Misleading Advertisements

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Current page

149

Current page

150

Current page

151

Current page

152

Current page

153

Current page

154

Current page

155

Current page

156

Current page

157

Current page

158

Current page

159

Current page

160

Current page

161

Current page

162

Sir,

Recent advertisements issued by the authorities who advocate the wearing of seat belts contain the following statement:

“Crashing at 25 m.p.h. head on into a similar car travelling at 25 m.p.h. is equivalent to crashing into an (immovable) brick wall at 50 m.p.h.”

This is simply untrue! Such a statement belongs in a book of “Schoolboy Howlers” not in an official advertisement by those professing to be qualified to offer advice. Mathematically inclined readers may confirm the error as follows:

Consider a pair of similar cars of mass “m” travelling at speed “v”. Each car has kinetic energy of 1/2 mv.

After a head-on crash, no movement remains energy is zero. Hence the energy dissipated in deformation of the cars and their occupants is 1/2mv per car.

Now consider one car of mass “m” travelling at Speed “2v”. Kinetic energy is 1/2m(2v)2 = 2mv2 4 times the previous figure, for doubled speed.

When this car hits an immovable wall, energy to the extent of 2MVR will cause very considerably more damage than in the first case. Readers who distrust mathematics may prefer the following entirely logical confirmation:

Consider two identical, symmetrical ears travelling at equal speeds, colliding head on. By the definition of total symmetry, both cars will come to rest, crushed equally and symmetrically. Hence no part of either car will project beyond the point of impact being directly in line with another identical part of the other car, which would resist such projection. Hence the noses of each car will be crushed, at the point of impact, to a vertical plane, co-incident with the nose of the other. Thus an infinitely thin, but infinitely strong, infinitely immovable wall could have existed at the impact point without affecting in any way the damage to either car! Thus clearly crashing a car at 25 m.p.h. head-on into an identical car at 25 m.p.h. is the same as crashing the same car into an immovable wall at 25 m.p.h., NOT at 50 m.p.h.

The offending advertisement continues, that a 25 m.p.h. crash head-on, being equivalent to 50 m.p.h. into a wall is equivalent to a vertical free fall front some quoted considerable height. The true figure for a 25 m.p.h. crash into car or wall is a height of 21 feet. The true figure for 50 m.p.h. is 84 feet.

Hanwort h I. R. FRANCIS

You may also like

Related products