Nothing from that time period would be anything but a deathtrap in a collision with a modern vehicle.

The driver of the Hyundai, identified as 22-year-old Jasmine Lacey of San Bernardino, was taken to a hospital for “a non injury-related reason” before CHP officers arrived on scene, the CHP said.

“(Lacey) was later contacted and identified at St. Jude Medical Center facility and, after investigation of the traffic collision, was arrested for DUI,” a CHP officer said.

But Lacey was released from custody early Saturday due to insufficient evidence to support a criminal complaint, according to Los Angeles County booking records.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150905/bizarre-crash-caught-on-camera-in-rowland-heights-driver-suspected-of-dui

You're right.

From your vehicle's perspective, all that matters is that you stop instantly. Why doesn't change that.

Hitting another mirror-identical car perfectly head on in an inelastic collision would be a perfect instant stop to each car.

Hitting a wall is a perfect instant stop.

A perfect instant stop is a perfect instant stop.

(As per Kubica's crash, I wouldn't be surprised if the car was made to crumple in a way that drags out the impact, reducing Gs)

-scheherazade

A collision with two cars head on with a combined impact speed of 200km/h is not actually equivalent to this test at all. If you do the math you actually work out that two cars each travelling at 100km/h hitting head on generate the same forces on their occupants as a single car hitting a fixed barrier at 100km/h. (reference, sadly light on mathematical proof)

The 5th gear test at 193km/h resulted in occupant deceleration of 400g (100g is survivable, although you can expect injuries such as detached retina, and I have heard of someone surviving 179g). Robert Kubica's accident resulted in a peak g-force reading of 75g.

Polyamorous feelings are hardly learned. You only like one person at any given time? Lies. Not even speaking about SEX, which always seems to be the trigger word for our collective fears. Why does it come down to sex? Most of my romance is asexual, y'all (society, the royal y'all) are oversexed because you're afraid of your feelings. Either you can't free your feminine self or your masculine self because you are afraid or embarassed, or lack the ability to think beyond that into nonbinary worldviews. Removing negative values from sexual acts so that they become naturally flowing, and not repressed sudden bursts of violence. Practice being asexual around people you're deeply attracted to. Treat them like *gasp* people.

Group hugs, anyone? Holding hands in prayer? I can't be the only one that feels that built in polyamorous tingle, can I? Sporting collisions? Animals born in litters crawling all over each other. Ain't sexual, is just a deep rooted desire to be among life close up and in that shit; protected and secure; loved. Any concert goers out there like getting close to the stage? That's a lot of sweaty people you're being sandwiched between. I know not everyone likes these situations, but it's enough latent desire, again not just for sex, but to be VERY close with more than one other person.

Haha... anyway! It's not all about dirty, sexual acts. If someone I hardly knew asked me or my wife to hang out and tried to have group sex, it wouldn't work anyway. Friendship and asexual romance are higher powers of coexistence anyway; more honest, less messy and ancient mammalian.

But... what is so wrong with bonds that form out of such natural human need beyond the twosome -- also think of all the lonely people out there who you're depriving of human touch, and just because you irrationally believe it's wrong. Shame on society. Shame.

So it would seem that the concept of red-light cameras is debated by special interest groups on both sides, with strong lobbying from red-light camera vendors. The wikipedia summary explains the controversy thus: "Authorities cite public safety as the primary reason that the cameras are installed, while opponents contend their use is more for financial gain. There have been concerns that red light cameras scare drivers (who want to avoid a ticket) into more sudden stops, which may increase the risk of a rear-end collisions."

The same Wikipedia article summarizes the research thus: "A report in 2003 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) examined studies from the previous 30 years in Australia, the UK, Singapore and the US, and concluded that red light cameras "improve the overall safety of intersections where they are used." While the report states that evidence is not conclusive (partly due to flaws in the studies), the majority of studies show a reduction in angle crashes, a smaller increase in rear-end crashes, with some evidence of a “spillover” effect of reduced red light running to other intersections within a jurisdiction. These findings are similar to a 2005 meta analysis, which compared the results of 10 controlled before-after studies of red light cameras in the US, Australia and Singapore. The analysis stated that the studies showed a reduction in crashes (up to almost 30%) in which there were injuries, however, evidence was less conclusive for a reduction in total collisions. Studies of red light cameras worldwide show a reduction of crashes involving injury by about 25% to 30%, taking into account increases in rear-end crashes, according to testimony from a meeting of the Virginia House of Delegates Militia, Police, and Public Safety Committee in 2003. These findings are supported by a review of more than 45 international studies carried out in 2010, which found that red light cameras reduce red light violation rates, crashes resulting from red light running, and usually reduce right-angle collisions."

There are enough interesting sources there that you can still find confirmation for your particular bias, whatever it is, if you so choose.

Isn't that what they teach in driving school under the name "Defensive Driving"?

I was thinking of that while watching the video because I was amazed at the number of people who could've avoided being hit* had they looked before starting into the intersection rather than just blindly following the light.

*Not blaming them for the collision--just observing that they're putting themselves in danger by not paying attention.

I was wondering about the spinnaker pole too, seemed a bit of a brave move in those conditions! As did completely un-reefed sails. Looks like they'd read the book as far as 'let the sails out to slow down or stop' but not got any further.

One thing they could have done to avoid the collision is just pull the main in, hard. Would have screwed the boat round into the wind and either stopped it there or more likely forced a tack, leaving the boat sailing happily away from the ferry. The guys sailing it just panicked and did nothing. Fortunately it looked like there wasn't too much damage done but this sort of thing bothers me. Ignorance like this kills.

I think the differences in the way we see things are, I see the grey areas, and you see in black and white. Once someone is guilty in your eyes you come down 100% on them.
Me seeing the shades isn't always better, as I give everyone the benefit of doubt, sometimes when they don't deserve it, but I give it to them till I'm proven wrong.
That's maybe why you're better suited for your career, and I'm not.
Being able to make a solid judgement call and sticking with it is a solid attribute.

I only suggest that you see the possibility that sometimes honest people make poor judgement calls.
Where you see someone purposely ramming a truck, I see someone who made a poor decision in switching lanes and then proceeds to think she's good to go, and maybe is concentrating to much on the truck ahead and not seeing the truck beside her.
Poor driving, absolutely, but I can't believe her judgement said purposely hit the truck.

On the flip side. The truck driver is driving well within his limits, and maybe is tired of people cutting him off. So this time he doesn't let her in, not expecting that she may not notice him closing her out.

He could have avoided the collision, or at least tried, as he saw it coming and made no effort. She didn't. I don't dispute her bad driving decision or skill in this matter. On the flip side, his driving choices are not any better.

Have a great day. Keep on keeping on

Jebus that's a lot of comments. It's been said a few times already, but traffic videos always get the most audience participation.

How bout a new plan? Drive the speed limit, leave at least two seconds between you and the car in front, and live the rest of your life without a vehicle collision?

Quoting @Sagemind:

"Though the little car shouldn't have forced this… the trucker is at fault for not preventing a collision that was avoidable.

The National Safety Council, defines a preventable collision as one in which the driver failed to do everything that they reasonably could have done to avoid it.

The American Trucking Association, uses the following rule to determine the preventability of a collision: “Was the vehicle driven in such a way to make due allowance for the conditions of the road, weather, and traffic and to also assure that the mistakes of other drivers did not involve the driver in a collision?”

Here on this video you can see that the trucker didn't back off, allow the car in, and prevent the collision.

I bet everyone knows that the most important rule in every US state is that you are guilty if you could have reasonably done something to prevent a collision, and didn't.

That's the law. You are at fault anytime you could have prevented a collsion and didn't."

Likely YOU don't realize how much YOU suck at driving. ;-)

You said it. That's how people drive in town...at full speed....without collisions. It would have been perfectly safe if the truck had not accelerated into her spot after she was in the lane, or slowed even just slightly once he realized she was there. EDIT: Also, if that's not a safe distance, what do you call the distance the truck ends up with between him and the first car, WAY less distance than the second car had in front or behind at the start, about one car length, but only because the first car almost pushes the pickup truck trying to escape the semi.
If you are slower traffic, as the truck was, it's the law that you don't belong in the fast lane. Period. "Slower Traffic Keep Right" is the law, not a suggestion. If you've been passed on the right, you are absolutely slower traffic in the wrong lane.
You're nuts, the traffic in the fast lane passes him in the slow lane before they get there. He was NOT going faster than them until he floors it at 15 seconds. Listen carefully to his engine, you can hear him floor it, he's not on cruise control.
She did check, and there was room and she was going faster than the truck, so there should have been MORE room as time went on, she looked forward and made the lane change, then looked again 1/2 way through and there's suddenly an accelerating truck passing her on the shoulder. Then she looks to the other side and sees there's no way to avoid the other truck now, and it's either ram the slow truck or keep moving over and bump the faster truck, which she does.
I'm done. If you don't see what everyone else does, that's not my problem.

Found on another site:

"Though the little car shouldn't have forced this… the trucker is at fault for not preventing a collision that was avoidable.

The National Safety Council, defines a preventable collision as one in which the driver failed to do everything that they reasonably could have done to avoid it.

The American Trucking Association, uses the following rule to determine the preventability of a collision: “Was the vehicle driven in such a way to make due allowance for the conditions of the road, weather, and traffic and to also assure that the mistakes of other drivers did not involve the driver in a collision?”

Here on this video you can see that the trucker didn't back off, allow the car in, and prevent the collision.

I bet everyone knows that the most important rule in every US state is that you are guilty if you could have reasonably done something to prevent a collision, and didn't.

That's the law. You are at fault anytime you could have prevented a collsion and didn't."

The truck saw the car.
The truck had time to move left. He clearly saw the car.
The truck never even tried to hit his breaks or slow down.
The truck hit the car either on purpose, or undue care and attention.
The truck driver was distracted on his phone, and never missed a beat in his conversation.

The car was a full car length ahead of the truck when it started to merge - If I could see the car signaling, he could have seen the car signaling. There was room.

We all know that trucks have a longer stopping time. But a single tap on the break instead of holding his foot on the accelerator would have avoided the collision.
And no, the traffic wasn't slowing down ahead - they were all passing and keeping what looks like a steady pace.
If the truck thought he needed to warn the car, he could have used his horn, but he was too busy on his phone.