Why is Passenger Seat the "Death Seat"

[AussieAV]

I know the passenger seat is supposed to be the most dangerous, but why?? Is this just an urban myth, is there actual statistical data to back it up??? Has anybody ever worked out why???

I researched extensively into this subject ( i.e. I spent 5 mintutes on Google ), and couldn't find any real information, just statements that it was the worst seat, never why it was, or how this "fact?" was determined.

I can sort of understand the assertion that the drivers self preservation instinct would contribute to this (ie reflex will cause the driver to manouveur the car so that the drivers side takes the least impact), however I question whether this would hold true in the case of most parents? And if this is the reason, wouldn't that then make the LH side rear seat just as dangerous??

Can anyone shed any light on the subject?

[max_torq]

They get hit from the blindside when the car goes through a give-way sign for example. (that's my guess)

[Fireblade]

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the drivers self preservation, we make our son sit in the middle in the back for that very reason as he is as far away as possible from either side of the car in case of an accident. In a split second of an accident to happen you would assume the self preservation would kick in quicker than realising the preservation of your child. I can only assume you wouldn't be able to control this urge in the event of an accident.

[Fev]

Decapitation caused by the Airbag on children and short people?

[pottery beige]

it da side where all da trees and poles are...

[FPV+fteT3]

L/H/Front seat my brother thought it was the death seat after he had a mouth full of thirst lifesavers and drank some coke and proceeded to explode the contents of his mouth over the dash in the XBGS the old man without blinking whilst driving smacked him in the head and said you will be cleaning that up when you get home. Paul was about 13 then he's 40 now and still remembers the death seat.........LOL...the XB coupe was fairly new back then.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the drivers self preservation, we make our son sit in the middle in the back for that very reason as he is as far away as possible from either side of the car in case of an accident. In a split second of an accident to happen you would assume the self preservation would kick in quicker than realising the preservation of your child. I can only assume you wouldn't be able to control this urge in the event of an accident.

Wouldn't that make the seat behind the driver the safest?? Also middle seat doesn't have anything in front of it. I've always assumed the front seats, which have some give to them, especially under impact conditions, act as sort of defacto airbags helping to protect the rear passengers.

I'm not questioning your choice F6 FOON, your opinion makes as much sense as any I've heard, including mine, but I guess thats my point. We all seem to be driving blind and making decisions based on our own interpretations of fairly subjective and incomplete information.

Why isn't there any concrete information with test data to back it up?? How can we confidently choose between what seems to amount to a lot of "opinions". Its our kids safety at stake!!!

[Bud Bud]

Nah, this is old school. The front passenger seat has been called the death seat for as long as I can remember and really originated long before seat belts and all the other technical safety advances that we take for granted today.

As it happened, it was usually the passenger that was ejected through the front windscreen after some form of head on collision whether it was another car or a stationary tree etc. The driver was usually pinned in because of the steering wheel however that did not guarantee that the driver was not going to join his passenger through the front wind screen (just more unlikely) in the event of a bad accident but he usually did end up alive but with horrific facial injuries instead.

The term death seat and all its consequences was actually taught to us young uns in the 60's and 70's during road safety that was part of the school curriculum back then, and because of this, the term death seat actually used to scare me when I was a little tacker, so much so that as I got older I was reluctant to call shot gun in some of my mates older cars (FC Holdens Morris Minors AP5 Valiants all come to mind) later on in life.

I think now with the use of seat belts airbags and crumple zones of modern cars that the term death seat may be a little irrelevant today, so much so that I have not heard it used in probably 20 years.

Bud Bud

[geckoGT]

Yes there is statistical data, I have seen it in my paramedic training and study but to be honest that was 6 years ago and I can not remember where.

The front passenger is most likely to die in an accident, followed by the driver (statistics high here as this seat is always occupied and other seats often are not), then it is the passenger side rear, followed by drivers side rear and then the middle rear (significantly reduced since the introduction of lap sash belts).

The reasons are plenty, some of which have been mentioned but I will go over the ones that I can think of.

1) The driver is aware the crash is about to occur and is able to brace, the front passenger is often not.
2) The majority of fatal crashes involve speed into another moving object (head on) or speed into a stationary object (tree) so therefore the seats that take the highest force are in the front.
3) The majority of speed into stationary object crashes occur on the curb side of the car (that is where the trees and walls are).
4) Driver reaction will force the driver to subconsciously swerve to the open lane (normally on the right) to avoid an object, putting the impact on the left of the car when they don't quite make it.
5) Side impacts are statistically more common on the left side of the car in the scenario of a failure to give way, resulting in more crash damage occurring on the left front or left side of the car.
6) In side impacts the occupants closest to the door are more likely to be killed as there is much less room for vehicle deformation than there is for an occupant in the middle. The front passenger door is statistically hit more often than any other door on a vehicle.
7) In rural accidents the front passenger is often asleep when the accident occurs meaning they are often not restrained properly. By this I mean as they sleep they slip down in the seat and the lap part of the belt is no longer placed over the pelvis (solid load bearing structure) and now rests over the abdomen (soft and squishy), which results in severe internal bleeding. This body movement also makes it more likely that the sash section of the belt will contact the head and neck of the occupant rather than the much stronger rib cage. This is a very interesting point for all those drivers that like the laid back, doof doof driving position (what we call the Gold Coast driving position).

That is all I can think of right now but I know there are more, if I think of them I will put them up.

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.

[Bud Bud]

Good Post geckoGT, I did not know it was still relevant today but it was certainly a big factor many years ago and was highlighted during road safety campaigns back then.

I certainly do not envy your job. Keep up the good work.

Bud Bud.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Wouldn't that make the seat behind the driver the safest?? Also middle seat doesn't have anything in front of it. I've always assumed the front seats, which have some give to them, especially under impact conditions, act as sort of defacto airbags helping to protect the rear passengers.

Nice theory but no. The absence of anything in front of the middle passenger means there is nothing to hit, resulting in the passenger moving forward to be slowed and returned to the seat back by the stretch in the seat belt. Impact with the back of the front seat often causes significant injury, primarily facial, head and neck injury, its not that soft when you hit it at 60 kmh.

Air bags are purely there to lessen the damage caused by what would otherwise be a solid internal structure. No internal structure to hit is always the best option.

Also the middle rear seat is closest to the centre of the car, so when ever a offset impact put the car into twists or turns, the middle of the car is subjected to less centrifugal force.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

I think now with the use of seat belts airbags and crumple zones of modern cars that the term death seat may be a little irrelevant today, so much so that I have not heard it used in probably 20 years.

Bud Bud

Very valid point, the advent of airbags and more importantly the widespread use of seat belts and the introduction of seat belt pre-tensioners has significantly reduced the death rate, for all occupants.

Having said that, shotgun is still the death seat and hang around cops, firey's and ambo's and you will here the term used, for good reason.

Good Post geckoGT, I did not know it was still relevant today but it was certainly a big factor many years ago and was highlighted during road safety campaigns back then.

I certainly do not envy your job. Keep up the good work.

See my first post, that should explain it to some extent. I am happy to explain it again or answer questions if anyone is interested as this is a topic that I hold very dear to my heart. My aim is to help others with road safety and never to have to pull another dead body out of a car, I am carrying a few too many ghosts with me as it is.

[geckoGT]

I just thought of a really good way to illustrate it.

Take a walk around a wreckers and look at all the pranged up cars, what is the one component that is almost never damaged?

I am sure you will find it is the rear section of the centre console, I know it is in the vast majority of pranged up cars I have pulled someone out of (and that is a lot of cars). I know where I would like to be in a crash, near the part least likely to be damaged. There is a direct correlation between vehicle damage and the extent of injury to the occupants near the damage.

[AussieAV]

D**m it geckoGT,
Just spent 20 minutes writing a novel challenging most of your 7 original points, and just before I pressed submit I thought better check if anything else has been posted. Your subsequent posts made most of what I'd written meaningless. Your arguements about middle rear make a lot of sense, which is great for me (only one kid), but makes a hard choice for bigger families.

One thing you said though,

Originally Posted by geckoGT

6) In side impacts the occupants closest to the door are more likely to be killed as there is much less room for vehicle deformation than there is for an occupant in the middle. The front passenger door is statistically hit more often than any other door on a vehicle.

This for me is the Slam Dunk statement. If the front passenger door is the one most commonly damaged, then the question is answered, irrespective of how many are in the car etc. Passenger Seat is the most dangerous!


Thanks, my son will be in a different seat from now on!

[gtfpv]

picture yourself in every seat of the car . where do you feel the most vulnerable . it's the front passenger seat . if you think about it . i have been in a few car accidents and when i was in the front passenger seat my nose hit the dash board and bled in hospital for some time . reason was . i was a small child and catapulted into the dash . there was nothing to stop this happening . as i driver . the wheel has helped me brace reducing injury , and in the back seat drivers side i crouched for impact and bounced off the drivers seat .
now even today i feel uneased in the passenger seat becuae its the onlyt seat without any bracing positions.

note about the middle rear . dont know about statistics but years ago that was a very dangerous seat . in a rear impact often carjacks came through and caused fatalities to middle rear seat occupants .

[BOSHOG]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

picture yourself in every seat of the car . where do you feel the most vulnerable . it's the front passenger seat . if you think about it . i have been in a few car accidents and when i was in the front passenger seat my nose hit the dash board and bled in hospital for some time . reason was . i was a small child and catapulted into the dash . there was nothing to stop this happening . as i driver . the wheel has helped me brace reducing injury , and in the back seat drivers side i crouched for impact and bounced off the drivers seat .
now even today i feel uneased in the passenger seat becuae its the onlyt seat without any bracing positions.

note about the middle rear . dont know about statistics but years ago that was a very dangerous seat . in a rear impact often carjacks came through and caused fatalities to middle rear seat occupants .

maybe that has changed since the introduction of seatbelts that go over the shoulder. (my brain has frozen so i cant remember the right name). it wont stop car jacks, but it will help in stopping internal injuries

[fast gt]

Ever had a crash in a rally car. It always seems to be the nav's side

[max]

Originally Posted by fast gt

Ever had a crash in a rally car. It always seems to be the nav's side

That's the side most likely to contact a tree etc. I suppose.

[Spitfire 6.2]

What about the fact that if there is a passenger in the car, most likely they will be in the front seat. Statistically, the front seat would be more likely to have a person in it, therefore the death rate would be higher.

[Cabbage]

The passenger seat is known as the death seat because when a vehicle is in danger of coliding with another object be it a tree, car etc the driver will instinctively turn away from the danger in an act of self presevation exposing the passenger to the oncoming object. As the driver instinctively acts in self presevation when faced with danger, the seat behind the driver is considered to be the safest. Have no data to back this up but have been told this by driving instuctors. Makes sense anecdotally.

In truth there are probably a couple of factors in play that make the front passenger the most dangerous.

Gecko one point you made regarding most stationary objects being on the passenger side is countered by most vehicle traffic passing down the drivers side of the car.

Clinton

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

.

Gecko one point you made regarding most stationary objects being on the passenger side is countered by most vehicle traffic passing down the drivers side of the car.

Clinton

That is true but statistically a high speed into a tree (left side) is more common than car into another car (right side). Some of this effect may be explained by the theory that when a driver falls asleep (a very common cause of high speed accident), the car will tend to drift to the left due to camber on the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GT-Mark

What about the fact that if there is a passenger in the car, most likely they will be in the front seat. Statistically, the front seat would be more likely to have a person in it, therefore the death rate would be higher.

That is very true and yes the figures will be boosted by the fact that the vast majority of crashes occur without all seats occupied.

I have however seen stats that show that even in cars where 4 seats are occupied, the front passenger suffers the majority of significant injury and/or fatalities. I just wish I could remember the location of these studies, might be time to pull out the boxes of reference material.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

maybe that has changed since the introduction of seatbelts that go over the shoulder. (my brain has frozen so i cant remember the right name). it wont stop car jacks, but it will help in stopping internal injuries

You are spot on, lap sash seat belts greatly changed this situation. Also you will note that manufacturers now put covers over hatches and in station wagons to prevent loads from entering the passenger compartment. They also mount the jack, spare wheel and tools etc in clamps or straps to prevent entry into the passenger compartment. Another change is rear seats often have a sheet of metal lining the back or there is a metal bulkhead behind them separating load space from the passenger cell.

We have certainly come a long way since people started asking what the crash survivability of a car is instead of how much chrome it has before they buy.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That is true but statistically a high speed into a tree (left side) is more common than car into another car (right side). Some of this effect may be explained by the theory that when a driver falls asleep (a very common cause of high speed accident), the car will tend to drift to the left due to camber on the road.

Given the driver's instinct for self preservation and your comments about stationary objects being the majority of times on the passenger side and when the driver falls asleep the camber of the road most often pushing the car off the road on the passenger side it makes sense that the seat behind the driver would be the safest in a crash. My information about the seat behind the driver being the safest is 10 or so years old so with safety advancements this may have changed particularly with airbag technology.

Clinton

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Cabbage

Given the driver's instinct for self preservation and your comments about stationary objects being the majority of times on the passenger side and when the driver falls asleep the camber of the road most often pushing the car off the road on the passenger side it makes sense that the seat behind the driver would be the safest in a crash. My information about the seat behind the driver being the safest is 10 or so years old so with safety advancements this may have changed particularly with airbag technology.

Clinton

Your theory is pretty sound and you are not far off the mark, airbags have gone a long way to increase the survivability of a frontal impact (the most common impact) but a larger percentage of that improvement is likely to come from the wider acceptance of seat belts, better seat belt design and pre-tensioners. In the days of the old seat belts that had to be adjusted they were often worn too loose, causing the body to move a long way and gain a lot of momentum before the seat belt stopped them. This momentum was often transfered to internal organs with devastating effect. To see a demonstration of this, place a cricket ball on the ground, lift a bat about 12 inches and then swing with all your might, you will hit the ball a fair distance. Now with the advent of self adjusting seat belts and pre-tensioners, the seat belt pulls tight in the initial milliseconds of the crash, before the forces have hit your body. This allows the inbuilt stretch of the seat belt to absorb the load over a longer time period and reduce the force on your internal organs. Think back to the cricket ball, place the bat against the ball and then swing with all your might, it won't go as far. Another example for the shooters out there, fire a 30-06 or 303 with the butt 1 inch from your shoulder, its bruise time. Now fire the same rifle with the butt pulled into the fleshy part of your shoulder hard, its a solid push on firing and no bruise. I hope that all makes sense, it does in my head but sometimes I fall over when I try to write it.

The most significant issue front seat occupants, both driver and passenger have is that the majority of fatal crashes have forces that come from predominately the frontal direction. This means the car only has the front of the car up to the fire wall to crumple and absorb energy until that energy reaches the front occupants and causes injury. The rear passengers have a lot more car between them and the source of the force (including the floor, roof and doors adjacent to the front seats, meaning more crumple zone to dissipate energy and therefore less injury causing energy exerted on the occupants. Airbags, seat belts etc can not cheat physics, they can only alter them.

[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??

[geckoGT]

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??

Two parts to this one.

First, they make the seats more commonly used more comfortable because to make all equal makes the seat very flat and less attractive. Why are the seats on the side more commonly used? Because people are quite lazy, the seats on the side are easier to get to, as well as the fact that people like to be able to look out a window easier.

No they are not really leaving themselves open to legal action, there is no legal requirement to have any seats (some smaller cars do not have a central seat position), it is only a legal responsibility to provide an inertia real lap/sash belt if there is one. If one is provided and you choose not to use it and instead sit on the side seat. If in a crash this leads to injury, that is your choice and your problem, the manufacturer did not put you there. Their team of lawyers would prove to reasonable levels that you chose comfort over safety and that is not their responsibility.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Two parts to this one.

First, they make the seats more commonly used more comfortable because to make all equal makes the seat very flat and less attractive. Why are the seats on the side more commonly used? Because people are quite lazy, the seats on the side are easier to get to, as well as the fact that people like to be able to look out a window easier.

No they are not really leaving themselves open to legal action, there is no legal requirement to have any seats (some smaller cars do not have a central seat position), it is only a legal responsibility to provide an inertia real lap/sash belt if there is one. If one is provided and you choose not to use it and instead sit on the side seat. If in a crash this leads to injury, that is your choice and your problem, the manufacturer did not put you there. Their team of lawyers would prove to reasonable levels that you chose comfort over safety and that is not their responsibility.

Sorry geckoGT, hard to impart "tone", into a written comment. Wasn't really expecting a serious answer as to why, was more a question to say that maybe they should put more effort into making it comforable. McLaren managed to get the driver to the middle of the car (LOL).

As for the legal action question, again more tongue in cheek than anything else. If the yanks can take McDonalds to court for "MAKING" them eat junk food, anythings possible.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Sorry geckoGT, hard to impart "tone", into a written comment. Wasn't really expecting a serious answer as to why, was more a question to say that maybe they should put more effort into making it comforable. McLaren managed to get the driver to the middle of the car (LOL).

As for the legal action question, again more tongue in cheek than anything else. If the yanks can take McDonalds to court for "MAKING" them eat junk food, anythings possible.

Sorry, I meant no tone in my response. I actually saw a lot of value in your comment, that is why I took them seriously.

I have to be honest, I do not joke easily on topics such as this unless it is my dark humour that I do not let loose around here (that only comes out at work and around close friends that understand it). I am not a rampant car safety nazi, I like to enjoy performance cars as much as anyone here but I just want everyone to survive a good drive so they can do it again some time.

I hope I did not offend you.

[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?