyriders. I was then fearful that they would tear up towards be and clatter into me for a laugh.
As it happened, they then tore off in a different direction.

No one would know who is doing donuts, so no way of knowing the outcome. So, I slowed down and was apprehensive to approach the junction with them there.
It changed my behaviour as I stopped in a winding country road with these two cars taking my focus away from other things I should be aware of while driving.

You poor thing, we wouldn't want you to be frightened would we.
Did you never do anything that, with the benefit of hindsight, may have been intimidating to someone when you were young? If not then you are not human. Should we outlaw everything that may frighten/intimidated/unsettle someone? The world has gone to 5h1t, everyone is offended and frightened by everything. I'm sure you're a really nice person but ffs. Why has everyone become so self entitled? 'This unsettled me so shouldn't be allowed', 'what x says offends me so they should not be allowed to speak'.
Youngsters are humans like the rest of us, at some time in our lives we all do something a bit mad or daft. It's not the end of the world, we don't need to be protected from ourselves and everyone else.

bladespin

grogi wrote:

Unfortunately in digital era there isn't such thing as "original recording". Everything is chewed by processors and encoders multiple times before reaches the SD card...

Hence my question, if something is so easily altered.

Ursus Horribilis

Roads are for driving on. Not for empty headed morons to use as their playground.

dr.fuzzenstein

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

Roads are for driving on. Not for empty headed morons to use as their playground.

That's half the drivers gone I'm afraid...

Ursus Horribilis

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's half the drivers gone I'm afraid...

Aw diddums.

MaceFace

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You poor thing, we wouldn't want you to be frightened would we.
Did you never do anything that, with the benefit of hindsight, may have been intimidating to someone when you were young? If not then you are not human. Should we outlaw everything that may frighten/intimidated/unsettle someone? The world has gone to 5h1t, everyone is offended and frightened by everything. I'm sure you're a really nice person but ffs. Why has everyone become so self entitled? 'This unsettled me so shouldn't be allowed', 'what x says offends me so they should not be allowed to speak'.
Youngsters are humans like the rest of us, at some time in our lives we all do something a bit mad or daft. It's not the end of the world, we don't need to be protected from ourselves and everyone else.

Wow, thanks!
It's not about being offended, it's about me being in charge of a 1 and a half tonne car that has the ability to cause serious injury or death.
Using your (lack of) logic, people should be allowed to drive as aggressively as they wish, and sure if anything goes wrong and people get hurt, ah well, the innocent bystander was just being self entitled and dangerous drivers are just a bit daft.

There are rules to the road. Anyone is free to break them, but if you get caught, you pay the consequences.

Miike

grogi wrote: »

Really?! REALLY? ROTFL...

Are you seriously trying to model a collision, that's neither elastic nor plastic, with simple formula like this?

I haven't tried to model anything. "ROTFL". I've just tried to highlight the stark difference of getting a belt of a quad vs a car on a like-for-like basis. Did you forget your medication or something this morning?

grogi

Miike wrote: »

I haven't tried to model anything. "ROTFL". I've just tried to highlight the stark difference of getting a belt of a quad vs a car on a like-for-like basis. Did you forget your medication or something this morning

I would agree with your reasoning if you were talking about the hitting a ball of goo. The one hit by a quad would result with smaller velocity than the one hit by a car.

Unfortunately being a human being has different implication. Getting hit by a quad is probably more dangerous than by a car... Why do you think all cars have almost identical silhouette? Quad will have open wheels, sticking out handlebars and many sharp edges. Cars don't - as they are design to minimise impact of hitting a pedestrian.

Pugzilla

grogi wrote: »

I would agree with your reasoning if you were talking about the hitting a ball of goo. The one hit by a quad would result with smaller velocity than the one hit by a car.

Unfortunately being a human being has different implication. Getting hit by a quad is probably more dangerous than by a car... Why do you think all cars have almost identical silhouette? Quad will have open wheels, sticking out handlebars and many sharp edges. Cars don't - as they are design to minimise impact of hitting a pedestrian.

Most cars are five or more times heaver and will likely be going faster than a quad, far more energy transferred in an impact.

A train doesn't have have many sharp edges, but I'd rather not get hit by that either. By your logic even being hit a bicycle would be more dangerous than a car.

Miike

grogi wrote: »

I would agree with your reasoning if you were talking about the hitting a ball of goo. The one hit by a quad would result with smaller velocity than the one hit by a car.

Unfortunately being a human being has different implication. Getting hit by a quad is probably more dangerous than by a car... Why do you think all cars have almost identical silhouette? Quad will have open wheels, sticking out handlebars and many sharp edges. Cars don't - as they are design to minimise impact of hitting a pedestrian.

See below. I haven't got much more to add to that.

Pugzilla wrote: »

Most cars are five or more times heaver and will likely be going faster than a quad, far more energy transferred in an impact.

A train doesn't have have many sharp edges, but I'd rather not get hit by that either. By your logic even being hit a bicycle would be more dangerous than a car.

Sofiztikated

Lads, kids arsing about on quads is dangerous, to both themselves and others, especially in CiniO's situation of on/near the beach and a bunch of other people. In fact I'd rather have young fellas doing rings at a crossroads than kids pissing about on quads where there's a bunch of other people.

Cars will be bigger and heavier, but doing rings isn't high speed.

Henry Ford III

Sofiztikated wrote: »

...but doing rings isn't high speed.

That's true I suppose but doing so on a public road is still stupid and illegal too.

murphthesmurf

grogi wrote: »

I would agree with your reasoning if you were talking about the hitting a ball of goo. The one hit by a quad would result with smaller velocity than the one hit by a car.

Unfortunately being a human being has different implication. Getting hit by a quad is probably more dangerous than by a car... Why do you think all cars have almost identical silhouette? Quad will have open wheels, sticking out handlebars and many sharp edges. Cars don't - as they are design to minimise impact of hitting a pedestrian.

You're grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to mask the fact that you've made a mistake. All cars have the same silhouette because they have a bonnet with an engine in, a cabin for 4-5 people in, and a boot. They are not that shape for safety reasons, it's the most convenient design. What other shape would they be? When you are killed by a car it is quite often caused by your head hitting the windscreen or bonnet. Modern cars have higher bonnets so there is a bigger gap between bonnet and engine. If a pedestrian is hit and their head hits the bonnet, then there is a certain amount of 'give' as the bonnet dents. Without the gap as bonnet dents your head hits the top of engine resulting in a broken head. A big 4 x 4 can be too high though, striking you in mid section/torso rupturing or damaging internal organs. Whilst also throwing you straight back increasing likelyhood of your head striking the ground.
A quad bike will strike your lower legs, at high enough speed this will break your legs. The only thing your head is likely to strike is the rider or the ground when you land. People have been killed by cyclists because as they have been knocked to the ground their head has struck the tarmac or concrete.
This really is common sense. You also have the chance that when you go to ground the vehicle may run over you. This is where the weight difference really kicks in.
In an unlikely hyperthetical situation where I had to choose being hit by a car or quad bike, I'll take the quad bike and you take the car. You can all place your bets on which one of us will survive

Sofiztikated

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That's true I suppose but doing so on a public road is still stupid and illegal too.

Absolutely, and that's been my point all along.

Twas directed at the "Cars will be going faster" and Force=Velocity times blah blah argument.

And I say this as someone who was into boy racer stuff when I was younger, the driving on the way to the diffin spots isn't ****ing stellar either. And after you've left a "hape of rubber" on the road, very ****ing few of them change the tyres between that and "houlding 'er lit" on the way home.

I'm all for expression, and modifying your car, and having a bit of craic. But don't be a twat, and don't get arsey when people call you out on being on.

Sofiztikated

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I am glad they got such a high fine. Clowns like this are the reason why organising any motorsport event is such a pain in the neck. No place for it at all but yet at every event the knuckle draggers turn up.

I'm hoping to go to the IFSS this weekend, if the weather holds up.

But I know there'll be a bunch of ****wits at it, and expect to be dangerously overtaken at some point on the way to or from it.

selectamatic

For the weekend thats in it, whats the general consensus here on the cannonballers participating in burnouts, powerslides, handbrake spins :P etc.

Now firstly I will acknowledge there will most likely be no "diffin" taking place on the Cannonball but nonetheless there will be some shenanigans; yet from what I've seen it's generally accepted by the wider populace as family friendly and perfectly safe.

For the record I've no issue with the Cannonball (I go to have a look at it every year) but I'd also have no issue with a bit of diffin at a crossroads within reason.

For me it just seems middle aged men and women in exotic cars are given a lot more leeway compared to the "scrote" in an is200.

marcus001

murphthesmurf wrote: »

You poor thing, we wouldn't want you to be frightened would we.
Did you never do anything that, with the benefit of hindsight, may have been intimidating to someone when you were young? If not then you are not human. Should we outlaw everything that may frighten/intimidated/unsettle someone? The world has gone to 5h1t, everyone is offended and frightened by everything. I'm sure you're a really nice person but ffs. Why has everyone become so self entitled? 'This unsettled me so shouldn't be allowed', 'what x says offends me so they should not be allowed to speak'.
Youngsters are humans like the rest of us, at some time in our lives we all do something a bit mad or daft. It's not the end of the world, we don't need to be protected from ourselves and everyone else.

Man wants to drive up road without anyone entering his lane and doing a few spins for fun. He is self entitled.

Grown man thinks its okay to use our public roads to do illegal **** that entertains only him and he's not self entitled.