Re:On being brought up by libertarian economists
by LegionMammal978 on Sunday June 09, 2024 @11:07PM
(#40629755)
Yeah, the movable vs. immovable distinction is the big difference here. If it's a truly immovable wall, then the ground exerts a great backward force to keep the wall in place during the collision, which the wall transfers into the car.
But if the car just busts straight through a wall of equal mass (and a comparable crumple zone), then it will be just like the car/car case energetically: the car and wall both continue at 50 mph following the collision.
Re:On being brought up by libertarian economists
by antod on Sunday June 09, 2024 @10:13PM
(#40629482)
One possible non spherical cow... if deceleration isn't linear, then there's a possibility peak decelerations could differ between oncoming car and "immovable" object.
And yeah "immovable" isn't literal, just shorthand for practically immovable compared to the car.
Is it though? Genuinely wondering if I'm missing something in my ponderings...
I would assume that a collision between two identical cars traveling at the same velocity would each decelerate to zero within the distance of one crumple zone. ie due to the other one also decelerating the same way. Assuming that they don't end up in some sort of intermingled mashup (spherical cows and all that) which is maybe what you're describing?
And that a car at the same speed hitting a practically immovable object would also decelerate the same amount in the same single crumple zone distance.
Anyway as an irrelevant aside, hitting a brick wall isn't the same as hitting an immovable object - a car will mostly go right through a fairly standard unreinforced brick wall. Which unless a brick coming through the windscreen hits you directly, is probably going to be a lot safer than the deceleration of hitting an oncoming car or immovable object.