|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 18, 2015 13:55:01 GMT
Hmm... staged or photoshopped? could be. I was thinking more of the fact that these are the old boring kind of bollards and not the fun sneaky ones they use in SD's neck of the woods. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 19, 2015 7:01:24 GMT
I wondered photoshop, but then again, maybe we cant see the damage.
It may be to the other side of the vehicle....
Plus the shadows are right, and the door is sharp {The open one} amd you can see reflections of the roadway /car park in this side of the vehicle?...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 19, 2015 7:11:24 GMT
I wondered photoshop, but then again, maybe we cant see the damage. It may be to the other side of the vehicle.... Plus the shadows are right, and the door is sharp {The open one} amd you can see reflections of the roadway /car park in this side of the vehicle?... it could possibly be a case of pushed up over it, instead of banged into it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Sept 21, 2015 13:27:11 GMT
I wondered photoshop, but then again, maybe we cant see the damage. It may be to the other side of the vehicle.... Plus the shadows are right, and the door is sharp {The open one} amd you can see reflections of the roadway /car park in this side of the vehicle?... it could possibly be a case of pushed up over it, instead of banged into it. The more I look at the picture, the more I'm convinced it's photoshopped. The concrete barriers seem to be same height as the tires, which is not proportionally correct. Also, looking closely at the front corner of the bumper, it appears to be hovering very slightly off the ground. On top of that, I can't figure out how a vehicle would drive up a barrier such as those. The physics of that accident would say that the barrier would have indented the front end by six inches. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2015 13:43:20 GMT
it could possibly be a case of pushed up over it, instead of banged into it. The more I look at the picture, the more I'm convinced it's photoshopped. The concrete barriers seem to be same height as the tires, which is not proportionally correct. Also, looking closely at the front corner of the bumper, it appears to be hovering very slightly off the ground. On top of that, I can't figure out how a vehicle would drive up a barrier such as those. The physics of that accident would say that the barrier would have indented the front end by six inches. granted, I saw a local ad yesterday that showed an RV parked on the beach at the surf line; and anyone with 5/32 of a brain knows that ain't happening on this beach - yet they even got the reflection of the RV in the water and wet sand to look right. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 21, 2015 14:58:31 GMT
granted, I saw a local ad yesterday that showed an RV parked on the beach at the surf line; and anyone with 5/32 of a brain knows that ain't happening on this beach - yet they even got the reflection of the RV in the water and wet sand to look right. Let's see, 5/32, is that more or less than 3/16ths? Just trying to compare it to my neighbor's brain. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Sept 21, 2015 15:00:50 GMT
granted, I saw a local ad yesterday that showed an RV parked on the beach at the surf line; and anyone with 5/32 of a brain knows that ain't happening on this beach - yet they even got the reflection of the RV in the water and wet sand to look right. Let's see, 5/32, is that more or less than 3/16ths? Just trying to compare it to my neighbor's brain. Which I believe is more than 1/8th but not quite 1/4th...now, where did I leave my 13/64th socket?  |
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Sept 21, 2015 15:02:31 GMT
it could possibly be a case of pushed up over it, instead of banged into it. The more I look at the picture, the more I'm convinced it's photoshopped. The concrete barriers seem to be same height as the tires, which is not proportionally correct. Also, looking closely at the front corner of the bumper, it appears to be hovering very slightly off the ground. On top of that, I can't figure out how a vehicle would drive up a barrier such as those. The physics of that accident would say that the barrier would have indented the front end by six inches. Here's the news article on it. There is even another pic from a different angle. globalnews.ca/news/2219279/man-impales-car-on-parking-pole-while-rushing-to-get-kids-to-school/ |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 21, 2015 15:06:41 GMT
Let's see, 5/32, is that more or less than 3/16ths? Just trying to compare it to my neighbor's brain. Which I believe is more than 1/8th but not quite 1/4th...now, where did I leave my 13/64th socket? That's one advantages to metric. You know 11mm is larger than 10mm without having to get out the calculator. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Sept 21, 2015 15:10:37 GMT
The more I look at the picture, the more I'm convinced it's photoshopped. The concrete barriers seem to be same height as the tires, which is not proportionally correct. Also, looking closely at the front corner of the bumper, it appears to be hovering very slightly off the ground. On top of that, I can't figure out how a vehicle would drive up a barrier such as those. The physics of that accident would say that the barrier would have indented the front end by six inches. Here's the news article on it. There is even another pic from a different angle. globalnews.ca/news/2219279/man-impales-car-on-parking-pole-while-rushing-to-get-kids-to-school/I'm still scratching my head over how that happened... BTW, someone should teach the article's author what 'impaled' means. The pole did not breach the vehicle. The vehicle was left teetering atop the parking pole. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2015 15:12:41 GMT
Let's see, 5/32, is that more or less than 3/16ths? Just trying to compare it to my neighbor's brain. Which I believe is more than 1/8th but not quite 1/4th...now, where did I leave my 13/64th socket? it's slightly smaller than 5/31. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2015 15:16:11 GMT
I'm still scratching my head over how that happened... BTW, someone should teach the article's author what 'impaled' means. The pole did not breach the vehicle. The vehicle was left teetering atop the parking pole. it looks to me like it pushed the first one mostly over and slid up over it. you can see the marks on the front bumper - he had to have hit is just right to not actually bend the bumper, but push himself up onto the bollard. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Sept 21, 2015 15:38:19 GMT
I'm still scratching my head over how that happened... BTW, someone should teach the article's author what 'impaled' means. The pole did not breach the vehicle. The vehicle was left teetering atop the parking pole. it looks to me like it pushed the first one mostly over and slid up over it. you can see the marks on the front bumper - he had to have hit is just right to not actually bend the bumper, but push himself up onto the bollard. This is also to assume he must have had incredible speed at the time. The Murano (which this appears to be) is available in FWD and AWD configurations. The driver would have had to be literally flying to accomplish this with an FWD because, once the front wheels left the ground, the car would have had no power outside remaining momentum. However, with the AWD version, the rear tires would need to have enough power to push the vehicle up without the aid of the front wheels. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Sept 21, 2015 15:48:11 GMT
How do you get enough speed to get up and over the first (bending it) and almost clear the second before falling back?
That's Hollywood level stunt driving, or pure stupidity on a level I can't conceive. It looks like it's an ordinary city street--how did he have room?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2015 15:48:48 GMT
it looks to me like it pushed the first one mostly over and slid up over it. you can see the marks on the front bumper - he had to have hit is just right to not actually bend the bumper, but push himself up onto the bollard. This is also to assume he must have had incredible speed at the time. The Murano (which this appears to be) is available in FWD and AWD configurations. The driver would have had to be literally flying to accomplish this with an FWD because, once the front wheels left the ground, the car would have had no power outside remaining momentum. However, with the AWD version, the rear tires would need to have enough power to push the vehicle up without the aid of the front wheels. I'm guessing it was an AWD model, because 'murica. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 21, 2015 15:52:34 GMT
How do you get enough speed to get up and over the first (bending it) and almost clear the second before falling back? That's Hollywood level stunt driving, or pure stupidity on a level I can't conceive. It looks like it's an ordinary city street--how did he have room? I've learned that stupidity has no bounds. Every time I think I've seen the limit of stupidity, someone proves me wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2015 15:52:50 GMT
How do you get enough speed to get up and over the first (bending it) and almost clear the second before falling back? That's Hollywood level stunt driving, or pure stupidity on a level I can't conceive. It looks like it's an ordinary city street--how did he have room? I don't think it actually took that much speed. we've got a couple curb medians on the city and we have someone go over one in one direction or another every once in a while. last guy hit it hard enough to tear the front end out of the car, with only two lanes rolling start. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 21, 2015 15:54:45 GMT
How do you get enough speed to get up and over the first (bending it) and almost clear the second before falling back? That's Hollywood level stunt driving, or pure stupidity on a level I can't conceive. It looks like it's an ordinary city street--how did he have room? I've learned that stupidity has no bounds. Every time I think I've seen the limit of stupidity, someone proves me wrong. stupidity is the only tech that is advancing as fast as computer tech. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Sept 21, 2015 15:55:46 GMT
This is also to assume he must have had incredible speed at the time. The Murano (which this appears to be) is available in FWD and AWD configurations. The driver would have had to be literally flying to accomplish this with an FWD because, once the front wheels left the ground, the car would have had no power outside remaining momentum. However, with the AWD version, the rear tires would need to have enough power to push the vehicle up without the aid of the front wheels. I'm guessing it was an AWD model, because 'murica. On a separate stupid note: I'm currently in the market for a new SUV (yes, it's a very big market...ba-dum-cha). I am getting tired of explaining to the salesmen that AWD and 4WD are NOT the same. First off, AWD is full time, 4WD is selectable (with 2WD). Next, AWD promotes limited skidding ('transfer power from wheels that slip to wheels that grip') while 4WD will slip, but will actually work better in snow and ice. Lastly, AWD guzzles gas because all 4 wheels running all the time, 4WD gas mileage is easily improved by changing to 2WD for everyday driving. Can't these guys pick up an owner's manual or tech update once in a while... |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Sept 21, 2015 16:03:00 GMT
How do you get enough speed to get up and over the first (bending it) and almost clear the second before falling back? That's Hollywood level stunt driving, or pure stupidity on a level I can't conceive. It looks like it's an ordinary city street--how did he have room? I don't think it actually took that much speed. we've got a couple curb medians on the city and we have someone go over one in one direction or another every once in a while. last guy hit it hard enough to tear the front end out of the car, with only two lanes rolling start. I'm wondering: Is this discussion worth being moved to 'Show Ideas > In the News' (especially since ponytail was able to find an article)? This seems easily testable by the MBs... |
|
