- #1
kyphysics
- 676
- 436
Here's an applied everyday life physics question based on a MVA (motor-vehicle accident) I was involved in a few weeks ago.
I was driving straight when a women hit me from the driver side (said she didn't see me due to being in her blind spot - her claim, not mine, as I don't know if I was or not). The damage on my car was outwardly minimal (2 out of 10). There were several scratches, a small dent (size off a penny), and some "paint transfer" (as they call it) right around my back wheel/tire area. Based on that evidence, she mainly hit my back wheel/tire.
She was at-fault and admitted it (honest and nice of her). She hit me at around 30-35 mph. It felt mostly "light," but still enough that I "jolted" around physically and had a back injury. My doctors think it's most likely an aggravation of existing disc injuries (I was already in physical therapy for several bulging and ruptured discs - I've posted about these before).
Long story short, the guilty party's claim adjuster wanted to practically deny ANY injury damages, but finally offered a few hundred dollars and said the lack of damage to the vehicles and description of events (incl. both of us saying it was a relatively low impact accident) lead her to see minimal or no damages (notwithstanding the paltry offer).
Here's the thing. I actually sort of see her side.***
It's true. The vehicles do have very little damage. But, my body says something else and it is highly, highly, highly unlikely there was any other cause, given the temporal sequence of things and specific feelings I reported and had later confirmed by physical exam.
***Not that I agree with her, but just that I can see why she'd be skeptical.
But, what of the minimal car damage argument? I started thinking about things, Googling stuff, and wondered: Is it possible that wheels (which typically don't crumple like a "crumple zone" in the car body), which are seemingly very sturdy in their metallic frame, and the tires around them (which presumably can be very buoyant and deflect things and/or avoid "depression" like a cheap crumple zone part of a car) can somehow better "absorb" energy from a hit (without crumpling) and yet still somehow transfer that energy into passengers (me - the driver)?
Put differently. Could tires/wheels take impact better than the body of the car and as such not look as bad post-"hit," while still transferring equal or more energy (as if being hit in a more "crumple-y" area) onto passengers?
I was driving straight when a women hit me from the driver side (said she didn't see me due to being in her blind spot - her claim, not mine, as I don't know if I was or not). The damage on my car was outwardly minimal (2 out of 10). There were several scratches, a small dent (size off a penny), and some "paint transfer" (as they call it) right around my back wheel/tire area. Based on that evidence, she mainly hit my back wheel/tire.
She was at-fault and admitted it (honest and nice of her). She hit me at around 30-35 mph. It felt mostly "light," but still enough that I "jolted" around physically and had a back injury. My doctors think it's most likely an aggravation of existing disc injuries (I was already in physical therapy for several bulging and ruptured discs - I've posted about these before).
Long story short, the guilty party's claim adjuster wanted to practically deny ANY injury damages, but finally offered a few hundred dollars and said the lack of damage to the vehicles and description of events (incl. both of us saying it was a relatively low impact accident) lead her to see minimal or no damages (notwithstanding the paltry offer).
Here's the thing. I actually sort of see her side.***
It's true. The vehicles do have very little damage. But, my body says something else and it is highly, highly, highly unlikely there was any other cause, given the temporal sequence of things and specific feelings I reported and had later confirmed by physical exam. ***Not that I agree with her, but just that I can see why she'd be skeptical.
But, what of the minimal car damage argument? I started thinking about things, Googling stuff, and wondered: Is it possible that wheels (which typically don't crumple like a "crumple zone" in the car body), which are seemingly very sturdy in their metallic frame, and the tires around them (which presumably can be very buoyant and deflect things and/or avoid "depression" like a cheap crumple zone part of a car) can somehow better "absorb" energy from a hit (without crumpling) and yet still somehow transfer that energy into passengers (me - the driver)?
Put differently. Could tires/wheels take impact better than the body of the car and as such not look as bad post-"hit," while still transferring equal or more energy (as if being hit in a more "crumple-y" area) onto passengers?