Clueless and in need of help -- I was the rear car of a 4 car collision

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a user seeking clarification on the physics of a rear-end collision in which they were the last car involved. They were traveling under 20 mph and are accused of shunting the car in front, which they dispute. A response indicates that any positive speed could cause a 1523 kg mass to move forward, emphasizing that there is no minimum speed required for such an effect. Further calculations suggest that if the impact speed were around 15 mph, the subsequent movement of the larger vehicle could be estimated, but these calculations are based on uncertain assumptions. Ultimately, the user is gathering evidence to support their case, as their insurance already believes their account of the incident.
GracieBridger
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi guys I'm completely useless when it comes to physics and need help with working something out regarding a car accident.
I was rear car of a 4 car collision where all cars infront had already crashed.
Now the guy infront of me is saying I shunted him which is a complete lie.
I was traveling at less than 20mph when the collision happened.

I want to know how fast a mass of 790kg would have to be traveling to cause a mass of 1523kg to move forward.

Everyone else involved in the collision has told the truth about what happened except this clown who is trying to pull a fast one!

I'll appreciate all your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Nothing that you get from an internet forum is likely to have any weight at all either in court or in getting an insurance company to believe your side of the story so an answer really isn't going to help you convince anyone else, and YOU don't need convincing.
 
It's not going to court. My insurance do believe my story already as all other parties have said the same. We're now gathering evidence and I was interested as I think what he's saying is impossible.
I'm looking for an answer to the question, not to be spoken to like an uneducated twerp. Suppose I should say thank you for replying but then again your response wasn't particularly helpful.
 
Sorry ... my psychic powers were a bit off and I was not able to read your mind and know that you were already aware of what I posted.
 
GracieBridger said:
I want to know how fast a mass of 790kg would have to be traveling to cause a mass of 1523kg to move forward.
To answer that question directly: There is no minimum speed that could have caused a 1523 kg mass to move forward. Any positive speed would do.

One could make a crude estimate of the distance such an impact could have moved the larger vehicle. Let us assume an impact velocity of 15 mph or 22 feet per second. Further assuming an inelastic collision, the combined total mass of 2313 kg after the collision would be moving at about 7.5 feet per second.

If all wheels were locked (another questionable assumption), the deceleration rate would be about 32 feet per second per second times the coefficient of friction of locked-up tires. Estimating the coefficient of friction at 0.7, call it 0.7 times 32 = 22 feet per second per second. From 7.5 feet per second to zero at that rate would take about 1/3 of a second.

Given constant decelleration, the average speed over that 1/3 second would be half of the original 7.5 feet per second. That comes to around 15 inches covered by the impacted vehicle following the collision.

That's a rough estimate based on uncertain source data and questionable assumptions. Worth almost as much as you paid for it.
 
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...
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