A small 2009 car demolishes a 1959 Chevy in a crash test
Printable View
Back in the '60s I remember it being said to avoid a head on at all cost, any last second swerve was worth the attempt. I wonder with modern crumple zones and airbags if that is still the case. I'm thinking mainly about potential high speed impacts on highways.
I've had the underwear changing moment where I've been saying to myself - that truck isn't really on my side of the road is it? After the fact I've since wondered about what evasive action would be best practice.
Swerving is always the best option (assuming you have somewhere clear to swerve to). Best case is you avoid crashing, worst case is you still crash, but by simply changing from head-on to crashing at an angle you reduce the amount of energy the car has to absorb
Things generally happen so quickly and instinctively that you usually don't have time to do much at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanjacobs
The driver that was texting and about to run head on into me was doing probably only doing 50 kph. I was almost stopped and had nowhere to swerve to, plus I was going so slowly I had insufficient speed to get out of his way. The other driver saw me at the last second and he attempted to brake and swerve.
the damage doesn't look that bad but both cars suffered significant chassis and suspension damage and were totalled. My steering and dashboard collapse temporarily trapping me in the car. His front suspension strut tore away my accelerator pedal (luckily my foot was on the brake) sending my engine to full revs. I got a few cuts and scratches and the other drive got a broken collar bone. I don't think not swerving would have helped much in this case
Attachment 369440
A major problem at speed, on top of swerving the drivers instinct will be to hit the brakes, which usually results in a dangerous roll over.
Where animals are concerned the recommendations is not to swerve.
The other problem with swerving is the tendency to swerve away from the oncoming vehicle which is usually to the left. Suddenly the only thing between the driver and the oncoming car is the driver's door where there is simply not enough distance to incorporate any sort of decent crumple zone. Not swerving leaves the front metre or so of crumple zone and engine to absorbed the impact. Seat belts and air bags can look after the driver better on front impacts than side impacts.
Then there is the legal aspect, and that is not doing everything possible to avoid an accident.
If you don't attempt to swerve out of the way then you may be held partially liable even if the initial cause was not your fault.
After all that I would still attempt to swerve.
OOH That Vid is chilling!!! "They don't make them like they used", saying has a different meaning!!!!
before seeing that clip i would have thought the big old beasts such as that chevy would be like hitting an immovable object. but it seems the engine just shoves over to the other side of the car leaving nothing but empty space between the front bumper and driver. the dummy got pancaked!
Watching that vid sorta brings back a sphincter clenching memory. My father had that model Bel Air back in the 60's. On one family holiday to Sydney I remember him cranking it up on the Hume Hwy to see if it would make 100MPH. It did.Quote:
Originally Posted by chambezio
That thing used to have suspension built to rock and roll, bump steering, cross ply tyres, brakes weren't worth a pinch and definitely no seat belts. Not to mention the Hume Hwy in the 60's. :driving:
On a recent road trip through the NT I cranked up the Commodore to 170kmh on an unrestricted section of the Stuart Hwy and had a job holding it to a straight line over the undulations. Goodness knows what the Bel Air felt like.
All new cars must have stability control (commonly called ESP or some such) to minimize chance of roll over. Swerve away! To be honest though, if you are thinking about what to do, trying to make some kind of rational decision, chances are you are just going to have big crash. Conscious thought is actually quite slow, reaction is what will save you. If you have time to think, hit the brakes and reduce total energy as much as possible, and hope the other side does the same.
off the brakes and hard on the accelerator in the last 100 milliseconds is probably the best option as it will lift the front of your vehicle and increase the chance that your crumple zones will ride higher than the other vehicle's and add your front suspension to the energy absorption
BUT
judging the "last 100 milliseconds is probably impossible.
swerving -- there's attempting to avoid a crash, by braking and changing lanes (when another lane is available), but your primary responsibility (after avoiding pedestrians) is to you and your passengers.
crashing into another vehicle at 60 to avoid a pedestrian should be "acceptable" -- doing the same to avoid a dog, not.
at highway speed swerving to avoid an animal is usually the last thing you should attempt -- off road into object or a roll over is definitely less fun than losing a light to a roo
what is curious is this comment
Even though I've seen crash test footage before, I was shocked at how quickly the airbag deployed in the newer car...it's fully inflated before the rest of the car and its occupants even realize that inertia is about to do some bad things.
by design, an air bag should be DEFLATING when your face smacks into it, otherwise it can't act as a cushion
I was in a similar crash on what is now I-5 just south of Oceanside. I was in a 1958 Chevrolet (The video is a 1959 Chevrolet.) but it was a straight 6 cylinder engine and the pickup truck, (UTE) rather than a car, hit to right (Passenger side. Remember we're backward up here.) of center. The passenger seat was wiped out and probably if there was a passenger there would have been a fatality for the passenger.
In my case the UTE hit and forced the straight six toward the driver side, forming a protective triangle, shunting the destructive forces through the passenger area.
About 10 minutes before the crash with the drunk driver, my district engineer saw me in a petrol station filling the tank and asked if my seat belt hanging out the door was my "Athletic Supporter Strap" hanging out the door. I then buckled my seat belt. That comment and the straight six shunting the energy saved my life.
Must be a small roo?Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
The roo that unfortunately jumped into front driver side mudguard of our Subaru at 110 kph did $8k of damage as it rattled its way down the drivers side of the vehicle.
The only thing I remember seeing before impact was the roo's face for a millisecond through the top right hand edge of the windscreen.
if that roo had been 30 ms faster it might have come through the windscreen.
But in those cases there's absolutely no chance to swerve anyway.
if you'd hit an object -- typically a tree or culvert headwall -- the air bags would have deployed, and your Subi "totaled"
so, $8k is equivalent to a "headlight"
Quote:
as it rattled its way down the drivers side of the vehicle
So headlight, front quarter panel, driver's door, possibly rear driver's side door and rear quarter panel as well. All of which need to be painted and fitted.
Also, an impact to that area of the car won't necessarily trigger the airbag if it's a glancing blow.
I found some pics.Quote:
Originally Posted by elanjacobs
Headlight was OK.
Because it was a near new vehicle the dinged front panel and drivers door were replaced.
Divers side mirror was also mangled and replaced.
It looks like very little damage but apparently the chassis above the
Attachment 369735
Attachment 369736
and it was still drivable -- very minor damage in my book, even if it did cost $8k to repair
Like others here I'm quite amazed by that video. The '59 is my dream chevy - I'd love the El Camino. I had also assumed that the older cars would be rock solid and would fare much better than a newer car in such a collision. But clearly that is not the case. A huge eye-opener for me. If I do get an older vehicle (which is the plan in the next few years) I will be looking at what safety measures I can add to it. But with the engine becoming the "weapon" in a crash like this there may not be too much that can be done...
Yeah I was shocked when I heard the cost of the repairs but apparently that is not unusual these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
I love the look of those 50s and 60s cars but would never own one now.
When someone once said, in the presence of my father "they don't build them like they used to'', His reply was was "No! Thank God.''
Really there's nothing you can do to improve the crumple zones for improved crash protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppa
You could fit a roll cage to improve the passenger compartment rigidity -- but ...
perhaps the best options would be
new seats incorporating head rests -- reduces whiplash injury risk
lap/sash seat belts -- properly anchored within the vehicle
only drive the vehicle short distances at moderate speed -- reducing your exposure
I'd be interested in seeing the small car vs my 1975 landcruiser with steel bullbar ... genuinely, not dismissively ...
Paul
You may be surprised at just how good some automobiles are. I used to share a house with a crash repairer many moons ago, yep there was a general impression of disaster when a small unit came in looking like a total wreck.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmcgee
However, I was at a Melbourne Automobile show about 11 or so years ago and actually saw this automobile. Daimler Chrysler (as they were called then) had one of their customers walk away from this head on (half full frontal from memory) crash. The left side of the vehicle was completely untouched and it was displayed in a way that you saw only the untouched side when you approached their stand. However there was a raised mirror that was placed in an unmissable position, once you saw that mirror image of the drivers side, you couldn't believe it was the same vehicle. One then walked around to the other side, and naturally stopped at the front as well.
That was the vehicle that left the most impression on the majority of show attendees, many people whom I met at the show mostly mentioned, "have you seen the crashed little Mercedes?"
The blurb that went with the vehicle at the show mentioned the closing speed of the crash was 180 km/h and it was thrown into the air, then rolled a couple of times. The mother and her two sons walked away.
Scroll down and see the picture and read the contents.
MB Spares, Australia's leading Independent Mercedes-Benz spare parts supplier.
Mick.
The vehicles, a Ford F-250 towing a large off road caravan.
F Truck all up around 4 tonne, the van 3,500 kg
F Truck fitted with a heavy all steel bull bar,
Bull bar mostly 50mm heavy wall steel tube, really heavy strong stuff, never lose an argument with that up front I thought.
Location, about 70 K North of Tamworth NSW
Speed about 90 K
= a lot of moving mass.
11am, a roo jumps out of the scrub right in front of the left guard.
Result, bull bar bent back into LH headlamp and guard.
Left guard a write off.
Left front door a write off
Rear LH tub panel a write off
That's because roo banged along and under left side of vehicle.
Roo still kicking on side of road so despatched with axe.
Weight and steel does not always win.
Now the funny part.
I was in the office of a van park explaining to the park owner what had caused the damage. (He asked)
A Toorak lady driving a Volvo was booking into a cabin and overheard the conversation.
Oh! says she, how absolutely terrible, the Government has to do something, I will write to my local member.
What will the Government do about the damage to my truck, I ask.
It's not about your truck, she says.
The Government has to fence all these country roads to look after our wildlife.
All true.
Regards
Bob