Video: When an SUV rams a smaller car

[ELF]

Cool vid, I would have liked to see it the other way around. Watching the little car smash into the big one, just to see what would happen. In the real world the big vehicle isn't always the one impacting the small one.

[GasSavers_Red]

Originally Posted by ELF

Cool vid, I would have liked to see it the other way around. Watching the little car smash into the big one, just to see what would happen. In the real world the big vehicle isn't always the one impacting the small one.

That would be something to see.

"Ironically, SUVs are particularly dangerous for children, whose safety is often the rationale for buying them in the first place. Because these beasts are so big and hard to see around (and often equipped with dark-tinted glass that's illegal in cars), SUV drivers have a troubling tendency to run over their own kids. Just recently, in October, a wealthy Long Island doctor made headlines after he ran over and killed his two-year-old in the driveway with his BMW X5. He told police he thought he'd hit the curb."
-Washington Monthly

Even recent minivans are developing this problem. The belt line is up so high all around unless the kid is above 4 ft tall there is no way you are going to see them, especially if they are directly behind you.

Roll cages would have to be integrated into the frame as omgwtfbyobbq said but they would also have to be made out of some substantial tubing. The stock cage on the jeep is made out of 2.5" tube and it is by no means anything hardy. You will need some major triangulation done to make a cage worthwhile.

"Then there's this notion that you need to be up high. That's a contradiction, because the people who buy these S.U.V.s know at the cortex level that if you are high there is more chance of a rollover. But at the reptilian level they think that if I am bigger and taller I'm safer. You feel secure because you are higher and dominate and look down. That you can look down is psychologically a very powerful notion. And what was the key element of safety when you were a child? It was that your mother fed you, and there was warm liquid. That's why cupholders are absolutely crucial for safety. If there is a car that has no cupholder, it is not safe. If I can put my coffee there, if I can have my food, if everything is round, if it's soft, and if I'm high, then I feel safe. It's amazing that intelligent, educated women will look at a car and the first thing they will look at is how many cupholders it has."
-The New Yorker

Thats funny

[psyshack]

We have wrecks like that here quite often.

I drive to and from work on hwy 75 south of Tulsa. Its a 4 lane divided hwy with access from roads just like that demo. We call them section line roads. They have stop signs on them.

Last year a lady in a 7th gen Accord didn't stop for her stop sign and crossed into the hwy. Later proven she was on a cell phone call. A Ram Charger hit her. Both driver's died. She was dead in the car. The male in the Ram Charger died in the life flight chopper.

We've had several of these type wrecks at a place in the road called Preston. The last one I drove thru there. The cars where completely destroyed. There wasn't a part large enough laying around that you could ID model by. The occupants of both cars, trucks, what ever they where exploded. There where blankets, towels, body bags and such laying all over a several acre area to cover up remains.

These wrecks do happen. And they are very bad when they happen. Doesn't seem to matter if the higher speed car or truck on the hwy does the hitting. Or the one coming off the side road. Ive seen them both ways. It always seems to involve death, dismemberment, or at the very least a life changing event.

A friend of mine is a first responder for a small town on this hwy. She says size of the vehicle hasn't seemed to matter over all unless its a grave mismatch like a Excursion and Metro. In her experience most of the wrecks are caused by cell phone, pda, use, eating or getting onto the kids while driving. Most cause by the person running the stop sign. Also most are sober or drug free at the time of the wrecks. But when a drug user or drunk is involved they get hung with the blame even if its not there fault. Of note,,, most the the people involved in the wrecks live within a 25 mile radius of the accident site. I would say as much as 75% live close. The rest could be from anywhere in the US.

Its a shame these types of wrecks happen. And when you drive thru one and see the body parts cast about like seed. It kinda gets to you. Ive been making this drive for years,,, well 19 years to be exact. And they have increased by 2x if not 3x since cell phone use has went up so much. I for the life of me don't know what people have to talk about that much. And doing it while driving is very stupid. I ever get hit by somebody using a cell phone and survive it. They will work for me the rest of there natural life. Or I will drive them to kill themselves. By keeping them tied up in court and owning there soul!!!!!!!

psy

[milesgallon.com]

They should first consider improving the crossing, the driver or both. These types of accidents are very rare when stupidity is not involved.

I find it a bit strange to have a four lane road with a direct crossing. In Finland where I live all multi lane roads (except for inside a city) have onramps and no crossings.

Simon

[rh77]

Originally Posted by milesgallon.com

They should first consider improving the crossing, the driver or both. These types of accidents are very rare when stupidity is not involved.

I find it a bit strange to have a four lane road with a direct crossing. In Finland where I live all multi lane roads (except for inside a city) have onramps and no crossings.

Simon

Scandinavia is known for having the safest roads and vehicles on record -- definitely a benchmark for use to learn by.

The problem in the U.S., is that we have so many roads and so much space, that there probably wouldn't be enough tax money to go around if most roads were designed in this fashion.

If a "hotspot" is noted by statistics, improvements sometimes follow -- like redesigning a particular part of the roadway, installing signs/signals/guardrails, and/or increasing law enforcement in that area.

RH77

[The Toecutter]

Most cause by the person running the stop sign. Also most are sober or drug free at the time of the wrecks. But when a drug user or drunk is involved they get hung with the blame even if its not there fault.

Marijuana and Driving

[Peakster]

Originally Posted by milesgallon.com

They should first consider improving the crossing, the driver or both. These types of accidents are very rare when stupidity is not involved.

I find it a bit strange to have a four lane road with a direct crossing. In Finland where I live all multi lane roads (except for inside a city) have onramps and no crossings.

There is lots of crossing just like that in Saskatchewan. The Trans Canada Highway is 110 km/h in most places and unlike the Interstate System in the 'States, the highway is only about 1% limited access road (the rest are all at-grade intersections. AKA no interchanges). There is a particularly bad intersection (with only a stop sign) when driving from my mom's house to the university:
Attachment 268
There's been dozens of deaths since they made the intersection in 1984 and every time it happens the city always says "Oh, we'll eventually make an interchange there". Yeah, like in the year 2050?

[Silveredwings]

"In a head-on crash, an Explorer or a Suburban would crush a Jetta or a Camry. But, clearly, the drivers of Camrys and Jettas are finding a way to avoid head-on crashes with Explorers and Suburbans. The benefits of being nimble?of being in an automobile that's capable of staying out of trouble?are in many cases greater than the benefits of being big."

Just last night while driving home in a snow storm, I was climbing a hill about 75 yards behind a Ford eXploder when it suddenly went berserk. It started swerving and fishtailing violently back and forth with the wheels spinning. Then it went up onto the right-side curb and sidewalk and onto someone's lawn swerving again and narrowly missing a tree (that tree better watch where its g[r]owing) and back onto the road in the original direction of travel with the wheels not spinning anymore.

Why? I don't really know. My guesses were 1) idiot on cell phone thinking with the right foot, or 2) using cruise control, it went into open-loop runaway once the wheels started slipping. The possibliities are numerous, but...

My question: what if a Jetta or other small car were coming the other direction and the explorer had crossed the road to the left instead of the right? Bad news for the hapless Jetta driver.

[cfg83]

Peakster -

I saw exactly this kind of thing a few years ago on Pacific Coast Hghway in Santa Monica. We were all moving slow because of an accident scene. When I drove by, I figured out that the standard issue midsize SUV (which had little frontal damage) had hit a white Nissan 240SX (great for drifting because of it's rear wheel drive) and totally utterly completely crushed the driver's compartment and part of the front driver's side of the car. They had put a sheet over the driver's seat, obviously to cover the grisly mess.

It was clear that the high bumper of the SUV had allowed it roll over and into the driver's compartment.

I have always wanted laws to make the bumper (and driving light!!!!) heights more uniform. I wasn't aware of the mechanics underlying where the chassis strengthening components were.

It won't stop me from driving compact cars, because we all accept a certain amount of risk when sharing the road with everybody else. It has to do with how much risk you are willing to accept.

For example, when I drove my motorcycle, I accepted the greater risk. In return, I would (strategically) drive in between cars at traffic jams, because I considered that to be a "benefit" to me in exchange for the risk I was taking.

CarloSW2

[Peakster]

Originally Posted by cfg83

For example, when I drove my motorcycle, I accepted the greater risk. In return, I would (strategically) drive in between cars at traffic jams, because I considered that to be a "benefit" to me in exchange for the risk I was taking.

That is very true. Lots of people think Metros are death traps but I'd rather be in the Metro if it was a collision with a motorcycle. It just upsets me that the general public looks at this video and thinks: "I've got to have the most massive vehicle to protect my family while driving". It's like an auto-industry arms race.