Caught an accident on the rear cam of the Pano X2

Dear God, the relative speed on impact was so low (look at the shadows) yet the damage to the hood/bonnet was massive.
Modern cars, eh?
 
Considering distance from your vehicle, truck driver is clearly NOT in "can't blame for accident" , but impossible to prove situation... and doubtless had any significant damage.
Border line "Mr Ronny Pickering" or "Commisioner Stockdale"
SHOULD have been no accident
 
Dear God, the relative speed on impact was so low (look at the shadows) yet the damage to the hood/bonnet was massive.
Modern cars, eh?

I think they're designed to fold up. Probably some science behind it.

mt4hlg.jpg
 
The reason for the apparent damage is height difference. The little car was in a nosedive, and the truck is just naturally taller. Since the car's front bumper was low and the truck's back one was high, the car went right under it. The car's bumper never made contact with the truck, so the headlights and hood took all the energy.

And yes, hoods are designed to fold like that so they don't come through the windshield and decapitate you. Open your hood and you'll see a line of depressions straight across the width of it (if you have fabric inside the good you'll only see them on the outer frame of the hood). This is where your hood will fold in a crash.
 
Yeah hood got peeled back.

My littel Suzuki is leauges safer then my first car ( a volvo even ) and it had at least 2 X the ammount of steel in it and 2 x the distance from the pedals to the front.
And this still goes even if you disabled all the airbags in my Suzuki.
Looking back the volvo 121 was a deathtrap, but that dont stop me for wanting one again, only problem is they have not been made since 1972.

I still think if i get in a severe front crash in my Suzuki i will end up with the 1000 ccm engine in my lap, its less than 1 M from the pedals to the front bumper-
 
And talking of airbags - how the heck can anybody drive with their nose almost touching the top of the steering wheel?
I've even seen learners on the roads practically cuddling the wheel.
If instructors aren't teaching the basics, what else aren't they teaching?
If you sit so close to the wheel that your nose is almost touching it, your belt will struggle to prevent you hitting the wheel & most likely the airbag will kill you anyway!
Darwinism !
 
And talking of airbags - how the heck can anybody drive with their nose almost touching the top of the steering wheel?
I've even seen learners on the roads practically cuddling the wheel.
If instructors aren't teaching the basics, what else aren't they teaching?
If you sit so close to the wheel that your nose is almost touching it, your belt will struggle to prevent you hitting the wheel & most likely the airbag will kill you anyway!
Darwinism !
this is true in older cars but most newer cars have 2 or 3 stage airbags. the computer has sensors in the seat tracks to know how close/far away the seat is, as well as a weight sensor, and of course a switch to know whether the seatbelt is buckled. based on those inputs (and the severity of the crash) it will determine how hard or IF the airbag will deploy. if you're too close, it won't deploy at all even in a severe crash. if your belt is off, it will deploy faster/stronger since it knows you'll be coming at the wheel/dash completely unrestrained. safety tech has come a long way.
 
I still feel like getting new glasses for driving. I'm sure an airbag hitting my face would ram the bridge of my current glasses into my eyes. I wonder if this is factored into the testing.
 
I still feel like getting new glasses for driving. I'm sure an airbag hitting my face would ram the bridge of my current glasses into my eyes. I wonder if this is factored into the testing.
http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20030624/airbags-dont-pose-eye-injury-risk
limited sample size, but doesn't sound too terrible. besides - not sure how they could modify an airbag to accomodate glasses but still protect you. especially on the steering wheel where it might deploy at any angle of rotation. and different passenger heights and weights... if anything, glasses manufacturers should be thinking about it. make them flexible and the lenses shatterproof (which many already are). i'd rather have a cut on my cheek/eyebrow than lose my eye.
 
http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/news/20030624/airbags-dont-pose-eye-injury-risk
limited sample size, but doesn't sound too terrible. besides - not sure how they could modify an airbag to accomodate glasses but still protect you. especially on the steering wheel where it might deploy at any angle of rotation. and different passenger heights and weights... if anything, glasses manufacturers should be thinking about it. make them flexible and the lenses shatterproof (which many already are). i'd rather have a cut on my cheek/eyebrow than lose my eye.
Well the article says "eyeglass wearers were three times more likely to suffer an open eye injury, such as damage to the cornea" and that's the type of thing I worry about.
I'm thinking glasses with a rounded bridge integrated into the frame are safer than those with separate components that stick out (like my current ones.)
 
it's not just folks who need corrective optics. almost EVERYONE wears sunglasses during the day, so you'd think that glasses would be mentioned in more crashes, unless they just had a large percentage of night crashes. i don't really think about that when i buy sunglasses... maybe i should?
 
it'd be far better if manufacturers stopped using driver airbags and simply installed a spike into the centre of the steering wheel.:D
 
Back
Top