Is a controlled stop after a collision from behind easier going slow or fast?

It's pretty straight forward really. Newtons 3rd law. The stationary, immovable object pushes back with as much (well almost as much) force as you hit it with. Two objects of equal properties push back equal amounts. It's a wash.

Had a high school physics teacher who wasn't qualified for the subject. We went over basically the same situation in class and I told him he was wrong. The next day he performed and experiment to 'convince' me. I felt bad for the guy.

 

There you go again, with facts and stuff.

 

You contradict yourself.

Impact collision already shows loss of any possibility to avoid same or control the sitaution leading up to it potentially resulting in something else besides impact.

There is no point in discussing post impact behavior of a vehicle you yourself could very well be a corpse on your last ride until the wreckage stops falling around.

 

I'm not thinking in terms of head on collisions, but I do think it would be worse for the vehicle running into my trailer, if that's at all a deterrent. I don't know, it's kind of puzzling why anyone who has the choice to go around at a distance almost invariably chooses to threaten themselves with getting slapped silly in that situation.

 

I think you need to stop thinking about what you can't control...... Start thinking about what you can....

 

I was. A controlled stop... remember? Refer to title.

 

No you have been dribbling about what happens after an impact.

The simple nuts of it is this. You get hit, you react instantly. There is no planning. Just after thoughts...

So stop thinking and start doing....

 

I think the best defence for a rear end collision is to not be one of those tools who pulls up close enough to do a colonoscopy on the person stopped in front of you.

 

And your're not dribbling? Yeah well I don't really care if you want to agree to disagree (and already get enough of that with how people drive, especially when they refuse to plan ahead for preventing accidents). Like I said, there can be advantages to going relatively slower at the time, so I'm glad I bounced that concept off a wall anyway. I'm not discounting opinions to the contrary, except that I was considering more than impact alone in qualifying what a controlled stop could involve.

 

I'm not going to read every post so if this was brought up already, tough.

This is all hypothetical BTW.

You're stopped and someone hits you doing say 60km/h. He gets ####ed up majorly as do you.

You're travelling 50km/h due to a hazard like roadwork. Guy isn't paying attention and smokes you doing 110km/h. Still the same amount of force but now since you're moving at 50km/h at the time of impact, you have to now figure out WTH is going on and bring your now out of control vehicle under control and stopped.

I think I'd rather be stopped.