Drive careful on wet roads

Gidday Bennie



Yes. Very interesting and informative.

In my youth, a young woman in a Mini hit an old single spinner Ford square on in the front. IF she had been wearing a seatbelt, she would have walked away from it. As it was, she was thrown through the windscreen into the middle of it all, and died instantly.

The couple in the Ford were not seriously injured.

What was really interesting was that the Mini penetrated to within a foot or so of the bottom of the windscreen of the Ford (about 4 feet ... ), while it was only crushed back a foot or so, with the engine rolling under the firewall protection bar and forcing the body of the Mini up and away from the impact; while absorbing much of the impact. The passenger compartment of the Mini was not distorted at all. The Mini was the very first car to have pre-determined crumple rates designed into it, AFAIK.

You could have changed gears with a screwdriver while sitting in the back seat of the Ford.

Relative masses?
Ford approx. 2 tons (4,480 lbs / 2,000 kgs)
Mini approx. 1/2 ton (1,120 lbs / 500 kgs)

A friend who used to run a wrecking/repair business told me that he had never seen any Mini come in with any sort of major distortion of the passenger compartment in some 25~30 years.

Yeah that's pretty much what happens down here in victoria too - either they don't pass or they'll wait a long time before they do. Worst are those who pass only then to turn off at the next intersection that's either a couple of hundred metres or a km ahead...

When you watch the driving behaviour of some drivers, it is quite amazing that the gutters are not running with blood ...


Sorry you had to witness such an accident and glad to hear you didn't become a part of it. And two thumbs up talking to the dad, loads of courage needed for that!

I have only had to help drag a few people out of smashes. Fortunately none so serious as these. Still a very sobering experience.

A "normal" sized car weighing about 1,000 kgs has about the same hitting power at 60 kms/h as a .600 Nitro Express rifle (Elephant gun ... ) at point-blank range. Think about it :shake:.

Cheers

Bennie

American cars have different airbag deployment rates and amounts and actuation speeds (deceleration rates) from those fitted to Australian vehicles. As I understand it, this is because airbags in Oz assume that one is wearing a properly fitted seatbelt as is required by law. The wearing of a seatbelt is not a legal requirement in the USA, AFAIK.

It is interesting that in my Fox (MY06) the vehicle weighs the front seat passenger and deploys the airbag according to its calculations. I assume that this is the norm for modern vehicles here. Does anyone know?
 
That Malibu/Bel Air crash was crazy? did you see the steeing wheel in the BelAir smash that dummy in the face? Lucky to be alive I say (for a real person)


American cars have different airbag deployment rates and amounts and actuation speeds (deceleration rates) from those fitted to Australian vehicles. As I understand it, this is because airbags in Oz assume that one is wearing a properly fitted seatbelt as is required by law. The wearing of a seatbelt is not a legal requirement in the USA, AFAIK.

Depends on the state, some just the driver, some just the front... people under a certain age must wear them... most people don't, they told me that it was an infringement on their civil rights or something :raspberry:
 
I'm not sure who has fed you guys that, but it is very illegal to drive without a seatbelt in any state in the US. It's been that way since i was born atleast (growing up the kid of a city officer-my dad & a sheriffs deputy- my mom).

However i did read from another forum that the reason they may have chosen that particular model.

"They picked the '59 Bel-Air on purpose. It has an "X" frame; the weakest frame design ever. It literally comes together in the center of the car to form an “X” so that on any frontal impact it folds at the center of the car. This is a setup in the worst way."
 
Gidday Matt

I'm not sure who has fed you guys that, but it is very illegal to drive without a seatbelt in any state in the US. It's been that way since i was born atleast (growing up the kid of a city officer-my dad & a sheriffs deputy- my mom).

I guess it depends a lot on when you were born ... :iconwink:.

Good to hear that this is no longer the case.

In Oz every person travelling in a vehicle must be wearing a seat belt.
In my MY06 Fox, these are all three point lap/sash belts. In Roo1 (1993), the centre rear belt was a lap belt only.

There are special rules that apply to children and infants. They must be restrained using devices that comply with Australian Standards.

However i did read from another forum that the reason they may have chosen that particular model.

"They picked the '59 Bel-Air on purpose. It has an "X" frame; the weakest frame design ever. It literally comes together in the center of the car to form an “X” so that on any frontal impact it folds at the center of the car. This is a setup in the worst way."

That's an interesting thought, because some of the strongest cars built (for type) have used this chassis design.

The Toyota Tarago was the only van-type passenger vehicle that met Oz crash testing standards for a long while. AFAIK, the ANCAP results are relied upon by US authorities, and pre-date the US use of such a system of rating vehicles. The Tarago had an X-beam chassis. So do some Lotus cars; and most mid/rear engined cars.

The Oz ANCAP site is here:
https://www.ancap.com.au/home

I note with interest their statement (in the FAQ section of their site):

https://www.ancap.com.au/faqs

"If the speed was increased in all your tests what would be the effects in each test?

Speed of impact has a large effect on the risk of serious injury to occupants. Even a small increase in impact speed (eg 10km/h) could turn an easily survival crash into one where occupants have a high risk of serious injury.

The ANCAP crash test speeds represent the higher end of real-world crash speeds. For example, the
frontal offset crash test is conducted at 64km/h. From real-world (US) data, more than half of all fatalities to seat-belt-wearing drivers in frontal crashes occur at impact speeds under 55km/h. We need to address these fatalities, as well as considering higher impact speeds and 64km/h is considered a good balance." {emphasis added by JK}

An interesting US report about impacts between large SUVs and smaller vehicles in this PDF (only 800K):

https://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4108.pdf
 
Back
Top