If a pedestrian can survive my car hitting them at road speed I'm gonna get the hell off the road.PureFodder wrote:
To prove the point, The European NCAP ratings are based of three things, adult occupant protection, child occupant protection and pedestrian protection.
According to the video, eh? Did you actually WATCH the video? Did you not notice the MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in the footwell? You're way more likely to bleed out from a severed/crushed lower extremity than you are from internal injuries caused by a seat belt. The steering wheel was at most 8" from the driver's seat. The resulting crush injury, again, would have been enormously more dangerous than the internal injuries caused by deceleration.jonsimon wrote:
Wrong, they come to the conclusion that both would have died from DECELERATION. Not intrusion. The primary intrusion was in the legspace. According to the video, the passenger's organs would not have withstood the massive deceleration.blisteringsilence wrote:
First, as my kids will be in said huge steel blocks of cars, I'm not that concerned. The door from the caddie's I'm eying weighs close to the smart cars in that video.
Also, I don't know of you watched it or not, but at the end of the video, the journalists came to the same conclusion I've been touting since I joined this thread: The passengers, restrained, would not have survived the collision. There was MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in both of the cars they wrecked. At the least, the driver would have a crushed (flail) chest, and both legs severed/crushed.
If you want to survive a high speed impact, drive something with a lot of steel, and wear your seatbelt. That's all there is to it.
When it comes right down to it, someone with a liver lac caused by deceleration can walk to my ambulance to get a ride to the hospital. Someone with a crushed or amputated foot/leg is going to bleed to death before I can get them extricated. I see it all the time.Insurance Institute for Highway Safety wrote:
Caution: The kinetic energy a vehicle must absorb in a crash test increases with vehicle weight, so barrier tests are more demanding of
heavier vehicles. But people in heavier vehicles in real-world, 2-vehicle crashes typically fare better than people in lighter vehicles (in
many single-vehicle crashes, weight offers no safety advantage). This is why test results shouldn’t be compared among vehicles with
large weight differences.
The weight range (about 1,000 pounds) of the SUVs listed here is greater than in most other groups of vehicles the Institute has tested.
However, since the weight benefit in 2-vehicle crashes is only slight for vehicles weighing more than 4,000 pounds, and because a
greater proportion of midsize SUV occupant deaths (compared with car occupant deaths) occur in single-vehicle crashes in which vehicle
weight often offers no advantage, the crash test results for these vehicles can be compared.
What the hell, do you actually want to kill people?Stingray24 wrote:
If a pedestrian can survive my car hitting them at road speed I'm gonna get the hell off the road.PureFodder wrote:
To prove the point, The European NCAP ratings are based of three things, adult occupant protection, child occupant protection and pedestrian protection.
It does seem like a strange opinion.PureFodder wrote:
What the hell, do you actually want to kill people?Stingray24 wrote:
If a pedestrian can survive my car hitting them at road speed I'm gonna get the hell off the road.PureFodder wrote:
To prove the point, The European NCAP ratings are based of three things, adult occupant protection, child occupant protection and pedestrian protection.
1. I thought it was obvious what I meant.PureFodder wrote:
What the hell, do you actually want to kill people?Stingray24 wrote:
If a pedestrian can survive my car hitting them at road speed I'm gonna get the hell off the road.PureFodder wrote:
To prove the point, The European NCAP ratings are based of three things, adult occupant protection, child occupant protection and pedestrian protection.
2. No I don't want to kill people.
3. People should not be in the road.
4. If my car is so weak that a human being outside the car can survive a collision with my vehicle, then my vehicle it will most certainly disintegrate if hit by another vehicle. Therefore, the human being outside the car is actually safer than the one inside - THAT is a strange option.
As it has been said large 'American' cars are more dangerous to other road users in 'European certified' (NCAP) cars and pedestrians.
So choosing to drive one to make yourself safe when they are a higher proportion of the 'officially safer' (crumple zones etc) cars comes across to me as....selfish?
So choosing to drive one to make yourself safe when they are a higher proportion of the 'officially safer' (crumple zones etc) cars comes across to me as....selfish?
Another huge difference between the US and Europe. Jaywalking is a completely unknown concept in Europe. You can cross the road, where and whenever you feel like. What about cyclists and motorcyclists?Stingray24 wrote:
1. I thought it was obvious what I meant.PureFodder wrote:
What the hell, do you actually want to kill people?Stingray24 wrote:
If a pedestrian can survive my car hitting them at road speed I'm gonna get the hell off the road.
2. No I don't want to kill people.
3. People should not be in the road.
4. If my car is so weak that a human being outside the car can survive a collision with my vehicle, then my vehicle it will most certainly disintegrate if hit by another vehicle. Therefore, the human being outside the car is actually safer than the one inside - THAT is a strange option.
It's not an issue of your car breaking or becoming severely deformed (you might get a few dents, maybe crack the windscreen if they roll up the bonnet hard) when it hits a pedestrian, which it won't do. It is about the mass of the car which will determine the momentum and kinetic energy of the car (combined with the speed), if you drive a car that weighs more, then the injury sustained by a pedestrian you hit will be equivalent to being hit by a small car at much greater speed.
Well, the only reason the big car would be safe is because of other little cars. That point fails bad.
You've missed the point. Pedestrian safety includes things like 'bull bars' which are now fortunately banned in Europe, locating the engine block in such a place where if you hit someone their head doesn't smash straight into it. If you hit someone obviously you won't die and your insurance covers the car repair costs, so try thinking of the person you might hit.Stingray24 wrote:
1. I thought it was obvious what I meant.PureFodder wrote:
What the hell, do you actually want to kill people?Stingray24 wrote:
If a pedestrian can survive my car hitting them at road speed I'm gonna get the hell off the road.
2. No I don't want to kill people.
3. People should not be in the road.
4. If my car is so weak that a human being outside the car can survive a collision with my vehicle, then my vehicle it will most certainly disintegrate if hit by another vehicle. Therefore, the human being outside the car is actually safer than the one inside - THAT is a strange option.
The arguement seems to be this, you want a big car so you can survive hitting other cars. This means that everyone else needs to have a heavy car to survive being hit by you, everyone looses as heavy cars hitting each other and cyclists/motorcyclists/pedestrians is war worse than ligher vehicles hitting each other and cyclists/motorcyclists/pedestrians.
In fact by having heavier vehicles you're actually making it more dangerous for yourselves.
.....as a society.PureFodder wrote:
You've missed the point. Pedestrian safety includes things like 'bull bars' which are now fortunately banned in Europe, locating the engine block in such a place where if you hit someone their head doesn't smash straight into it. If you hit someone obviously you won't die and your insurance covers the car repair costs, so try thinking of the person you might hit.Stingray24 wrote:
1. I thought it was obvious what I meant.PureFodder wrote:
What the hell, do you actually want to kill people?
2. No I don't want to kill people.
3. People should not be in the road.
4. If my car is so weak that a human being outside the car can survive a collision with my vehicle, then my vehicle it will most certainly disintegrate if hit by another vehicle. Therefore, the human being outside the car is actually safer than the one inside - THAT is a strange option.
The arguement seems to be this, you want a big car so you can survive hitting other cars. This means that everyone else needs to have a heavy car to survive being hit by you, everyone looses as heavy cars hitting each other and cyclists/motorcyclists/pedestrians is war worse than ligher vehicles hitting each other and cyclists/motorcyclists/pedestrians.
In fact by having heavier vehicles you're actually making it more dangerous for yourselves......
Fine, I'll quote the movie verbatim: "That is the rub. The cars may have stood up to the severity of the crash suprisingly well, but the humans inside wouldn't. No matter what you drive, rapidly decelerating from higher speeds is something your internal organs simply cannot cope with. The chilling truth is; the people inside both cars would have been very unlikely to have survived."blisteringsilence wrote:
According to the video, eh? Did you actually WATCH the video? Did you not notice the MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in the footwell? You're way more likely to bleed out from a severed/crushed lower extremity than you are from internal injuries caused by a seat belt. The steering wheel was at most 8" from the driver's seat. The resulting crush injury, again, would have been enormously more dangerous than the internal injuries caused by deceleration.jonsimon wrote:
Wrong, they come to the conclusion that both would have died from DECELERATION. Not intrusion. The primary intrusion was in the legspace. According to the video, the passenger's organs would not have withstood the massive deceleration.blisteringsilence wrote:
First, as my kids will be in said huge steel blocks of cars, I'm not that concerned. The door from the caddie's I'm eying weighs close to the smart cars in that video.
Also, I don't know of you watched it or not, but at the end of the video, the journalists came to the same conclusion I've been touting since I joined this thread: The passengers, restrained, would not have survived the collision. There was MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in both of the cars they wrecked. At the least, the driver would have a crushed (flail) chest, and both legs severed/crushed.
If you want to survive a high speed impact, drive something with a lot of steel, and wear your seatbelt. That's all there is to it.
Did you actually LISTEN to the movie? No. The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.
A great example of the fallacy of composition. What is good for an individual is not necessarily good for the whole.PureFodder wrote:
You've missed the point. Pedestrian safety includes things like 'bull bars' which are now fortunately banned in Europe, locating the engine block in such a place where if you hit someone their head doesn't smash straight into it. If you hit someone obviously you won't die and your insurance covers the car repair costs, so try thinking of the person you might hit.
The arguement seems to be this, you want a big car so you can survive hitting other cars. This means that everyone else needs to have a heavy car to survive being hit by you, everyone looses as heavy cars hitting each other and cyclists/motorcyclists/pedestrians is war worse than ligher vehicles hitting each other and cyclists/motorcyclists/pedestrians.
In fact by having heavier vehicles you're actually making it more dangerous for yourselves.
That's the way it works. Selfish is not necessarily bad. I make enough money to live in a large, nice house. I could live in a small apartment and give the rest of the money to orphans. But I don't. Is that selfish? Yes. Do I care? No.james@alienware wrote:
As it has been said large 'American' cars are more dangerous to other road users in 'European certified' (NCAP) cars and pedestrians.
So choosing to drive one to make yourself safe when they are a higher proportion of the 'officially safer' (crumple zones etc) cars comes across to me as....selfish?
I did, as it turns out, listen to the movie. And then I dismissed the drivel from the uneducated talking heads, and replaced it from the knowledge you get from working with motor vehicle collisions for years.jonsimon wrote:
Fine, I'll quote the movie verbatim: "That is the rub. The cars may have stood up to the severity of the crash suprisingly well, but the humans inside wouldn't. No matter what you drive, rapidly decelerating from higher speeds is something your internal organs simply cannot cope with. The chilling truth is; the people inside both cars would have been very unlikely to have survived."blisteringsilence wrote:
According to the video, eh? Did you actually WATCH the video? Did you not notice the MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in the footwell? You're way more likely to bleed out from a severed/crushed lower extremity than you are from internal injuries caused by a seat belt. The steering wheel was at most 8" from the driver's seat. The resulting crush injury, again, would have been enormously more dangerous than the internal injuries caused by deceleration.jonsimon wrote:
Wrong, they come to the conclusion that both would have died from DECELERATION. Not intrusion. The primary intrusion was in the legspace. According to the video, the passenger's organs would not have withstood the massive deceleration.
Did you actually LISTEN to the movie? No. The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.
You can, actually, survive a decelertion like that without any problem whatsoever. The human body is well capable of handling that kind of g-force. For example, there is a roller coaster that launches you from 0 to 108 in 1.8 seconds.
Physiologically speaking, the dangerous part of deceleration comes from the prevalance of liver fracture/laceration. This is much more likely to occur from a blunt force injury than simple deceleration, however. Additionally, minor to moderate liver fractures will heal on their own, and major fractures can be easily repaired surgically, providing that there is no tearing of the hepatic artery. And you'd be hard pressed to decelerate fast enough to tear the hepatic artery.
So again, the single greatest danger in a high speed motor vehicle collision is passenger compartment intrusion. I don't care what your youtube tv program says. Try picking up a journal.
And the easiest way to protect yourself against the dangers of passenger compartment intrusion is to purchase an automobile that has a LOT of passenger compartment protection, i.e. horizontal steel struts in the firewall and doors.
Intrusion doesn't matter?!?! Tell that to my cousin and my uncle who foolishly bought one of your wonderful crumpling zone cars and ended up with the engine between them in the front seat. They also both had broken legs and my cousin had to have a rod in his leg.jonsimon wrote:
The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.
I was hit head on at 60mph and the engine in my car stayed where it belonged without crumple zones or airbags and I had no internal injuries. The police estimated the other car was traveling at least 70mph.
Depends on the speed you are going. Sharp enough deceleration (30-40Gs) can snap your neck like a twig.blisteringsilence wrote:
That's the way it works. Selfish is not necessarily bad. I make enough money to live in a large, nice house. I could live in a small apartment and give the rest of the money to orphans. But I don't. Is that selfish? Yes. Do I care? No.james@alienware wrote:
As it has been said large 'American' cars are more dangerous to other road users in 'European certified' (NCAP) cars and pedestrians.
So choosing to drive one to make yourself safe when they are a higher proportion of the 'officially safer' (crumple zones etc) cars comes across to me as....selfish?I did, as it turns out, listen to the movie. And then I dismissed the drivel from the uneducated talking heads, and replaced it from the knowledge you get from working with motor vehicle collisions for years.jonsimon wrote:
Fine, I'll quote the movie verbatim: "That is the rub. The cars may have stood up to the severity of the crash suprisingly well, but the humans inside wouldn't. No matter what you drive, rapidly decelerating from higher speeds is something your internal organs simply cannot cope with. The chilling truth is; the people inside both cars would have been very unlikely to have survived."blisteringsilence wrote:
According to the video, eh? Did you actually WATCH the video? Did you not notice the MASSIVE passenger compartment intrusion in the footwell? You're way more likely to bleed out from a severed/crushed lower extremity than you are from internal injuries caused by a seat belt. The steering wheel was at most 8" from the driver's seat. The resulting crush injury, again, would have been enormously more dangerous than the internal injuries caused by deceleration.
Did you actually LISTEN to the movie? No. The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.
You can, actually, survive a decelertion like that without any problem whatsoever. The human body is well capable of handling that kind of g-force. For example, there is a roller coaster that launches you from 0 to 108 in 1.8 seconds.
Physiologically speaking, the dangerous part of deceleration comes from the prevalance of liver fracture/laceration. This is much more likely to occur from a blunt force injury than simple deceleration, however. Additionally, minor to moderate liver fractures will heal on their own, and major fractures can be easily repaired surgically, providing that there is no tearing of the hepatic artery. And you'd be hard pressed to decelerate fast enough to tear the hepatic artery.
So again, the single greatest danger in a high speed motor vehicle collision is passenger compartment intrusion. I don't care what your youtube tv program says. Try picking up a journal.
And the easiest way to protect yourself against the dangers of passenger compartment intrusion is to purchase an automobile that has a LOT of passenger compartment protection, i.e. horizontal steel struts in the firewall and doors.
Passenger compartment intrusion and lack of deformation of the passenger compartment are, as you say, absolutely critical - which a lot of people seem to be losing sight of. I imagine the highest risk is from thoracic injury, which should increase independently of the deformation of the passenger compartment with increased speeds.
One of the points I, and apparently a few others, am trying to get across, is that in a country with fewer big cars on the road you are safer on the road, whether it be as a driver, cyclist or pedestrian. A point that is easily backed up by all the available statistical data.
The second point is that the size of a car by no means determines the likelihood of surviving a high speed collision.
As I pointed out earlier, drivers of large cars are not necessarily less likely to sustain severe/fatal injuries in a crash, the F150 at 40mph looked in an even worse state than the Smart car did at 80mph. Whole load of deformation of the passenger compartment going on there.
The most important factor is the construction of the passenger compartment, steel is a good way to make it strong, clever structuring is another (as in the honeycombed carbon fibre cocoon an F1 driver is in - a lightweight, relatively flimsy material made absurdly strong by clever design). Something else that should certainly help is having a lower mass car, less energy to disipate in the event of a collision is obviously a good thing, though the mass/strength tradeoff is definately a delicate balance.
As though we needed more reason to support those types of cars.Stingray24 wrote:
I wouldn’t be here to make this thread had I been driving a little Prius, Yaris, or something like it. I'd be part of the twisted heap of what used to be cheap plastic and "crumple zones".
What do you drive?Stingray24 wrote:
Intrusion doesn't matter?!?! Tell that to my cousin and my uncle who foolishly bought one of your wonderful crumpling zone cars and ended up with the engine between them in the front seat. They also both had broken legs and my cousin had to have a rod in his leg.jonsimon wrote:
The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.
I was hit head on at 60mph and the engine in my car stayed where it belonged without crumple zones or airbags and I had no internal injuries. The police estimated the other car was traveling at least 70mph.
The car I was driving when I was hit was a 1990 Pontiac Bonneville. Looked a lot like this.
Now I drive these:
1988 Olds 98 Regency - 211K miles
1994 GMC Jimmy 4x4
Now I drive these:
1988 Olds 98 Regency - 211K miles
1994 GMC Jimmy 4x4
All a damn sight bigger, and I'm sure tougher, than my little car (which is old and not a good example of a strong small car - the new version is pretty tough though).Stingray24 wrote:
The car I was driving when I was hit was a 1990 Pontiac Bonneville. Looked a lot like this.
http://www.carsurvey.org/images/pontiac … ille_2.jpg
Now I drive these:
1988 Olds 98 Regency - 211K miles
http://www.airbagcrash.com/images/375_89.jpg
1994 GMC Jimmy 4x4
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_im … 3305_1.jpg
Although I've had an 80mph head on collision in it and everything was fine. Fortunately it wasn't with another car.
80 wow. What did you collide with?
A TV. A Goodmans TV, I figured out from a bit I pulled out from under my car.Stingray24 wrote:
80 wow. What did you collide with?
In the middle of the fucking Motorway, in the rain - poor visibility and it's really not what you expect. Was quite a jolt and had me pretty fucking worried, I had no idea what would happen, quite a minor dent in the front now.
It was quite impressive - showered all three lanes with glass and plastic and all sorts.
Only other incident I've had was a moped crashing into the back of me while I was stopped at a zebra crossing while a woman with a pram crossed the road.
Nice work! Darned TV sets parking in the middle of the road.Bertster7 wrote:
It was quite impressive - showered all three lanes with glass and plastic and all sorts.
Damn straight.Stingray24 wrote:
Nice work! Darned TV sets parking in the middle of the road.Bertster7 wrote:
It was quite impressive - showered all three lanes with glass and plastic and all sorts.
Then refrain from citing material whose content you "dimissed".blisteringsilence wrote:
I did, as it turns out, listen to the movie. And then I dismissed the drivel from the uneducated talking heads, and replaced it from the knowledge you get from working with motor vehicle collisions for years.
I expressly used the word 'didn't'. Meaning, in this case it didn't matter. Learn to read.Stingray24 wrote:
Intrusion doesn't matter?!?! Tell that to my cousin and my uncle who foolishly bought one of your wonderful crumpling zone cars and ended up with the engine between them in the front seat. They also both had broken legs and my cousin had to have a rod in his leg.jonsimon wrote:
The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.
I was hit head on at 60mph and the engine in my car stayed where it belonged without crumple zones or airbags and I had no internal injuries. The police estimated the other car was traveling at least 70mph.
OK, I can do that. Right after you back up the following statement with some medicine. Or physics. I'm not picky. But I want science, not television.jonsimon wrote:
Then refrain from citing material whose content you "dimissed".
I'm waiting with baited breath.jonsimon wrote:
The instrusion didn't matter, deceleration from 70 to 0 in 1 second would cause irreperable damage to your internal organs.