Crash in a tin-can

[happy1]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/20...-freeway-crash

The driver of this 12 - 14 year old Hyundai Elantra was very lucky to survive rear impact by a truck on the Perth freeway last week.

It's a reminder to consider driving vehicles with more substantial structure than this.

Cheers,

[Joe5619]

She has survived what looks like an "unsurvivable" cruch & you are putting the car she is in down? :d oh

[Tassie f100]

Originally Posted by happy1

https://www.9news.com.au/national/20...-freeway-crash

The driver of this 12 - 14 year old Hyundai Elantra was very lucky to survive rear impact by a truck on the Perth freeway last week.

It's a reminder to consider driving vehicles with more substantial structure than this.

Cheers,

And what car would you suggest one should buy to cope with, maybe, a 100 kmh rear ender?

[happy1]

Hi, thanks for the row of

Originally Posted by Joe5619

:d oh

Perhaps not all drivers comes with guardian angels like this one did.

My suggestions wouldn't be that everyone should drive a particular car model, but I could think of some that are more robust.

Firstly, if a car is 5 years newer than the one in the accident, most models would have high-strength steel used in the body side panels, where the A / B / C pillars would have far more strength.

Secondly, it's a matter of matching bumper height. In Europe the trucks are required to have lower bumpers and side impact panels. Australian vehicle standards seems to be without the same safety requirements.

However these days SUVs are getting a larger market share. Even in a baby SUV, the body structure would be a little higher than in the type of car in this accident.

Cheers,

[DJM83]

Ever thought that's all they may have been able to afford?

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by happy1

Secondly, it's a matter of matching bumper height. In Europe the trucks are required to have lower bumpers and side impact panels. Australian vehicle standards seems to be without the same safety requirements.

Cheers,

What a load of BS mate, trucks here have all sorts of ADR concerning this.
New trailers have side under run protection barriers, all older trailers require rear under run steps which must comply to a set height and bumpers / bullbars must be built to a design to not allow smaller vehicles to go underneath them at a given speed.
Even the European truck pictured has a FUP's bullbar fitted.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by happy1

Hi, thanks for the row of


Perhaps not all drivers comes with guardian angels like this one did.

My suggestions wouldn't be that everyone should drive a particular car model, but I could think of some that are more robust.

Firstly, if a car is 5 years newer than the one in the accident, most models would have high-strength steel used in the body side panels, where the A / B / C pillars would have far more strength.

Secondly, it's a matter of matching bumper height. In Europe the trucks are required to have lower bumpers and side impact panels. Australian vehicle standards seems to be without the same safety requirements.

However these days SUVs are getting a larger market share. Even in a baby SUV, the body structure would be a little higher than in the type of car in this accident.

Cheers,

I doubt any other car would have came off any better than the Elantra considering this type of accident scene.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by happy1

https://www.9news.com.au/national/20...-freeway-crash

The driver of this 12 - 14 year old Hyundai Elantra was very lucky to survive rear impact by a truck on the Perth freeway last week.

It's a reminder to consider driving vehicles with more substantial structure than this.

Cheers,

Mate there is no car certified to be rear ended like that.

Best solution is to stay at home.

[MrZ]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

Mate there is no car certified to be rear ended like that.

Best solution is to stay at home.

Agreed. Car crash tests don't include rear end collisions, so manufacturers don't put that much effort into strengthening the rear end.

By the way, the car in question is the 2006-2011 Elantra sedan, so it's a bit newer than the 12-14 year old estimate of the OP. It could be anywhere from 7-12 years old. The article is incorrect by stating it's a hatchback - there was no Elantra hatchback in this generation (or any generation since) - the i30 effectively replaced the Elantra hatch in 2007.

[Mercury Bullet]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

And what car would you suggest one should buy to cope with, maybe, a 100 kmh rear ender?

From what I read in another article he wasn't going very fast, that's what heavy weight and momentum does.

[.:4:.]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

From what I read in another article he wasn't going very fast, that's what heavy weight and momentum does.

I agree with that statement. Dunno if the truck was loaded or not but either way it would be many times heavier then any passenger car. The fact the car got pushed in to other stationary cars makes things worse because there is the opposite forces on either ends, so had it been a clear road then maybe the car would still cop the rear damage but be pushed out of the way if that makes sense.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by happy1

if a car is 5 years newer than the one in the accident, most models would have high-strength steel used in the body side panels

you know you can still buy Great Wall

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by DJM83

Ever thought that's all they may have been able to afford?

This is true,
however, whilst economics will determine that some people can only afford say a ten 10yr old car that was cheap to begin with, and that will necessarily be less safe than a newer more expensive car, such cheaper cars will always be available even if we insisted new cars were safer to begin with.

The only thing you can really say about this lass's survival, is thank God she didn't have kids in the back.

There's an unfortunate problem with the continuing move towards cars that are lighter and cheaper, with safety ratings achieved by adding gimmicks.

It really depends on your priorities, and how you access risk. Modern concepts of safety are geared towards moderate impacts, which are numerically far more common.
And the fact is that yes, in a modern car you are far more likely to firstly avoid the impact, and secondly to walk away without a scratch.
Personally, and it is a personal choice, such accidents have never concerned me greatly. When it comes to myself and my family, it is fatalities and permanent disabilities that concern me.

So sure, the roads would be safer if we all drove small cars made of tinfoil, but we don't. And as long as there are trucks, buses, idiots, and trees, you are safest in the biggest heaviest lump of iron you can afford. (Preferably one with massive crumple zones front and rear.)

[OzJavelin]

Here you go ..

https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hc...l/1780035.html

A separate full perimeter boxed-channel frame 3/16-inch thick supported the Imperial, and was well known for its resounding strength; to this day, Imperials remain the only vehicle that the DDDA (Demolition Derby Drivers Association) calls out specifically as being outlawed from competition.

Supposedly 64-66 Imperials were the best .. basically a monocoque body ontop of a full strong chassis .. I'd suspect that this thing would make light work of a LandCruiser or the like in an accident. But with effectively no real safety features other than body strength:
1. Passengers still likely to be seriously injured (at best)
2. Unable to avoid an accident.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by happy1

Secondly, it's a matter of matching bumper height. In Europe the trucks are required to have lower bumpers and side impact panels. Australian vehicle standards seems to be without the same safety requirements.

However these days SUVs are getting a larger market share. Even in a baby SUV, the body structure would be a little higher than in the type of car in this accident.

Cheers,

Truck picture is a Euro, Theres more of those wearing Renault badges than Mack as they do in Australia..

I do agree, that I would feel safer in an SUV - but subtract the 7 seaters Imagine kids sitting in the back and something like that happens..

Either way Incredible she survived - not bad for a 10 year old budget car

[ozpacman]

Originally Posted by happy1

Hi, thanks for the row of


Perhaps not all drivers comes with guardian angels like this one did.

My suggestions wouldn't be that everyone should drive a particular car model, but I could think of some that are more robust.

Firstly, if a car is 5 years newer than the one in the accident, most models would have high-strength steel used in the body side panels, where the A / B / C pillars would have far more strength.

Secondly, it's a matter of matching bumper height. In Europe the trucks are required to have lower bumpers and side impact panels. Australian vehicle standards seems to be without the same safety requirements.

However these days SUVs are getting a larger market share. Even in a baby SUV, the body structure would be a little higher than in the type of car in this accident.

Cheers,

I've attended a fair few traffic crash scenes over the years as a consequence of my job. I'm certainly no expert, but have a reasonable understanding.

Mate it wouldn't have mattered what brand of car the woman was driving, they were all going to look much like this one in the end. The simple fact of the matter is that a semi trailer has hit it from behind and the energy has been pretty much unable to be dissipated as normal, due to the two vehicles in front of her preventing her car from being propelled forward.

Alternate bumper heights and hi-tensile panels would not have changed the outcome. This was simply physics at work.

I note the reporter mentioned that investigators were canvassing the possibility that the driver may have fallen asleep. That statement indicates to me that there may have been an absence of braking, and if that's in fact the case, increases the severity of the impact even further.

All things considered, I think she's a very lucky lady with a very lucky family.

Russ.

[slowsnake]

Originally Posted by MrZ

Agreed. Car crash tests don't include rear end collisions, so manufacturers don't put that much effort into strengthening the rear end.

By the way, the car in question is the 2006-2011 Elantra sedan, so it's a bit newer than the 12-14 year old estimate of the OP. It could be anywhere from 7-12 years old. The article is incorrect by stating it's a hatchback - there was no Elantra hatchback in this generation (or any generation since) - the i30 effectively replaced the Elantra hatch in 2007.

Hello,
Since joining this forum I often wonder what some of the shortened or Capital letters mean as in computer talk/code, am not really savvy and I see this "OP" all the time, and sometimes its out of context with my thinking and severe untreated ADHD logic,geez your post was in context and now I know it does not mean "Old Pensioner", fair dinkum, I thought it meant that or " Old ***** ",..lol..hahaha

Cheers Billy.

[roKWiz]

Billy, O.P is Original Poster.

[slowsnake]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

Billy, O.P is Original Poster.

Hello,
Yes I realise that now,I call the OP a thread starter!..now I know,thanks for that!

Cheers Billy,

[Adamz Ghia]

I don’t know why some of you blokes are having a go at the OP for, he was trying to make a valid point, and anyone who has seen the crash test of a mid 90’s Corolla vs a 2015 Corolla would understand the point well.

Yes perhaps in this situation the car she was in wouldn’t have made much of a difference, but in a car vs car scenario it could mean the difference between life and death.

[chrisandsharon]

This is a still taken off a video from the rear of my brothers old Hyundai Sante Fe. This was October last year. My sister in law was driving on the Warrego highway when a car crossing over the highway from a side road crossed over in front of her - she hit him.

This truck driver saved both my sister in laws life and her daughter who was in her car seat on the pass side. I won’t post the video out of respect but the truck drivers reaction was lightning fast. He missed the rear of their car by about 1mm......it was literally a hair I reckon. He was travelling at 80+km/h. If he didn’t react in a split second there would have been two deaths, nothing would have survived a truck that size hitting you from behind at 80km/h. When he swerved he sent a car that was next to him into a turning lane also - the truck driver was an absolute hero that day, absolute champion. How so many lives can change in a second.

Glad to see that lady was ok.

[slowsnake]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

I don’t know why some of you blokes are having a go at the OP for, he was trying to make a valid point, and anyone who has seen the crash test of a mid 90’s Corolla vs a 2015 Corolla would understand the point well.

Yes perhaps in this situation the car she was in wouldn’t have made much of a difference, but in a car vs car scenario it could mean the difference between life and death.

Hello,
Did you read the 3 threads below yours?..not sure if you are having a dig at me or not!
But,I was asking a civil question,not denigrating the OP.

Cheers Billy.

[Vesper Martini]

Originally Posted by chrisandsharon

This is a still taken off a video from the rear of my brothers old Hyundai Sante Fe. This was October last year. My sister in law was driving on the Warrego highway when a car crossing over the highway from a side road crossed over in front of her - she hit him.

This truck driver saved both my sister in laws life and her daughter who was in her car seat on the pass side. I won’t post the video out of respect but the truck drivers reaction was lightning fast. He missed the rear of their car by about 1mm......it was literally a hair I reckon. He was travelling at 80+km/h. If he didn’t react in a split second there would have been two deaths, nothing would have survived a truck that size hitting you from behind at 80km/h. When he swerved he sent a car that was next to him into a turning lane also - the truck driver was an absolute hero that day, absolute champion. How so many lives can change in a second.

Glad to see that lady was ok.


image

Truck Driver probably saw the car was about to cross the road well before you sister in law did. but they need to, as they cant just stop or swerve into another lane like a car can. so many things to think about in a split second

good outcome.

[chrisandsharon]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

Truck Driver probably saw the car was about to cross the road well before you sister in law did. but they need to, as they cant just stop or swerve into another lane like a car can. so many things to think about in a split second

good outcome.

Yes but it didn’t happen as obvious as that which is why I take my hat off to that driver. The car had stopped in the centre island as everyone had expected - you can see that in the footage when we watched it. Once stopped he then drove in front of my sister in law. God knows why but that’s the case with many accidents - why why why. As soon as she slammed the brakes on it was about the same time the truck swerved and just missed her. It was so quick, if he had been looking elsewhere, even for half a second, he would have taken them out. A trucky like that is what I call a professional driver. Truck drivers are like motorbike riders, they have to drive for everyone else on the road to keep all safe, which is what happened here. He’s professional driving is why 2 people are still alive in our family.

They only had the camera on the car for a few weeks too. Was great because the details of the company was on the side of the semi. They were then able to contact the company to pass on their thanks. The company was already well aware of what had happened and were happy to hear from them.

When he swerved Bevsta there was a ute next to him so it’s great he was on the ball aswell. A good example of why never ever to let your guard down on the road.

[Mercury Bullet]

It's no accident that he predicted the situation though.

It's one of the first things drummed into you. Certainly was in my case anyway.

Trust nobody and situational awareness is everything.
Learning to drive a truck is very different to getting a car license and I often wonder if everyone shouldn't be taught "the extras."

[Syndrome]

Even if she was driving 2018 vehicle with a five star NCAP crash rating it would struggle in such an accident.

[PooDog]

Doesn't matter a sh#t what car it was if the truck was empty it's going to be 17 - 20 tonnes you have to imagine the force that weight has but also the braking force of all those tyres combined grip of the road contact area which would be larger than the dimensions of the car ....so a 20 ton brick hammering it from the rear

If it's loaded x2 or 3 it's amazing how quick modern trucks can stop ABS EBS etc but it's mainly all those axles with the foot print of the tyres ...an 8 wheeler and 5 axle trailer has 32 tyres imagine what a road train would do to a car?

[malazn mafia]

Once was stopped at a set of lights in a small town in a rental van full of relatives. Saw a semi emerging at a high rate of speed and making no attempt to slow down. Took off through the red light as I didn’t want to experience being hit. Sometimes there is a vast difference between doing the “right thing” and doing what is “legal”. What would other people do ?

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by OzJavelin

Here you go ..

https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hc...l/1780035.html



Supposedly 64-66 Imperials were the best .. basically a monocoque body ontop of a full strong chassis .. I'd suspect that this thing would make light work of a LandCruiser or the like in an accident. But with effectively no real safety features other than body strength:
1. Passengers still likely to be seriously injured (at best)
2. Unable to avoid an accident.

Unfortunately the auto industry are the grand-masters of turd-polishing. Probably right up there with the pharmaceutical industry. They'll change something to save money, ie make the car cheaper and lighter, then try to convince you that its an improvement.
And if that doen't work, then they cover the turd with gimmicks and pretend its solid gold. Doesn't help that buyers are so gullible.

Crumple-Zones are important. To phrase it generally, this is the ability of the body to absorb impact (/ dissipate energy) without compromising the passenger cell. But making the whole car lighter and weaker doesn't fully exploit this concept.

Airbags only prevent moderate impacts, where your body might otherwise, at maximum deceleration, strike an interior surface. They do not protect against crushing.

Don't get me wrong, modern brakes, ABS, DSC, retractors, collapsing steering columns & wheels, airbags, and a host of other modern design features, make your average new car a lot, lot safer than even a 20 yr old car, never mind the cars I grew up in. But you are still safer in a large well designed car (Merc, Volvo, etc) than in a small lightweight compact.

[arronm]

Maybe we all drive this.