Another accident on Morse

[Arctic Fox]

"The driver of a golf cart suffered broken ribs after falling out of his golf cart when he was cut off by a vehicle at about 1 p.m. Monday on Morse Boulevard."

And at 10am Monday we witnessed the cart in front being cut up by a landscaper turning right into Carrera, seemingly forgetting that he was towing a trailer.

[outlaw]

As a motorcyclist, I was taught to ride like you're invisible. I see a lot of golf cart drivers drive like they are invincible. How hard is it to drive a golf cart as if a car/truck is going to turn right at every intersection? That's what happens at intersections. Be ready for it. If you are approaching an intersection with a car on your left, SLOOOOOW down so that the car can turn right without running into you.

[Sandtrap328]

It is NOT the road's fault. The fault belongs to the DRIVERS!

If the golf cart driver is paying attention to the fact that he is a lot smaller than a car or truck, he takes every precaution not to be directly to the right of a car at an intersection where the car driver might turn right without looking to see if a cart is next to him. DEFENSIVE driving!

I drive my cart on Morse frequently. No problems. Just realize you are smaller than the cars, realize there are lots of snowbirds here who do not know how to cope with golf carts, and realize the golf carts offer about as much protection against a car as a motorcycle and you will do fine.

[spring_chicken]

So golf cart driver has to make a sudden evasive maneuver to avoid being hit by a driver who cuts him off and leaves the scene and it's his own fault?
Wow. :ohdear: :shrug:

[Mleeja]

So golf cart driver has to make a sudden evasive maneuver to avoid being hit by a driver who cuts him off and leaves the scene and it's his own fault?
Wow. :ohdear: :shrug:

I don't think anyone is blaming the golf cart driver. The point being made is as a cart driver you HAVE TO drive defensively. The cart driver is always going to lose against a car. In this case the car driver did not stop. I am sure they knew what they did and fled the accident.

On a positive note, I passed this accident before the ambulance arrived. Several people stopped to provide aid to the cart driver.

[billethkid]

One could conclude that as one ages the notion or concept of yielding dissipates.

Classic example. When putting on a turn signal to merge into a lane the usual response is the other driver either speeds up to close the gap; or honks the horn after you move over; and sometimes one will get the one finger intelligence marker.

[golfing eagles]

One could conclude that as one ages the notion or concept of yielding dissipates.

Classic example. When putting on a turn signal to merge into a lane the usual response is the other driver either speeds up to close the gap; or honks the horn after you move over; and sometimes one will get the one finger intelligence marker.

This is so true, and you can usually spot the drivers that will do this by the way they are driving. My solution for these bozos is easy---I signal as I move over (with a safety margin, of course). I may get the same horn or finger, but unless the other guy reads minds, he doesn't have the opportunity to speed up and block me out. This is particularly true when you take the left lane of a RB going around 270, but want to merge right for the bypass lane. (For example from LSL west to south on Buena Vista, need to get over for Stillwater bypass, or Stillwater east to Morse north to get to LSL bypass). Also true on interstates when it is obvious that you will be changing lanes due to a slow moving truck---these bozos speed up to 90 to block you out, then slow down enough to ride side by side and not pass for a while (very annoying when cruise control is engaged)

[Arctic Fox]

How hard is it to drive a golf cart as if a car/truck is going to turn right at every intersection?

I appreciate your point, Outlaw, but at this time of the year, driving along Morse, it would be next to impossible. There is a virtually continuous stream of traffic, so slowing to a crawl at every one of the large number of junctions, then checking that no-one close looks as though they might be turning (including those not indicating) would be impracticable.

[Polar Bear]

I appreciate your point, Outlaw, but at this time of the year, driving along Morse, it would be next to impossible. There is a virtually continuous stream of traffic, so slowing to a crawl at every one of the large number of junctions, then checking that no-one close looks as though they might be turning (including those not indicating) would be impracticable.
Impracticable? I see it as more of an absolute necessity.

[Sandtrap328]

Cart drivers especially have to practice Defensive Driving. Too many car drivers make that right hand turn without checking to see if there is a cart next to them. The cart gets hit or run off the road even though he is not doing anything wrong - except not paying attention to a possible issue!

Also, there are the golf cart drivers making a Left turn from the Golf Cart Lane across the lanes of car traffic! Merge carefully into the car lane - using signals - and turn left from the car lane.

[cquick]

I am always afraid when I drive along Morse north of 466. That roadway was not built for the amount of traffic that uses it now.

It's sad that the golf cart traffic cannot be moved off the main road. And there is NO sidewalk at all....I guess no one is expected to walk in that area.

[Arctic Fox]

Impracticable? I see it as more of an absolute necessity.

I say "impracticable" because, with a continuous stream of traffic, at what point would you decide that the car alongside you, or slightly behind you, wasn't going to turn right? You could be stopped at every junction until there was a gap in the traffic long enough for you to sprint across.

I am all for defensive driving, but let's be realistic about this.

[golf2140]

The golf cart had the right of way. Check the signs along the road. Vehicles turning right must yield to carts, bikes, etc. in the cart lane !!!

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Cars have the right of way not the carts. Most cart drivers believe they have the right of way. I am always looking out for carts and will yield to them but the carts should be yielding to the Cars!

[golfing eagles]

Cars have the right of way not the carts. Most cart drivers believe they have the right of way. I am always looking out for carts and will yield to them but the carts should be yielding to the Cars!

Sorry to disagree, but.....
The vehicle in a lane, in this case the cart lane to the right of cars, has a right to that lane until such time as he has passed you, or you have passed him far enough to safely cross that lane. The same is true of a bicycle in that lane. There is no "pecking order"---trucks trump cars, cars trump carts, carts trump bicycles, etc.

[Chatbrat]

The signage is very clear-the golf cart/bicycles & pedestrians have right of way

[Topspinmo]

I avoid that MB Gauntlet during the winter months. A long with Rio Grande and Delmar. IMO the three most dangerous streets in the villages.

[Polar Bear]

The signage is very clear-the golf cart/bicycles & pedestrians have right of way
...The vehicle in a lane, in this case the cart lane to the right of cars, has a right to that lane until such time as he has passed you, or you have passed him far enough to safely cross that lane. The same is true of a bicycle in that lane. There is no "pecking order"---trucks trump cars, cars trump carts, carts trump bicycles, etc.
What CB and GE said.

[Arctic Fox]

The signage is very clear-the golf cart/bicycles & pedestrians have right of way

That is certainly true at the Morse/San Marino junction.

The other dangerous area is the "merge" going south in order to cross Morse before 466. I believe that cars have the right of way there, which is sensible, but why they insist on going so fast (and refusing to let carts merge) when they have to virtually stop for the gates just ahead? Maybe the speed limit on the 200 yards approaching the gates needs to be dropped, although that tends to cause traffic to bunch making it even harder for carts to merge.

Wasn't there a petition last year about all of this? Did anything happen?

[TCLaD]

When you merge from cart lane to roadway when designated to do so, you can signal all you want, check your mirrors 10 time and leave all the space you can, but if those landscape trucks want to pass you and beat the light, they are going to do it regardless. It is worse when they pull a trailer whose wheel bas his wider than the truck. The truck misses you but the trailer wheel well gets you. Please be alert.

[dave harris]

Who ever developed the traffic pattern,with carts and cars on the same road, was trying to save big bucks by not putting a cart path in. He has put a lot of people in jeopardy. In an area with so many carts this is incomprehensible.

[dbussone]

It really doesn't completely matter what the rules are. Drive defensively, and if in a cart or on a bike, be extra careful. The outcome of a collision always favors the heavier vehicle. You may not be able to argue right vs wrong after the deed is done.

And please note per: http://www.districtgov.org/community/GolfCartBrochure.pdf

"Golf carts should yield to vehicular traffic IN ALL CASES."

[Polar Bear]

Who ever developed the traffic pattern,with carts and cars on the same road, was trying to save big bucks by not putting a cart path in. He has put a lot of people in jeopardy. In an area with so many carts this is incomprehensible.
Don't agree.

Transportation in TV is as safe as anywhere. And I think statistics support that.

[DonH57]

Maybe I'm missing something here but the message I'm reading from all these posts are is the car that turned in front of the cart onto San Marino was in the right to do so therefore the cart lane would not be considered a traffic lane? If you were on a four lane road you wouldn't make a right turn from the left hand lane. As much as possible I try to avoid Morse for all travel by cart.

[VApeople]

As much as possible I try to avoid Morse for all travel by cart.

Assuming you are able to drive a car, why do you ever choose to drive a cart along Morse Road?

[Chatbrat]

Death wish

[rubicon]

Sorry to disagree, but.....
The vehicle in a lane, in this case the cart lane to the right of cars, has a right to that lane until such time as he has passed you, or you have passed him far enough to safely cross that lane. The same is true of a bicycle in that lane. There is no "pecking order"---trucks trump cars, cars trump carts, carts trump bicycles, etc.

Hey golfing eagles: Here we go again. We just had this discussion on another thread. All vehicles cars, carts bikes are subject to the rules of the road. May I say sotto voce that I believe some car drivers actually believe carts and bike riders are second class citizens( a nuisance) and hence subordinated to their whims.

I travel Morse/Rio Grande often going to MVP and I always check on my right for the location of golf carts if they are close by I slow to let them pass to the right turning lane on Rio Grande, etc

Again with a road like Morse I treat it as a four lane highway with the two diamond lanes being right hand lanes and proceed to follow the rules of the road. Too often car drivers have this urge not to let a cart get in front of them and make a fast move which can lead to a tragedy. This cutting off is notable where carts merge at gates.

A guy, and a real gentleman, I know was seriously injured when a car made a right turn into his cart at the intersection of Morse and San Marino. The point of impact made clear that the driver of the car was negligent and that the car driver apparently never even looked.

In my humble view people here just have to adjust to the fact that golf carts are vehicles, golf cart drivers are equals and the rules of the road apply. If they do so their eye sight just might improve.

Personal Best Regards

[golfing eagles]

Hey golfing eagles: Here we go again. We just had this discussion on another thread. All vehicles cars, carts bikes are subject to the rules of the road. May I say sotto voce that I believe some car drivers actually believe carts and bike riders are second class citizens( a nuisance) and hence subordinated to their whims.

I travel Morse/Rio Grande often going to MVP and I always check on my right for the location of golf carts if they are close by I slow to let them pass to the right turning lane on Rio Grande, etc

Again with a road like Morse I treat it as a four lane highway with the two diamond lanes being right hand lanes and proceed to follow the rules of the road. Too often car drivers have this urge not to let a cart get in front of them and make a fast move which can lead to a tragedy. This cutting off is notable where carts merge at gates.

A guy, and a real gentleman, I know was seriously injured when a car made a right turn into his cart at the intersection of Morse and San Marino. The point of impact made clear that the driver of the car was negligent and that the car driver apparently never even looked.

In my humble view people here just have to adjust to the fact that golf carts are vehicles, golf cart drivers are equals and the rules of the road apply. If they do so their eye sight just might improve.

Personal Best Regards

Couldn't agree more. But one caveat: If you're the cart, bicycle, or pedestrian, try not to be DEAD right on this issue, you will be the victim of proving you had the right of way

[rubicon]

Couldn't agree more. But one caveat: If you're the cart, bicycle, or pedestrian, try not to be DEAD right on this issue, you will be the victim of proving you had the right of way

Golfing eagles: but of course. I'm a seasoned insurance guy and my profession made me quite aware of what constitutes a perfect storm
( accident), not that I consider myself invincible.

One factor that can't be dismissed in this topic is our demographic. An often repeated comment about the reason why people move to The Villages is, because, if they can no longer get a driver license they will at least be able to drive their carts

It hasn't occurred to them that its likely that the cause of the loss of a driver license will also be the reason they shouldn't be driving a golf cart
Indeed it is the primary reason why I believe seat belts are a good thing. I can't tell you the number of people I see in golf carts that appear as if a going over a speed bump would be enough to throw them from the cart

All of this discussion is why I carry insurance on my golf cart

I miss Doug's fish fry:mmmm:

[kathy and al]

The road signs at the corner of Morse and San Marino clearly show that the golf cart has the right of way. Why??? Don't know but would entertain the possibility of changing this so that the auto driver has the right of way. Golf cart drivers--please--no nasty comments. Thanks

[golfing eagles]

I miss Doug's fish fry:mmmm:

Me too!!!! They even had lobster on occasion:mmmm:

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Sorry to disagree, but.....
The vehicle in a lane, in this case the cart lane to the right of cars, has a right to that lane until such time as he has passed you, or you have passed him far enough to safely cross that lane. The same is true of a bicycle in that lane. There is no "pecking order"---trucks trump cars, cars trump carts, carts trump bicycles, etc.

I agree with you in principle and I always double check before turning right. However there is a very large blind spot with carts on your right. It would be wise for the cart to pay close attention to cars and rather than just motoring on down the road. Amazingly there are very few accidents here in the Villages considering all the cars and carts and bicycles. And that's a good thing!

[golfing eagles]

I agree with you in principle and I always double check before turning right. However there is a very large blind spot with carts on your right. It would be wise for the cart to pay close attention to cars and rather than just motoring on down the road. Amazingly there are very few accidents here in the Villages considering all the cars and carts and bicycles. And that's a good thing!

Everybody should be double checking and aware of their surroundings. That's just common sense. But a blind spot is a reality of driving, it is not really an excuse. Remember a cart is a lot larger than a 3 year old kid, and no one wants to tell the grieving parents "He was in my bind spot".

[Arctic Fox]

The road signs at the corner of Morse and San Marino clearly show that the golf cart has the right of way. Why??? Don't know but would entertain the possibility of changing this so that the auto driver has the right of way. Golf cart drivers--please--no nasty comments. Thanks

The right-of-way for the inside vehicle here is no different to what it would be anywhere else.

If, on a normal road, you are in a car and pass a cyclist, you would not expect to just turn right across his path. You would either ensure that you were far enough ahead to not affect his progress or you would slow down and wait until he had passed you.

This is meant to be a golf-cart friendly community; not one just designed for car-drivers to get where they want to go as fast and as unimpeded as possible.

[kathy and al]

The right-of-way for the inside vehicle here is no different to what it would be anywhere else.

If, on a normal road, you are in a car and pass a cyclist, you would not expect to just turn right across his path. You would either ensure that you were far enough ahead to not affect his progress or you would slow down and wait until he had passed you.

This is meant to be a golf-cart friendly community; not one just designed for car-drivers to get where they want to go as fast and as unimpeded as possible.

Your point is well taken.

[SCasey]

I bet seat belts would have prevented the broken ribs.

[RickeyD]

I bet seat belts would have prevented the broken ribs.


I'm also thinking a rollcage & seat belts might be worth the investment.

[autumnspring]

I'm not pro regulation BUT
In my view the golf carts should have some form of ID-plates?
The LAW is that to drive a cart without plates means it is speed restricted to 20 mph.
I am often passed by carts doing at least 25-30. THEY ARE ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO DO 15 MPH. You only have brakes on the rear wheels.
There are some interesting drivers here. Turn signals are to signal you intend to make a turn-USE THEM. Follow the LAW. Stopping in the middle of the road to BS is common but is STUPID-you can cause an accident-PULL OFF THE ROAD.

[bagboy]

I'm not pro regulation BUT
In my view the golf carts should have some form of ID-plates?
The LAW is that to drive a cart without plates means it is speed restricted to 20 mph.
I am often passed by carts doing at least 25-30. THEY ARE ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO DO 15 MPH. You only have brakes on the rear wheels.
There are some interesting drivers here. Turn signals are to signal you intend to make a turn-USE THEM. Follow the LAW. Stopping in the middle of the road to BS is common but is STUPID-you can cause an accident-PULL OFF THE ROAD.

So if everyone had an ID tag on their cart, all laws would be obeyed and there would be no accidents?

[justjim]

When I'm driving my car, I always yield to a Semi Truck or a Bus. A golf cart driver should yield to a car for common sense reason--anything else doesn't make common sense to me .

[autumnspring]

So if everyone had an ID tag on their cart, all laws would be obeyed and there would be no accidents?

Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.

[golfing eagles]

Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.

Only if head on. But get hit by a car that weighs 10 times as much and the momentum is that much greater.
The problem with ID tags is that it prevents nothing, like Judge Judy says, "You can't fix stupid" It creates a whole new layer of regulation and bureaucracy, and only helps to identify someone who intends to flee the scene, which is rare.

[bagboy]

Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.

My golf cart is adjusted to 20 mph.

[Rapscallion St Croix]

Of course not.
But, the intention of any law is to make things safer. By your comment-how much fast than the 20 mph LEGAL LIMIT do you go.
Aside-if two golf carts hit each other at 20mph the impact is not 20mph IT IS 40 MPH.

It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.

[Polar Bear]

It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.
Sorry, but that's not right. It does work that way. I know what you mean about a solid wall...there's less energy absorption than a more collapsible vehicle. But it doesn't change the fact that...

When two vehicles collide, it's the RELATIVE speed that determines the severity of the impact. If two vehicles collide head-on, each going 20 MPH, it is the equivalent of a 40 MPH collision.

Consider this, if you're traveling along going 20 MPH, and you hit the vehicle ahead of you, which is going in the same direction at 19 MPH, the collision is not that significant. Because the relative speed (differential) is only 1 MPH.

[tuccillo]

I believe you are correct. Two carts each traveling at 20 MPH and colliding head on is roughly the same, in terms of damage to the cart, as a cart hitting a solid wall at 20 MPH. Of course, with two carts having the head on collision you now have 2 carts damaged.

It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.

[RickeyD]

It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.


Newton was wrong?

[Rapscallion St Croix]

Newton was wrong?

Nope.

[RickeyD]

I guess crash dummies know best.

[Polar Bear]

It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.
I believe you are correct. Two carts each traveling at 20 MPH and colliding head on is roughly the same, in terms of damage to the cart, as a cart hitting a solid wall at 20 MPH...
Go read a physics book, guys. :)

[RickeyD]

Go read a physics book, guys. :)


The Villages is in a different dimension. Physics rules are different.

[golfing eagles]

Go read a physics book, guys. :)

Well said. The situation is not equivalent because the brick wall is not moving therefore it's momentum (mass x velocity) is 0. This is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the object, which determines all kinds of things such as damage and injury. If they don't believe this, there is always the field experiment----run your cart head on into another going 20, and run it into a brick wall at 20. Care to guess which is worse?

[RickeyD]

I think in a real world head to head crash the damage would be less then a brick wall crash at half the speed. The carts would need to be perfect cubes and meet tangent to equal the math equation.

[Chatbrat]

Energy= MV, mass x's velocity---the bigger the mass , more energy --for the same speed

What does more damage? a 60 gr bullet @ 1000 fps or a 230 gr bullet @ 1000fps ?

[RickeyD]

Anyone up to a game of chicken ?

[tuccillo]

This is really an old physics exercise. Go look it up.

Go read a physics book, guys. :)

[RickeyD]

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

[Polar Bear]

This is really an old physics exercise. Go look it up.
It's not an exercise, it's a basic physics principle. Of course there is energy absorbed by the "deformable" vehicles as opposed to a non-deformable wall. But it doesn't change the basic principle.

[RickeyD]

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

[tuccillo]

Consider a wall and two golf carts collide into the wall from either side at 20 MPH. The wall doesn't move. Each cart has the same amount of damage. Now remove the wall and have the carts collide head-on at the same 20 MPH. You will have the same effect. Two cars colliding head-on have twice the energy of one car running into a wall but with the head-on collision you have two cars damaged. One car running into a wall does not have to travel at 40 MPH to experience the same damage as if it had a head-on collision at 20 MPH. Now do you understand?

It's not an exercise, it's a basic physics principle.

[RickeyD]

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

[Polar Bear]

Consider a wall and two golf carts collide into the wall from either side at 20 MPH. The wall doesn't move. Each cart has the same amount of damage. Now remove the wall and have the carts collide head-on at the same 20 MPH. You will have the same effect. Two cars colliding head-on have twice the energy of one car running into a wall but with the head-on collision you have two cars damaged. One car running into a wall does not have to travel at 40 MPH to experience the same damage as if it had a head-on collision at 20 MPH. Now do you understand?
"same effect"...because you say it is so that makes it so? Pretty big assumption there.

How about this...
Scenario 1 - A wall is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two walls are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

The intensity of the impact for both scenarios is exactly the same? I don't think so. Now do you understand?

Look, I know what you're saying. And I don't disagree with you as much as it might appear. The problem is we're comparing apples and oranges. One has walls with zero energy absorption. Another has vehicles with who-knows-how-much energy absorption. But comparing the two is similar to saying the damage of two vehicles colliding head on is similar to one of them driving off a certain height cliff, or being near an explosion, or something else...again...apples and oranges.

Relative velocity at impact is the velocity that matters in a collision. After that is when you start considering other factors such as energy absorption, energy distribution, etc.

[tuccillo]

the effect will be roughly the same. Of course, the discussion was about something different: whether the damage to a cart having a head-on collision with another cart at 20 MPH was the equivalent of a cart colliding with a wall at 40 MPH. They aren't.

Well said. The situation is not equivalent because the brick wall is not moving therefore it's momentum (mass x velocity) is 0. This is directly proportional to the kinetic energy of the object, which determines all kinds of things such as damage and injury. If they don't believe this, there is always the field experiment----run your cart head on into another going 20, and run it into a brick wall at 20. Care to guess which is worse?

[RickeyD]

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

[tuccillo]

Just so there is no confusion, I am addressing the statement that a cart has to run into a wall at 40 MPH to sustain the same (roughly) damage as if it had a head-on collision with another cart at 20 MPH. This is not true. When two carts at 20 MPH collide, the same amount of energy has to be dissipated as if they both ran into a wall at 20 MPH. The wall will absorb a small amount of the energy but the vast majority will be absorbed by the carts (plus some goes into sound and heat). Twice the energy, twice the number of carts, same damage to each cart, same as if the cart ran into a wall by itself at 20 MPH. Of course, there is a fundamental, and I assumed obvious, assumption that we are talking about a "substantial" wall. One that remains intact after the collision.

I will do the mathematical proof but I am not sure anyone will follow it.

"same effect"...because you say it is so that makes it so? Pretty big assumption there.

How about this...
Scenario 1 - A wall is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two walls are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

The intensity of the impact for both scenarios is exactly the same? I don't think so. Now do you understand?

Look, I know what you're saying. And I don't disagree with you as much as it might appear. The problem is we're comparing apples and oranges. One has walls with zero energy absorption. Another has vehicles with who-knows-how-much energy absorption. But comparing the two is similar to saying the damage of two vehicles colliding head on is similar to one of them driving off a certain height cliff, or being near an explosion, or something else...again...apples and oranges. But relative velocity at impact is the velocity that matters in a collision. After that is when you start considering other factors such as energy absorption, energy distribution, etc.

[tuccillo]

You are working from the assumption that a wall has the same mass as a golf cart.

"same effect"...because you say it is so that makes it so? Pretty big assumption there.

How about this...
Scenario 1 - A wall is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two walls are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

The intensity of the impact for both scenarios is exactly the same? I don't think so. Now do you understand?

Look, I know what you're saying. And I don't disagree with you as much as it might appear. The problem is we're comparing apples and oranges. One has walls with zero energy absorption. Another has vehicles with who-knows-how-much energy absorption. But comparing the two is similar to saying the damage of two vehicles colliding head on is similar to one of them driving off a certain height cliff, or being near an explosion, or something else...again...apples and oranges.

Relative velocity at impact is the velocity that matters in a collision. After that is when you start considering other factors such as energy absorption, energy distribution, etc.

[RickeyD]

Two old men walk into a bar and start to argue. The first guy throws a punch at 45 mph, hits the second guy square in the chin. First guy breaks his wrist, second guy his jaw. Both go to the VRH and wait 14 hours to see a doc. First guy is a Villager, second guy a Stonecrester. They both get ****ed.

[Allegiance]

All laws of science are suspended in the bubble.

[Arctic Fox]

don't forget that we are dealing with energy here, not momentum

momentum is mass x velocity: m x v

kinetic energy is "half m v squared": 0.5 x m x v x v

[Polar Bear]

You are working from the assumption that a wall has the same mass as a golf cart.
Not at all. You are working from the assumption that "net damage" proves relative velocity does not matter. Not true.

And I could derive the theory of relativity for you too. But since you wouldn't understand it, I won't post it.

You get the last word. It's been fun. :)

[RickeyD]

Two retired teachers walk into a bar and start to argue. The first teacher takes a swing at maximum velocity straight to the second teachers belly. Immediately the second teacher kicks his opponent square into his family jewel box. Both see the futility of it all, step up to the bar and have a beer.

[RickeyD]

Not at all. You are working from the assumption that "net damage" proves relative velocity does not matter. Not true.



And I could derive the theory of relativity for you too. But since you wouldn't understand it, I won't post it.



You get the last word. It's been fun. :)


General or Specific, carry on...

[tuccillo]

I tell you what, you go ahead and prove your point, whatever that may be. You can have the last word when you post your proof. Oh, and you can skip the personal insults.

Not at all. You are working from the assumption that "net damage" proves relative velocity does not matter. Not true.

And I could derive the theory of relativity for you too. But since you wouldn't understand it, I won't post it.

You get the last word. It's been fun. :)

[RickeyD]

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

[chuckinca]

From Wikipedia:

While it is true (via Galilean relativity) that a head-on crash between two vehicles traveling at 50 mph is equivalent to a moving vehicle running into a stationary one at 100 mph, it is clear from basic Newtonian Physics that if the stationary vehicle is replaced with a solid wall or other stationary near-immovable object such as a bridge abutment, then the equivalent collision is one in which the moving vehicle is only traveling at 50 mph.,[3] except for the case of a lighter car colliding with a heavier one.

.

[ajbrown]

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

Fun show.... here is the short clip pertaining to this subject...

Mythbusters Car Crash Force (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8E5dUnLmh4)

[tuccillo]

Yes, correct. The important point is a collision into a substantial wall where the vehicle has to absorb virtually all of the energy. For the head-on collision, the important point is that both vehicles collide directly into each other and the combined KE is equally absorbed by both vehicles. In that case, it is as if both vehicles collided into a wall.

From Wikipedia:

While it is true (via Galilean relativity) that a head-on crash between two vehicles traveling at 50 mph is equivalent to a moving vehicle running into a stationary one at 100 mph, it is clear from basic Newtonian Physics that if the stationary vehicle is replaced with a solid wall or other stationary near-immovable object such as a bridge abutment, then the equivalent collision is one in which the moving vehicle is only traveling at 50 mph.,[3] except for the case of a lighter car colliding with a heavier one.

.

[tuccillo]

I hadn't seen that before. That pretty much proves it.

Mythbusters on Head-on Collisions – Greg Laden's Blog (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/10/01/mythbusters-on-head-on-collisions/)

[RickeyD]

I hadn't seen that before. That pretty much proves it.


Mythbusters rule.

[tuccillo]

Yes, they do. I have always been impressed by the fact that they practice good experimental design. For an "entertainment" show, it would be easy for them to be a bunch of hacks but they always seem to run well thought out controlled experiments. Besides the fact that they are pretty funny, I believe that is why they have lasted so long.

Mythbusters rule.

[Polar Bear]

...Oh, and you can skip the personal insults.

You're kidding, right?

Have you even read your posts? Condescending and insulting...to anybody reading them.

[joldnol]

I wish my former students had you guys enthusiasm.....great debate. Sadly Mythbusters is kaput after this season

[rubicon]

The road signs at the corner of Morse and San Marino clearly show that the golf cart has the right of way. Why??? Don't know but would entertain the possibility of changing this so that the auto driver has the right of way. Golf cart drivers--please--no nasty comments. Thanks

kathy and al: I appreciate your point of view. However perhaps if you were introduced to the guy (cart driver) who was broadsided by a car striking his leg and causing him months in the hospital and more months in rehabilitation you might change your mind about who should have the right of way (row)

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

I'm not pro regulation BUT
In my view the golf carts should have some form of ID-plates?
The LAW is that to drive a cart without plates means it is speed restricted to 20 mph.
I am often passed by carts doing at least 25-30. THEY ARE ACTUALLY DESIGNED TO DO 15 MPH. You only have brakes on the rear wheels.
There are some interesting drivers here. Turn signals are to signal you intend to make a turn-USE THEM. Follow the LAW. Stopping in the middle of the road to BS is common but is STUPID-you can cause an accident-PULL OFF THE ROAD.

Hi suesiegel: Speed is a catchall for all accidents but it doesn't explain inattention, misjudgments distractions ,etc. I have not been around a cart going 30mph however let's suppose a cart is maintaining that speed in a diamond lane when a car comes along drifting into the carts lane striking the cat driver. Is speed the cause?

[rubicon]

It doesn't work that way. What you get is the equivalent of hitting a solid wall at 20MPH.

Yep your right

[tuccillo]

Nope, just to you because you act like a know it all when you are actually wrong. Aren't you the one who said "go read a physics book"? How rude and condescending it that ? Well it turns out you are wrong.

You're kidding, right?

Have you even read your posts? Condescending and insulting...to anybody reading them.

[Arctic Fox]

don't forget that we are dealing with energy here, not momentum

momentum is mass x velocity: m x v

kinetic energy is "half m v squared": 0.5 x m x v x v


so, a cart of mass 1 going at speed 20 hitting a brick wall dissipates kinetic energy of 0.5 x 1 x 20 x 20 = 200 units

whereas a cart of mass 1 going at 40 hitting a brick wall dissipates kinetic energy of 0.5 x 1 x 40 x 40 = 800 units

double the speed, and you quadruple the kinetic energy because of the squaring

assuming the two carts are of equal mass and hit head on, the combined dissipated kinetic energy is 200 + 200 = 400 units

it does not matter whether a cart hits another cart head on or a wall - if it is brought to an immediate stop then the kinetic energy dissipated per cart is the same (200 units)

so two carts hitting each other head on, each doing 20, dissipates only half the kinetic energy (400 units) of one cart hitting a wall at 40 (800 units)

[Polar Bear]

Nope, just to you because you act like a know it all when you are actually wrong. Aren't you the one who said "go read a physics book"? How rude and condescending it that ? Well it turns out you are wrong.
"I will do the mathematical proof but I am not sure anyone will follow it." - your words. Yeah...that's not condescending and insulting at all.

And I'm only wrong in your mind. I know it's futile to reply, but I will anyway. You are talking about the net damage done in two totally different scenarios. The net damage done may well be roughly the same in both. Heck, I'm a big fan of Mythbusters, and I don't see anything in there that I disagree with. I am simply saying that relative speed does matter...a lot!

Why don't you comment on the thought problem I posted earlier...

Scenario 1 - A solid wall, block, whatever is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two solid walls, blocks, whatever are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

Are the collisions identical in every respect? Of course not. There is much more energy in Scenario 2. I've said nothing that conflicts with this in any of my posts. I'm only stating that two vehicles colliding at 20 MPH is not identical to a vehicle traveling at 20 MPH hitting a stationary wall, even if the net damage is similar.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

What the heck is going on here?

[RickeyD]

Occum's razor now applies. Time out Newtonians :popcorn:

[RickeyD]

What the heck is going on here?

Law of the bigger unit :boxing2:

[tuccillo]

For the record, you stated "go read a physics book" first, but I digress.

In reality, you replied to "Rapscallion St Croix's" post that he was incorrect when he was exactly right. I tried to give you the chance to understand the point by clearly stating the assumptions. Go back and read your post where you claim "Rapscallion St Croix's" post is wrong. Nobody claimed they are "identical", only that two carts hitting each other at 20 MPH is equivalent to a cart hitting a wall at 20 MPH in terms of damage to the cart, not 40 MPH as was suggested in the post that "Rapscallion St Croix" originally responded to. You can try to spin this anyway you want but you clearly didn't understand the physics.

You can keep yammering on but I have other things to do.

"I will do the mathematical proof but I am not sure anyone will follow it." - your words. Yeah...that's not condescending and insulting at all.

And I'm only wrong in your mind. I know it's futile to reply, but I will anyway. You are talking about the net damage done in two totally different scenarios. The net damage done may well be roughly the same in both. Heck, I'm a big fan of Mythbusters, and I don't see anything in there that I disagree with. I am simply saying that relative speed does matter...a lot!

Why don't you comment on the thought problem I posted earlier...

Scenario 1 - A solid wall, block, whatever is moving along at 20 MPH and hits a stationary wall.
Scenario 2 - Two solid walls, blocks, whatever are moving toward each other, each going 20 MPH, and collide.

Are the collisions identical in every respect? Of course not. There is much more energy in Scenario 2. I've said nothing that conflicts with this in any of my posts. I'm only stating that two vehicles colliding at 20 MPH is not identical to a vehicle traveling at 20 MPH hitting a stationary wall, even if the net damage is similar.

[Polar Bear]

...Go back and read your post where you claim "Rapscallion St Croix's" post is wrong. Nobody claimed they are "identical"...You can try to spin this anyway you want but you clearly didn't understand the physics
Yeah...the only claim was that they are "equivalent". You have resorted to semantics to cover your lack of understanding of the physics.

Everything I said in the very post you cite is true. No spin required.

[tuccillo]

You should read post #87, which has the analysis correct and is exactly what "Rapscallion St Croix" said, and you claimed was wrong. Keep on spinning, baby!

Yeah...the only claim was that they are "equivalent". You have resorted to semantics to cover your lack of understanding of the physics.

Everything I said in the very post you cite is true. No spin required.

[dbussone]

The Villages is in a different dimension. Physics rules are different.


Bizarro World!

[rubicon]

Two cars, two carts going xx mph results in some very serious injuries any way you cut it; albeit the police and insurance people would be interested in the speed of each vehicle.