No, that bollard didn’t budge. She backed into it fast enough to shoot the SUV straight up the bollard, it clears the bumper, and BAM! — the SUV dropped down on the bollard. That bumper should have crumpled, but it was rugged and rounded enough to deflect the impact downward or, equal and opposite reaction, send the vehicle upward. Traffic bollards are still tough enough to stand up to SUVs, but not tall enough to be seen by the drivers.
One thing to note is that if the vehicle being driven wasn’t an SUV, that bollard would have easily been seen through the rear view mirror. Looks like the bollard is ‘just’ low enough to stop below the top of the rear seats. SUVs bad.
Those are only situationally useful. They tend to be too dim and blurry, and if you’re wearing polarized sunglasses they can be totally black. Focusing on them long enough to make out what they’re displaying causes tunnel vision - you can’t really shift your focus from looking around out the windows and back to looking at the screen fast enough.
Back-up cameras are great for measuring the last couple inches of parking.
I live on a one-lane road, and the turnaround in my driveway turns into foot-deep mud when it rains, so I back into my driveway. …About 300 yards of backing up, all in, with some fairly sharp turns and a steep drop on one side of my driveway. It’s really simple, as long as there’s any light; at night, the reverse lights aren’t really bright enough to see what I’m doing. BUT my display is about 8" wide; I’ve driven trucks and vans where it’s a 2" wide section on the rear view mirror, and those are a pain in the ass.
This is the right answer. Bollards made of concrete and steel are designed to stop cars. There is no elasticity in that bollard. If she bent it, it would’ve stayed bent.
Check the bottom of the bollard, it looks visible damaged where it meets the ground, like it had bent backwards towards the camera.
I think the OP is right. It wouldn’t need elasticity; it got bent down just far enough for the back end of the car to ride up on it, then when they pulled forward it dragged the bollard upright, at which point it punched through the floor.
My guess is the metal had begun to rust where it meets the ground, and then some freeze thaw cycles crumbled the concrete, leaving it weak right where it meets the ground.
Yeah there’s not nearly enough damage to the back of the car for it to have hit so hard as to launch it into the air. Plus you can see yellow paint on the ground where the bollard was clearly laid over. OP is right.
The thing is it ended up almost perpendicular to the ground. No bend at all. To have the car pull forward and bend it back that way is a heck of an ask.
If you look closesly, it’s a concrete filled pole and the ground seems disturbed. So she didn’t bend it. She ripped it out of the ground and when driving forward it dipped back into it’s hole and puncutured the underfloor.
First, I didn’t say it came to a dead stop before it dropped. I think the impalement killed its momentum. Second, fast probably wasn’t the right word, but she hit the gas hard enough to climb that bollard. I was thinking she just plowed into it, but she might’ve backed into it slowly, got stopped, didn’t know why, then pressed down harder on the gas. That would explain the minimal impact.
My guess is it wasn’t speed. It’s probably an all-wheel drive car and the front wheels are really close to the front.
So a stubborn driver could tap the bollard, get mad their car stopped, then after contact hit the gas hard and ride up the bollard while still keeping traction on the front wheels because they’re never pushed off the ground. The bumper would take less damage because after the first push most of the motion is upward.
Where did you find the specification of this one specific bollard and where is the furnace that it is supposed to protect? If there is nothing to protect, why should it be up to the same standard?
We can see that it is damaged, there is really no need to discuss it. It did not bend concrete but the steel tube. The concrete just snaps, it can’t handle bending. It is just in there to prevent collapsing of the tube, so compression, which concrete can do really well.
There is also no other way for this to happen other than the bollard bending or a crane etc. dropping the car.
So reversing the car should flatten the ballard again and get the car free? Or maybe the ballard only went to an acute angle and lifted the car up till the ballard poked through a weak point in the frame. Either way she’s reversed into it at a decent speed…and then completed her yoga class before calling for help.
I mean… Theoretically if she had a strong enough drive train, and the car was overall very heavy, she could absolutely back up again.
However, given the height of the bollard vs the ground clearance of the undercarriage, I believe it would pinch the bumper downward and possibly prevent the car from going anywhere. It depends on how strong the bumper materials are, and if anything from the frame is in the way.
Source: my ass, but it’s my best guess based on studying more crashes than I care to count.
Also the bollard was initially pushed down by the rigid frame of the car. Now it is inside the boot. The inside of the boot will be pushing against it.
Now they’re going to call roadside rescue and going to have to explain how they need a crane rather than a tow truck.
I believe you are right except I don’t think the pole moved at all. The ground seems in disturbed. And typically they are made to withstand being hit by a car. So more likely they backed up so fast that it sent the rear up on top of the pole and then just came crashing down on it.
Thank you for posting this. Until I read your summary, I thought it was a yoga mat that had somehow escaped from inside the trunk and was completely flummoxed.
Looks like they backed over it, laying the pole down, then drove forward, poking the pole through the undercarriage and standing it back up.
No, that bollard didn’t budge. She backed into it fast enough to shoot the SUV straight up the bollard, it clears the bumper, and BAM! — the SUV dropped down on the bollard. That bumper should have crumpled, but it was rugged and rounded enough to deflect the impact downward or, equal and opposite reaction, send the vehicle upward. Traffic bollards are still tough enough to stand up to SUVs, but not tall enough to be seen by the drivers.
They’re the height of a child and also high-vis yellow. You need More Proof someone’s not paying enough attention to pilot 2 tonnes of metal?
That’s one way of looking at it.
Another would be, its evidence of bad vehicle design & inadequate visibility from the driver’s seat.
One thing a driver should pay attention to is whether they can see their environment.
One thing to note is that if the vehicle being driven wasn’t an SUV, that bollard would have easily been seen through the rear view mirror. Looks like the bollard is ‘just’ low enough to stop below the top of the rear seats. SUVs bad.
I believe that all cars sold in the US since 2016 have been required to have back-up cameras.
Those are only situationally useful. They tend to be too dim and blurry, and if you’re wearing polarized sunglasses they can be totally black. Focusing on them long enough to make out what they’re displaying causes tunnel vision - you can’t really shift your focus from looking around out the windows and back to looking at the screen fast enough.
Back-up cameras are great for measuring the last couple inches of parking.
I don’t have that problem at all in my car.
I live on a one-lane road, and the turnaround in my driveway turns into foot-deep mud when it rains, so I back into my driveway. …About 300 yards of backing up, all in, with some fairly sharp turns and a steep drop on one side of my driveway. It’s really simple, as long as there’s any light; at night, the reverse lights aren’t really bright enough to see what I’m doing. BUT my display is about 8" wide; I’ve driven trucks and vans where it’s a 2" wide section on the rear view mirror, and those are a pain in the ass.
I’ve got $10 on Delta_V not realizing screen brightness was turned down, any takers?
I agree that SUV bad, but today’s cars pretty universally have rear view cameras and some extra sensors. She can’t drive for shit
This is the right answer. Bollards made of concrete and steel are designed to stop cars. There is no elasticity in that bollard. If she bent it, it would’ve stayed bent.
Check the bottom of the bollard, it looks visible damaged where it meets the ground, like it had bent backwards towards the camera.
I think the OP is right. It wouldn’t need elasticity; it got bent down just far enough for the back end of the car to ride up on it, then when they pulled forward it dragged the bollard upright, at which point it punched through the floor.
My guess is the metal had begun to rust where it meets the ground, and then some freeze thaw cycles crumbled the concrete, leaving it weak right where it meets the ground.
Yeah there’s not nearly enough damage to the back of the car for it to have hit so hard as to launch it into the air. Plus you can see yellow paint on the ground where the bollard was clearly laid over. OP is right.
The pole didn’t bend, the ground just opened up.
Correct answer. You can see the ground fractured around the pole.
Not just the ground, it’s also on the bumper at the point of impact. You can see the imprint it left when it was slanted at like 45 degrees.
The thing is it ended up almost perpendicular to the ground. No bend at all. To have the car pull forward and bend it back that way is a heck of an ask.
If you look closesly, it’s a concrete filled pole and the ground seems disturbed. So she didn’t bend it. She ripped it out of the ground and when driving forward it dipped back into it’s hole and puncutured the underfloor.
How fast was she supposed to be to jump up at least a meter, come to a dead stop, drop down… but have no more than a scratch on the impact zone?
First, I didn’t say it came to a dead stop before it dropped. I think the impalement killed its momentum. Second, fast probably wasn’t the right word, but she hit the gas hard enough to climb that bollard. I was thinking she just plowed into it, but she might’ve backed into it slowly, got stopped, didn’t know why, then pressed down harder on the gas. That would explain the minimal impact.
yeah, this is probably what happened
My guess is it wasn’t speed. It’s probably an all-wheel drive car and the front wheels are really close to the front.
So a stubborn driver could tap the bollard, get mad their car stopped, then after contact hit the gas hard and ride up the bollard while still keeping traction on the front wheels because they’re never pushed off the ground. The bumper would take less damage because after the first push most of the motion is upward.
How does it ride up the bollard when we assume the bollard does not budge?
Seriously, you can even see the damage on the bollard, it is clear that it got bend down.
Concrete doesn’t bend.
Where did you find the specification of this one specific bollard and where is the furnace that it is supposed to protect? If there is nothing to protect, why should it be up to the same standard?
We can see that it is damaged, there is really no need to discuss it. It did not bend concrete but the steel tube. The concrete just snaps, it can’t handle bending. It is just in there to prevent collapsing of the tube, so compression, which concrete can do really well.
There is also no other way for this to happen other than the bollard bending or a crane etc. dropping the car.
Sunken ones are the same and given such a dumb statement you clearly know you’re wrong now but won’t admit it.
The concrete is not there to prevent the tube from collapsing. You have that completely backwards.
It’s clearly not bent. Get your eyes checked.
I wasn’t expecting to see another example of, ‘impaled by bollard,’ but at least it’s an inanimate object this time. 😬
Oooh, I like your answer better.
Oh good eye, I think you’re right especially from the paint on the bumper
So reversing the car should flatten the ballard again and get the car free? Or maybe the ballard only went to an acute angle and lifted the car up till the ballard poked through a weak point in the frame. Either way she’s reversed into it at a decent speed…and then completed her yoga class before calling for help.
I mean… Theoretically if she had a strong enough drive train, and the car was overall very heavy, she could absolutely back up again.
However, given the height of the bollard vs the ground clearance of the undercarriage, I believe it would pinch the bumper downward and possibly prevent the car from going anywhere. It depends on how strong the bumper materials are, and if anything from the frame is in the way.
Source: my ass, but it’s my best guess based on studying more crashes than I care to count.
Your ass is probably correct.
Also the bollard was initially pushed down by the rigid frame of the car. Now it is inside the boot. The inside of the boot will be pushing against it.
Now they’re going to call roadside rescue and going to have to explain how they need a crane rather than a tow truck.
The bollard needs to be replaced at this point. May as well just cut it off. Hiring a crane is unnecessary.
I believe you are right except I don’t think the pole moved at all. The ground seems in disturbed. And typically they are made to withstand being hit by a car. So more likely they backed up so fast that it sent the rear up on top of the pole and then just came crashing down on it.
Great point, I didn’t look closely enough, it seems.
Yup. That’s the only way this could have worked. Unless the car was jumped off a ramp first, Knight Rider style.
As @qooqie pointed out, the paint transfer on the bumper supports your theory.
Thank you for posting this. Until I read your summary, I thought it was a yoga mat that had somehow escaped from inside the trunk and was completely flummoxed.
That’s what she said!