Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's some real action movie stuff right there....LOL....glad they made it through safe but that landing must've been harsh (car sustained at least $10k in damage.....probably totaled though as I'm sure the frame is bent and all the undercarriage wrecked).
That's some real action movie stuff right there....LOL....glad they made it through safe but that landing must've been harsh (car sustained at least $10k in damage.....probably totaled though as I'm sure the frame is bent and all the undercarriage wrecked).
That's some real action movie stuff right there....LOL....glad they made it through safe but that landing must've been harsh (car sustained at least $10k in damage.....probably totaled though as I'm sure the frame is bent and all the undercarriage wrecked).
Why would he jump the car over the water, rather than just put it in reverse and back down the ramp? Even if he stopped and the car slide back down the ramp and crashed, that would be less risky than taking a chance on ending up in the water.
Why would he jump the car over the water, rather than just put it in reverse and back down the ramp? Even if he stopped and the car slide back down the ramp and crashed, that would be less risky than taking a chance on ending up in the water.
I don't understand this either. Don't those bridges operate pretty slowly?
Why would he jump the car over the water, rather than just put it in reverse and back down the ramp? Even if he stopped and the car slide back down the ramp and crashed, that would be less risky than taking a chance on ending up in the water.
This is what I was wondering. It was more risky to gun it forward than to back up. If everyone were wearing seat belts, even on the off chance that the car would flip upside down when backing up (if the bridge rose too fast so the angle got too steep), they'd come out of it ok. Their seatbelts would keep them in their seats.
I think some people watch too many car chases on TV.
I guess he was moving along at 55-ish? Hard to hit reverse when you're moving at the speed limit.
That's what the brake is for. It all depends on where he was, when the bridge started rising. But you're right that, depending on circumstances, it could have been a hard decision to make in a split-second, like that. If h was going 55, he wouldn't have been able to stop in time & throw it in reverse, I guess. What a horrible position to be in, to have to make that decision, with people depending on you!
But the other option would have been to honk like crazy to wake up the idiot in the bridge tower.
Why would he jump the car over the water, rather than just put it in reverse and back down the ramp?...
Well, sure - that might work if they were standing still.
Presumably, the RAV4 was moving at good clip, and was already on the bridge section that was rising.
remember - braking distance. A vehicle doesn't just magically come to a stop. It takes time, and distance. Even if they were only going 40 mph, the braking distance would have been 80 feet. You've got a split second to decide - "can I stop in time" - misjudge that - and you end up in the drink.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
