Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
As others mentioned, a 45 mph impact is pretty significant. Even if the projectile only weighs 2,500 pounds.
If you've ever seen footage of some of those crash tests done at 30 mph they are pretty impressive. Factor in another 15 mph and it gets exponentially worse. Although, impacting another vehicle versus a fixed object likely takes the level of devastation down a bit.
Mark is pretty much spot on. I have seen some smaller cars do well. I T-Boned a lady in Ft Collins many years ago. I hit her doing 45 smack in the middle of the passenger side front door (there was someone sitting there). Even with the side impact airbags (saved her life) she had a lacerated liver, broken ribs and a punctured lung. She was in a Volvo.
Seat belts are everything, especially in a rollover. The auto accident scene I transported the least number of times was a rollover. Either the occupants were out of the car walking around (they were restrained) or they were out of the car dead (they were not restrained). Very rarely was there an emergent return from a rollover. Think Rusty Wallace (Massive Rollover like 30 times) vs Dale Earnhardt (Straight into the wall)
Every accident is very different as to the mechanism. Speed, location of impact, type of vehicle, all go into how bad an accident is. All in all there are very safe vehicles out there, but even a stupid driver can make the safest vehicle unsafe. Here are a few pics from some accidents I ran on. There were so many more that were even worse, whenever I go back to Omaha I visit the scene of one my worst calls ever, 4 victims, 2 fatalities all high school kids. I was 22 at the time and it was a horrible scene. If you ever take any of my classes just ask, I will tell you about it.
vs. tree (Engine into front seat, this was a fatal)
Range Rover vs. Truck (Loaded with asphalt shingles) He was going very fast and hit this truck going very slow. This was a fatal as well (week later)
Last edited by cmailliard; 05-23-2016 at 14:38.
The truck was about 22 mph into the rear of a stopped semi, the mustang was 44 mph differential head on.
The IIHS does not recommend these tiny cars like the Fit, as cars that are slightly larger are more survivable and get about the same mileage. Sometimes, it just comes down to physics and the bigger vehicle wins (subcompact vs. SUV vs. tractor trailer vs. train).
Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
-Me
I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
-Also Me
Another thing to think about as well, is the amount of Gs the body is receiving. Even with all the crumple zones, there is still a lot of force going through to the passengers. It can reach over 45Gs. Which in return will damage the internal organs and cause internal hemorrhaging, ruptured organs etc.
Yep comes down to physics. I laugh at those who talk about the crash pod in SMART cars. It may not get damaged in a wreck but the force of the collision has to go somewhere. Without sufficient mass or large crumple zones in the vehicles it will go to the passengers.
Armageddon was yesterday, today we have a real problem.
Despite what your momma told you violence does solve problems-The Craft
True. Sad thing is that, at the forcing of the Insurance Industry, some car makers spend more time attempting to get 5 stars on the 5 mph bumper test than protecting occupants from side and rear impacts. Do not get me wrong, we have incredibly safe cars today as compared to those from the mid 1990s and older. But one of the safest cars on the road, pound for pound, could not survive in the marketplace (Saturn). The Ford/Mercury Taurus/Sable was another very safe platform that went by the wayside. Volvos are nowhere near as safe as they were at one time. The drive has been towards lowering repair costs for the 70% of the more common crashes in the past decade as opposed to decreasing lower extremity injuries and increasing survivability. It is almost like we came so far in such a short time while not seeing the data for what it is. While cars got safer and safer, the number of crashes was increasing and the number of deaths has held constant. The collision avoidance systems we are seeing now have been possible for a long time, but the market did not demand them. Cell phones and Ipods are likely a big driver of customer demand for these new systems.Originally Posted by SamuraiCO
What sucks is when a "safety" system hampers or damages. Like Anti-lock brakes when you are stuck in snow, or a speed limiter kicking in while a cop is on a curve. The big stick in the auto-industry right now with the collision avoidance is how to program the morality. For example. If you approach an intersection on a green light and a pedestrian steps into the crosswalk in front of you and insufficient distance to stop, does the program strike the pedestrian, steer you into a telephone pole, or veer you left into a van full of kids? I have always said you can not legislate morality, but soon, will a programmer decide your fate, or will you?
iRobot here we come. "You had a 60% chance of survival and the kid only had 10%. It did the logical thing by saving you".
I am NOT a fan of technology. It done us a lot of good but we have crossed into the threshold of it making us dumb.
Mark is pretty much spot on. I have seen some smaller cars do well. I T-Boned a lady in Ft Collins many years ago. I hit her doing 45 smack in the middle of the passenger side front door (there was someone sitting there). Even with the side impact airbags (saved her life) she had a lacerated liver, broken ribs and a punctured lung. She was in a Volvo.
Seat belts are everything, especially in a rollover. The auto accident scene I transported the least number of times was a rollover. Either the occupants were out of the car walking around (they were restrained) or they were out of the car dead (they were not restrained). Very rarely was there an emergent return from a rollover. Think Rusty Wallace (Massive Rollover like 30 times) vs Dale Earnhardt (Straight into the wall)
Every accident is very different as to the mechanism. Speed, location of impact, type of vehicle, all go into how bad an accident is. All in all there are very safe vehicles out there, but even a stupid driver can make the safest vehicle unsafe. Here are a few pics from some accidents I ran on. There were so many more that were even worse, whenever I go back to Omaha I visit the scene of one my worst calls ever, 4 victims, 2 fatalities all high school kids. I was 22 at the time and it was a horrible scene. If you ever take any of my classes just ask, I will tell you about it.
vs. tree (Engine into front seat, this was a fatal)
Range Rover vs. Truck (Loaded with asphalt shingles) He was going very fast and hit this truck going very slow. This was a fatal as well (week later)
Aside for suicide (people commit suicide in the vehicle alot) 90% of the fatal MV crashes I work are due to roll over and not wearing a seatbelt.
Last edited by Snowman78; 05-24-2016 at 17:16.
This is a really cool thread! Even though it's discussing tragedy.
Vehicle size made a huge difference when we replaced our family car a few years back. We are both natives but have never been SUV people. Came from families that never even owned an SUV. Thought they were kind of silly when you know how to drive in snow.
But we got a large SUV just because everyone here has one and thus the odds of being in an accident with a larger vehicle are high.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote