Why is Passenger Seat the "Death Seat" - Page 2

geckoGT · 06-07-2010, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Again some really informative posts here. On the topic of safety enhancements in new cars, what are people thoughts on the size of pillars in new cars. Those without airbags in particular.

My Falcons are large, the Commodores are enormous. Aside from the huge blindspot, how do they react in an accident?

Good point, but what is the point of them behaving well in an accident when they increase your chances of being in a crash in the first place?

The ever increasing panel work and decreasing glass area is a disturbing trend in terms of safety in more recent cars.

Gaz · 06-07-2010, 08:11 PM

Isn't there also a large number of crashes where it's a direct hit for the driver? More so in crashes where there is a loss of control and time to try and recover?

I've heard that it generally occurs because a driver will look at an object when losing control to try and avoid it, but where your looking is normally where you end up?

geckoGT · 06-07-2010, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaz

Isn't there also a large number of crashes where it's a direct hit for the driver? More so in crashes where there is a loss of control and time to try and recover?

I've heard that it generally occurs because a driver will look at an object when losing control to try and avoid it, but where your looking is normally where you end up?

Its called target fixation, look where you want to go and not where you want to avoid because you will end up where you are looking.

Not convinced this causes the driver to take a direct hit with any real regularity, stats seem to suggest otherwise.

04redxr8 · 06-07-2010, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Good point, but what is the point of them behaving well in an accident when they increase your chances of being in a crash in the first place?

The ever increasing panel work and decreasing glass area is a disturbing trend in terms of safety in more recent cars.

I actually meant, are they more dangerous? Something that large coming into the cabin with force would surely cause extra and unnecassary injury. Wouldnt it?

I ask that because after doing a couple of track days in my XR, with a helmet on, it was suprising how many times the helmet came in contact with the roof. Made think that there really isn't as much headroom in there as I first thought.

zdcol71 · 06-07-2010, 08:28 PM

When I was 14 yo, I was involved in a head on with my dad, his work mate and my sister.
Dad had just bought a VG Regal Safari Wagon, with VIP trim and loved it to death. We went to a football game one night and left the carpark after giving way to some young kid in a FC Holden or similar, cause as Dad said "he didn't want some young kid scraping into his brand new car"
If we had pushed ahead, what followed would not have happened.
We travelled down the road 10 mins, and got landed upon by some drunk who had been celebrating his 21st all day at the Oxcley Pub, hit a car and motorbike at the lights and took off up the Ipswich Highway( for those that knew it).
He lost control and crossed the median strip and landed on top of us, (I have pictures of both cars at the police accademy at Oxley after the crash, coppers told us it was the worst crash they had ever seen where anyone got out alive),anyway ,the end results were ..Dad in the driver seat got busted up real bad... broken jaws, cheek bones, arm,legs(multiple steel pins and plates),all products of inertia and dull trauma.He had on a 3 point belt (long before inertia reel seatbelts).His mate,in the passenger seat, came out of the crash with not a scratch but ended up in a repat ward for 16 months as a comotose vegetable from whiplash from his 3 point belt.
My sister in the back passenger seat (both of which had lap sash belts), broke 3 bones in her spine and had 20+ stiches in a head wound from impacting on the front seat, and I "died" on an operating table from internal injuries I recieved from the lap sash belt.(thankfully operated upon quickly enough)
The night of the accident we were supposed to pick up another friend, who would have been sitting in the middle rear seat (without a belt), who, had he been with us, would have certainly died with a Valiant hood ornament through his chest ,that ended up embedded in the padding of the rear seat.
I guess the point is ,every seat is the death seat if you are in the zone... wear your belts and be aware that you are just one stupid act away from being dead on the road if you are not doing everything you can to avoid being a statsitic

geckoGT · 06-07-2010, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zdcol71

When I was 14 yo, I was involved in a head on with my dad, his work mate and my sister.
Dad had just bought a VG Regal Safari Wagon, with VIP trim and loved it to death. We went to a football game one night and left the carpark after giving way to some young kid in a FC Holden or similar, cause as Dad said "he didn't want some young kid scraping into his brand new car"
If we had pushed ahead, what followed would not have happened.
We travelled down the road 10 mins, and got landed upon by some drunk who had been celebrating his 21st all day at the Oxcley Pub, hit a car and motorbike at the lights and took off up the Ipswich Highway( for those that knew it).
He lost control and crossed the median strip and landed on top of us, (I have pictures of both cars at the police accademy at Oxley after the crash, coppers told us it was the worst crash they had ever seen where anyone got out alive),anyway ,the end results were ..Dad in the driver seat got busted up real bad... broken jaws, cheek bones, arm,legs(multiple steel pins and plates),all products of inertia and dull trauma.He had on a 3 point belt (long before inertia reel seatbelts).His mate,in the passenger seat, came out of the crash with not a scratch but ended up in a repat ward for 16 months as a comotose vegetable from whiplash from his 3 point belt.
My sister in the back passenger seat (both of which had lap sash belts), broke 3 bones in her spine and had 20+ stiches in a head wound from impacting on the front seat, and I "died" on an operating table from internal injuries I recieved from the lap sash belt.(thankfully operated upon quickly enough)
The night of the accident we were supposed to pick up another friend, who would have been sitting in the middle rear seat (without a belt), who, had he been with us, would have certainly died with a Valiant hood ornament through his chest ,that ended up embedded in the padding of the rear seat.
I guess the point is ,every seat is the death seat if you are in the zone... wear your belts and be aware that you are just one stupid act away from being dead on the road if you are not doing everything you can to avoid being a statsitic

Wow, every day is a blessing after that. Your experience is testimony to the fact that every restraint and every safety mechanism has a limit of force that it can withstand. Just like the audi off the m1, the sedan head on into a B Double or the porsche I went to, all under forces not likely to be survivable.

Your post makes a good example on how the old, non adjusting seat belts used to cause internal injuries. No longer so much of a problem with modern seat belt systems.

My check list with a car consists of it must have ABS, DSC, all lap sash belts, Pre-tensioners, front airbags x 2 and side air bags x2. Anything less than that and I will not consider it, not for any of my family. The Mini excels at this, it has all this but has 10 airbags (if they all went off at once it would probably crush you), the F6 has 4.

Marduk · 06-07-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

To sum it up, it is the death seat and out of all the fatals I have attended at least half of them have been front passengers. A lot of this would be avoided if passengers realised that it is not only the driver that has motoring safety to be concerned about. The front passenger has a responsibility to sit up properly, wear your seat belt, keep you feet off the dash (feet on dash, air bag deployed and leg snapped off is very nasty), remain alert and help the driver out by giving an alert if a hazard approaches.

Even as a passenger I am always looking for hazards and stuff as if I was the one driving. It's just a force of habit for me.

geckoGT · 06-07-2010, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marduk

Even as a passenger I am always looking for hazards and stuff as if I was the one driving. It's just a force of habit for me.

Safest way to be, two sets of eyes are better than 1. It is difficult to prevent being accused of being a back seat driver though.

Brazen · 06-07-2010, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Its called target fixation, look where you want to go and not where you want to avoid because you will end up where you are looking.

Not convinced this causes the driver to take a direct hit with any real regularity, stats seem to suggest otherwise.

Target fixation is something they are starting to take into account with lightbar flashing patterns on police car lightbars. With new gen LED rapid random flash pattern lightbars it was claimed it was causing an increase of drivers being drawn to the lights like moths and crashing into the back of stationary cruisers.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) have now started making their lightbars have a very simple left, right, left, right etc flash, and in some cases encourage officers to actually not have the lightbar on altogether and simply use their hazard lights instead if its its safe to do so. Simply because drives focus on the flashing lights and drive straight into it. Crazy.

geckoGT · 06-07-2010, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brazen

Target fixation is something they are starting to take into account with lightbar flashing patterns on police car lightbars. With new gen LED rapid random flash pattern lightbars it was claimed it was causing an increase of drivers being drawn to the lights like moths and crashing into the back of stationary cruisers.

The California Highway Patrol (CHP) have now started making their lightbars have a very simple left, right, left, right etc flash, and in some cases encourage officers to actually not have the lightbar on altogether and simply use their hazard lights instead if its its safe to do so. Simply because drives focus on the flashing lights and drive straight into it. Crazy.

That is crazy. We find the opposite, drivers don't drive into us regularly, they just stop or don't get out of the way.

We have gone for more lights of red, white and blue with greater coverage for all angles as many commented they could not see the lights in daytime from some directions on the older vehicles, particularly the Ford F series.

Cabbage · 07-07-2010, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Here is a thought. As it appears middle back seat is the safest, why is it the one least considered by car designers? It is almost always the least comfortable, and therefore least inviting. The centre rear seat belt seams to be thrown in as an afterthought, with that seat position being the lumpy, firm bit between the "proper" left and right rear seats.

Are car manufacturers leaving themselves open to legal action for making it harder to use the safest passenger area in the car??

Thinking about your post I remember when I was younger and we would jump in the family sedan to go somewhere, my old man would always blow up if you sat in the middle rear seat cause he reckoned you blocked his rear vision. I guess perhaps of the three rear seats its the least often used because it is more uncomfortable and it generally obstructs the driver's rear vision. Perhaps thats why its not made to be a comfortable seat.

Fireblade · 07-07-2010, 07:40 AM

My old man was the same, wouldn't let me sit in the middle of the ol' XF. I certainly don't have an issue with my son sitting in the middle, and like Gecko I like the fact my car has the 4 airbags in the front for our safety, nice to have a performance car with safety in mind, bigger brakes, airbags and pre tensioners. The auto world has come a long way in the last decade in safety IMO.

Bud Bud · 07-07-2010, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zdcol71

His mate,in the passenger seat, came out of the crash with not a scratch but ended up in a repat ward for 16 months as a comotose vegetable from whiplash from his 3 point belt.

Wow as geckoGT said, every day is a blessing from then on. What ultimately happened to your dads mate?

There are always exceptions to the rule. In the early 80's I had a mate that had an XW and he met up with two (unknown to him) fellows in a country (Adelaide hills) pub on a Friday or Saturday night (I just can't remember now). One wanted to go to a party in a neighbouring town but my mate did not want to take them because he had been drinking and it was not unusual to leave the car at the pub and walk home even in those days.

Well some how one of them convinced him that they were ok to drive so they left in my mates car with one laying on the back seat the other driving and my mate in the death seat. No one was wearing a seat belt. Long shot of it all was the driver lost control and hit a tree. My mate was ejected through the windscreen and found 20 meters from the wreck. He survived with small cuts and a broken leg, but otherwise ok. The other two however died in the accident. He did not even know them. They said that if he was wearing a seat belt he may not have survived either who knows.

This was an accident waiting to happen and the only way to avoid this type of carnage is to not take stupid risks in the first place.

In another I have a close friend (but I did not her when this happened) that had a 180B. She along with her two male friends were returning from Pt Augusta in the mid 90's I think. My friend was the front passenger and one of her friends who was unlicensed was driving with the other friend lying across the rear seat. The two passengers were both asleep at the time.

Somewhere near Pt Pirie the driver too nodded of and strayed into the path of an oncoming truck. The result being that one of the occupants (I think the rear passenger) died at the scene and the other one suffering from slight brain damage, even today. My friend who was in the death seat and asleep at the time actually escaped without a scratch, but it has affected her mentally and emotionally since as you would imagine. The car actually bucked and created a bubble around the front passenger position. It was just luck that the car hit on the drivers side that created the bubble around her.

These were both older cars with no real safety features other than seat belts and both were extraordinary cases, so there are exceptions, it just depends on the circumstances.

Bud Bud

AussieAV · 07-07-2010, 09:26 AM

Quick check on the Ford Australia Website, and on the Falcon at least, Seat-Belt Pre-tensioners are only for the front seats. Again, told kids should be in the back, but then no advanced safety features included for them! - Whats up with that!!!

Martyvan · 07-07-2010, 09:34 AM

My Pajero has 4 airbags in the front and curtains all the way back. I wanted to be sure there was at least some protection all the way back. I like the fact the sill height is a little bit higher than a standard vehicle. Juat means less chance of intrusion in the case of side or rear impact, particularly in the 3rd row. Front passenger seat would result in significant leg injury for me in a frontal impact as my knees hit the glovebox.

I really hope that we dont need them. But as gecko said when it comes to family, there can never be too much safety.

Its amazing how much you notice when you actually concentrate on everything going on around you, not just making sure your own car stays on the road.

Imagine how many fewer accidents there would be if you could install the driving habits from a 35 year old parent into someone learning to drive.... .......

geckoGT · 07-07-2010, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Wow as geckoGT said, every day is a blessing from then on. What ultimately happened to your dads mate?

There are always exceptions to the rule. In the early 80's I had a mate that had an XW and he met up with two (unknown to him) fellows in a country (Adelaide hills) pub on a Friday or Saturday night (I just can't remember now). One wanted to go to a party in a neighbouring town but my mate did not want to take them because he had been drinking and it was not unusual to leave the car at the pub and walk home even in those days.

Well some how one of them convinced him that they were ok to drive so they left in my mates car with one laying on the back seat the other driving and my mate in the death seat. No one was wearing a seat belt. Long shot of it all was the driver lost control and hit a tree. My mate was ejected through the windscreen and found 20 meters from the wreck. He survived with small cuts and a broken leg, but otherwise ok. The other two however died in the accident. He did not even know them. They said that if he was wearing a seat belt he may not have survived either who knows.

This was an accident waiting to happen and the only way to avoid this type of carnage is to not take stupid risks in the first place.

In another I have a close friend (but I did not her when this happened) that had a 180B. She along with her two male friends were returning from Pt Augusta in the mid 90's I think. My friend was the front passenger and one of her friends who was unlicensed was driving with the other friend lying across the rear seat. The two passengers were both asleep at the time.

Somewhere near Pt Pirie the driver too nodded of and strayed into the path of an oncoming truck. The result being that one of the occupants (I think the rear passenger) died at the scene and the other one suffering from slight brain damage, even today. My friend who was in the death seat and asleep at the time actually escaped without a scratch, but it has affected her mentally and emotionally since as you would imagine. The car actually bucked and created a bubble around the front passenger position. It was just luck that the car hit on the drivers side that created the bubble around her.

These were both older cars with no real safety features other than seat belts and both were extraordinary cases, so there are exceptions, it just depends on the circumstances.

Bud Bud

Yes there are exceptions to the statistics but a crash is a chaotic event of which we have little control, the exceptions are pretty rare and I would not count on them.

In the first case the passenger that was ejected from the vehicle may have survived because they were ejected, they were lucky. In every case I have been to that involved an ejection from the vehicle, none of the ejected persons have survived.

Quote:

Quick check on the Ford Australia Website, and on the Falcon at least, Seat-Belt Pre-tensioners are only for the front seats. Again, told kids should be in the back, but then no advanced safety features included for them! - Whats up with that!!!

The only explanation I can provide is cost cutting, the pretensioners are expensive units and to install in all vehicles will cost a fortune. This is an expense that is unlikely to be easily passed to the consumer as the majority of consumers would ask why they need them in rear seats that are frequently empty.

I would not be surprised to see them become pretty much standard in the next 5 years as the push for increased safety continues and the manufacture of the components becomes cheaper.

geckoGT · 07-07-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martyvan

My Pajero has 4 airbags in the front and curtains all the way back. I wanted to be sure there was at least some protection all the way back. I like the fact the sill height is a little bit higher than a standard vehicle. Juat means less chance of intrusion in the case of side or rear impact, particularly in the 3rd row. Front passenger seat would result in significant leg injury for me in a frontal impact as my knees hit the glovebox.

I really hope that we dont need them. But as gecko said when it comes to family, there can never be too much safety.

Its amazing how much you notice when you actually concentrate on everything going on around you, not just making sure your own car stays on the road.

Imagine how many fewer accidents there would be if you could install the driving habits from a 35 year old parent into someone learning to drive.... .......

I would not consider myself too safe in a 4WD, safety is often a misconception in large 4WD's. It is only in the last few years after a lot of negative press that the manufacturers are starting to make some real improvements.

Some studies I have read suggest with evidence that a 4WD is more likely to be involved in a crash in the first place compared to a regular sedan due to decreased braking and handling ability. A crash avoided is much better than one survived.

Also there is evidence that due to the increased rigidity of the body structure of a 4WD, more force is exerted on the occupants due to less crumple effect, resulting in higher severe injury rates.

Depending on what year Pajero you have, the most recent ANCAP test for Pajero is a 2004 model which only scored 4 stars. So in a offset frontal impact at 64 km/h and and a side impact at 50 km/h, I have a greater chance of walking out of my Mini (2007) with less injuries than a Pajero (2004). Remember with ANCAP testing, the majority of the information is not calculated from vehicle deformation in total, it is calculated from passenger cell intrusion/deformation and passenger injury sensors.

Medic · 07-07-2010, 12:33 PM

Hi geckoGT as a fellow Paramedic I think you are missing Martyvans point. In any accident there are so many relevant factors: speed in town/open road highway ,size of vehicle, conditions wet/dry ,driver competancy and what you hit.
If a large 4wd was to collide with a vehicle much smaller in mass at a lower speed, it would push it back the way it came from or engulf it.I have a 2007 Territory, 2000 au falcon and a suzuki GS1000. They are all vunerable in a collision the bike being the worst. The misconception that 4WD's are unsafe is not totaly true. It is true that a car will out handle a 4WD and the potential is there for it to avoid an accident.The 4WD being higher may see a pending accident and act accordingly to avoid it. As far as the body structure of the 4WD having more rigidity and less crumple zones is not 100% correct. With latest crash test's the 4wd's of the last 4 years protect the occupants well,depending on what type of accident the 4WD protects better than some cars.
So yes a large newer 4WD would be my choice for transporting my loved ones in and was a big improvement from a van.

So what that means is that no one type of vehicle is safer than another in all situations.

geckoGT · 07-07-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medic

Hi geckoGT as a fellow Paramedic I think you are missing Martyvans point. In any accident there are so many relevant factors: speed in town/open road highway ,size of vehicle, conditions wet/dry ,driver competancy and what you hit.
If a large 4wd was to collide with a vehicle much smaller in mass at a lower speed, it would push it back the way it came from or engulf it.I have a 2007 Territory, 2000 au falcon and a suzuki GS1000. They are all vunerable in a collision the bike being the worst. The misconception that 4WD's are unsafe is not totaly true. It is true that a car will out handle a 4WD and the potential is there for it to avoid an accident.The 4WD being higher may see a pending accident and act accordingly to avoid it. As far as the body structure of the 4WD having more rigidity and less crumple zones is not 100% correct. With latest crash test's the 4wd's of the last 4 years protect the occupants well,depending on what type of accident the 4WD protects better than some cars.
So yes a large newer 4WD would be my choice for transporting my loved ones in and was a big improvement from a van.

So what that means is that no one type of vehicle is safer than another in all situations.

Did not miss the point, just conveying some results from research that do not look favourably for 4WD. Yes I agree that in the last 4-5 years 4WD have come a long way, as I said. Prior to those improvements the 4WD vehicle on average was behind its sedan counterparts, despite what the public believe.

Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer.

Martyvan · 07-07-2010, 02:16 PM

point taken and understood... my pajero handles like a boat. simple as that. so i have adjusted my driving style appropriately.... there is no way on earth i try and drive it like my focus... in the 'boat' there is a definite need to brake earlier, and slow down heaps more around corners.

Mine was more the suggestion that ANCAP test are controlled, and specific. real world impacts are not so specific. I.e. your mini running into the side of my pajero would probably do damage to the chassis rail, but, there would be minimal passenger compartment compression. Whereas the chassis rail on your mini, would be slightly below the pajero, so would 'slide' underneath, causing all of the mini crash design features to come into play. Engine movement, deformation etc.

Im under no illusion as to the limitations of my car, as Medic said, it provides a lot safer alternative than a Kia Carnival/Tarago style of car. Which is the number of seats we were chasing. a Territory wasin the shopping basket, but, may not have gone where we wanted it to go. (off road etc)

getting back On topic, driven appropriately, my car should be slightly safer than a 'normal' car in an impact, given there is slightly less chance of passenger compartment deformation due to the height of the chassis... but, there is probably slightly more chance of an accident in the first place due to comprimises which allow it go further off road......

geckoGT · 07-07-2010, 04:23 PM

Quote:

point taken and understood... my pajero handles like a boat. simple as that. so i have adjusted my driving style appropriately.... there is no way on earth i try and drive it like my focus... in the 'boat' there is a definite need to brake earlier, and slow down heaps more around corners.

Unfortunately many are not like you resulting in the statistical data showing a 4WD is more likely to be involved in a crash than a sedan.

Quote:

Mine was more the suggestion that ANCAP test are controlled, and specific. real world impacts are not so specific. I.e. your mini running into the side of my pajero would probably do damage to the chassis rail, but, there would be minimal passenger compartment compression. Whereas the chassis rail on your mini, would be slightly below the pajero, so would 'slide' underneath, causing all of the mini crash design features to come into play. Engine movement, deformation etc.

Controlled and specific in order to obtain relevant and comparable data in the most common crash scenarios, there is no other way of doing it that is worthwhile. Yes your height does put you in a better position in this instance but that same height makes you more prone to roll over crashes, I guess things balance out. I will do you a deal, you try not to roll over and I will try not to slide under 4WD's (by the way, a pajero is not that high, nor a mini that low that it will slide under, it will contact in the door by a reasonable amount).

Quote:

getting back On topic, driven appropriately, my car should be slightly safer than a 'normal' car in an impact, given there is slightly less chance of passenger compartment deformation due to the height of the chassis... but, there is probably slightly more chance of an accident in the first place due to comprimises which allow it go further off road......

Research I have seen suggests otherwise. The question remains as to what year pajero we are talking about.

Personally I would prefer a greater chance of not being in a crash than surviving one if I was, not that you really have that advantage anyway in the vast majority of crashes.

Of course all this is dependent on so many factors, what you hit, how hard you hit it, where you hit it and on what angle. All these greatly alter the resulting occupant injuries and the survivability of the event. None of these can be totally predicted or protected against by the manufacturers of road safety agencies. The only cure is to not crash and no matter which way you look at it, no matter what the reason for the crash or the manner in which it happened, only driver actions can prevent this. Cars do not have a divine attraction to bump into each other, people make them bump into each other, simple as that.

gtfpv · 07-07-2010, 10:12 PM

seeing we are on this subject. we can relate it to the state of the driver also . which would play a part in the passengers safety . therefore what i am about to say shouldnt be considered off topic .
the state of the driver .
driving silly
not concentrating ,
speeding
fatigue
drink driving
drug driving .
removing these scenarios from accidents would reduce greatly accidents . would it not
i would say "fatigue" followed by "drugged driving " would be the 2 top killers besides speeding and sillyness . and it is appauling that these are not seriously looked into by our governments .
some examples that are HORRIBLY OVERLOOKED >>> DRUGS """" c'mon we have the technology >>> use it AND COME DOWN HARD .
# >>> FATIGUE"""" how many people die falling asleep / versus the % of shift workers or long shifts worked out there . """GOVTS SHOULD have mandatory rest beds for workers after night shifts or lonhg shifts worked on site for employees in a work place .
we put heaps of emphases on safety and revenue . "" BUT NONE ON PREVETION""

Boosh Brus · 07-07-2010, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

seeing we are on this subject. we can relate it to the state of the driver also . which would play a part in the passengers safety ....

I would imagine this may be a factor with the higher 4WD crash statistics. I know my friend used to say he feels safer in his Landcruiser which made him take more risks. That car ended up rolling down a gully thanks to his brother.

There was a documentary on youtube someone posted a while ago set in the 80s. In it, A driving instructor mentioned that as cars get safer people take more risks and how the driving attitude would be different if instead of an airbag on the steering wheel there was a bayonet.

genebaby · 07-07-2010, 11:10 PM

geckoGT, can you explain something for me maybe?

My brother was involved in a decent crash which totaled a then new BMW 318i. He was in the "death seat" but sustained injuries to the right side of his body, when the car was impacted on his opposite side.

I've never been able to work that one out.

geckoGT · 08-07-2010, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boosh Brus

I would imagine this may be a factor with the higher 4WD crash statistics. I know my friend used to say he feels safer in his Landcruiser which made him take more risks. That car ended up rolling down a gully thanks to his brother.

There was a documentary on youtube someone posted a while ago set in the 80s. In it, A driving instructor mentioned that as cars get safer people take more risks and how the driving attitude would be different if instead of an airbag on the steering wheel there was a bayonet.

Absolutely an element to it all, perceived higher safety higher safety will often lead to a false sense of security. This is one of the reasons why I point out that certain vehicles are not as safe a general opinion says they are, to dispel the myth and make people aware so that they take more care.

geckoGT · 08-07-2010, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by genebaby

geckoGT, can you explain something for me maybe?

My brother was involved in a decent crash which totaled a then new BMW 318i. He was in the "death seat" but sustained injuries to the right side of his body, when the car was impacted on his opposite side.

I've never been able to work that one out.

Without further information I would say it was a decent side impact or a frontal that was offset to one side by a decent amount and with considerable force. It is not always the impact on the car that causes the injury, it is the secondary impact of the body against something solid or pointy (gear levers and hand brakes are good for this) that occurs as a result of the body moving in the seat. Seat belts do great job when the force is front to rear on the car but as the force becomes more lateral on the car they become less effective.

genebaby · 08-07-2010, 06:41 AM

Ok, thanks for the info.