Car Collision While Turning: Understanding the Outcome at Low Speeds

AI Thread Summary
A discussion arose regarding a car collision involving a pedestrian while turning right at low speeds. The incident was settled, but the driver’s spouse sought clarity on the car's final position after the collision. The pedestrian was intoxicated and wore earbuds, raising questions about their negligence. The forum participants emphasized that they do not provide accident analysis and suggested consulting a local expert for a thorough investigation. The thread concluded without a definitive answer to the original question.
MBRyo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi! Sorry about the thread level. I had no idea which level to choose.

I have a burning question. Can someone help me?
If a car collides with a pedestrian (who walks into the path of the car from the right) while turning right (the wheels are still turned) at low speed (10 to 15 mph) and if the driver does not make any emergency actions, would the car rest parallel to the street, move toward the left, or move toward the right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
MBRyo said:
Hi! Sorry about the thread level. I had no idea which level to choose.

I have a burning question. Can someone help me?
If a car collides with a pedestrian (who walks into the path of the car from the right) while turning right (the wheels are still turned) at low speed (10 to 15 mph) and if the driver does not make any emergency actions, would the car rest parallel to the street, move toward the left, or move toward the right?
Welcome to the PF. (I fixed your thread prefix for you) :smile:

What is the context of the question? We don't help with car accident analysis here at the PF.
 
Thank you for your reply.
It's about a car accident my husband had but it's been settled already.
It's a done deal. Nothing can be done at this point. So no legal complications. The case has been settled but I have unsettled curiosity. :oldconfused: Please help.

My husband believes the collision happened outside the crosswalk, but the pedestrian claimed that he was in the crosswalk. They didn't see each other before the collision, and there were no witnesses. The pedestrian was drunk, wearing earbuds and listening to loud music, and did not pay attention to the traffic before stepping into the street. So he was negligent enough, and probably whether or not the collision took place in the crosswalk did not make much difference to the settlement result, but it was vexing that we couldn't prove that it was outside the crosswalk. If it took place in the crosswalk, the wheels hadn't been straightened yet at the time of collision. The car rested parallel to the street. Thus, my question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, sorry. As I said, this is the kind of question that we really can't help with here. If you can find a local person with a technical background who is willing to look at all of the evidence and other things involved, that is probably your best bet (short of hiring a professional accident investigator).

Thread is closed now.
 
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top