Applying Computational Physics to Car/Bicycle Accidents

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights an analysis of a dangerous angled street intersection in England known for fatal bicycle-car collisions, utilizing basic physics and programming. A survival tactic for cyclists involves observing the angle of approaching vehicles, similar to techniques used in water navigation to assess collision risks. Cyclists can train themselves to recognize when the angle remains constant, indicating a potential collision course. This method is particularly effective unless the intersection is obscured or "blind." Educating cyclists on this tactic could enhance safety at such intersections.
Physics news on Phys.org
One tactic that is useful to the cyclist comes from water navigation. Boaters know that if the other vessel is on a constant bearing, you are on a collision course. When you watch the simulation, note that the angle between the cyclist's road and the pillar shadow is approximately constant.

As a cyclist, I use this when approaching an intersection. Not only do I note whether I'm in the driver's blind spot from the A pillar, but I note the angle at which I'm viewing the intersecting vehicle. You can easily train yourself to notice when the angle doesn't change; to me, this makes alarm bells go off in my mind. It's a great survival tactic.
 
  • Like
Likes anorlunda and jedishrfu
canalligators said:
As a cyclist, I use this when approaching an intersection. Not only do I note whether I'm in the driver's blind spot from the A pillar, but I note the angle at which I'm viewing the intersecting vehicle. You can easily train yourself to notice when the angle doesn't change; to me, this makes alarm bells go off in my mind. It's a great survival tactic.

That should work quite well as long as the corner is not "blind". It takes a bit of practice to become proficient at it. All that's needed is a way to educate the cycling public.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top