Discussion
julian64 said:
This is why I think the euro NCAP is slighty suspect. It gives the impression that all modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
They are... No normal car (i.e. something without a full carbon tub/roof) would have been able to wear that any better - the roof rail and roof panel are always just part of the equation, and that is a huge impact to weather.HGV wheel and tyre will be around 90kg, travelling at a 120mph closing speed is a huge amount of energy, all focussed on a structure not designed for it.
State of that tire.
It's fortunate that most modern cars have bonded in wind screens, which ads strength to the shell.
But yes, a Very lucky escape. Let's hope the occupants suffer no lasting mental scars.
Years ago a friend and his partner were going under a bridge in Woodford, in his MGB GT, when a yob threw a brick down at them. The brick came through the centre of the screen and landed on the centre console. Fortunately for them, no glass hit their faces and he was able to pull over onto the hard shoulder.
It's fortunate that most modern cars have bonded in wind screens, which ads strength to the shell.
But yes, a Very lucky escape. Let's hope the occupants suffer no lasting mental scars.
Years ago a friend and his partner were going under a bridge in Woodford, in his MGB GT, when a yob threw a brick down at them. The brick came through the centre of the screen and landed on the centre console. Fortunately for them, no glass hit their faces and he was able to pull over onto the hard shoulder.
This CSL was hit by a woman who fell asleep @ the wheel of her Yaris. The CSL was stationary by the kerb and the impact pushed them back along the kerb a fair distance, with both n/s wheels digging into the kerb, so the body shell took even more forces through it. Not how the complete windscreen has popped out.
Their cat was in its basket on the rear seat, the basket burst open and moggy legged it through the screen aperture. Fortunately the two occupants weren't killed and the car was found 3 weeks later!
Blimey, that photo is a sobering reminder that anything can happen when driving.
I was once following a scaffolding truck in good conditions on a straight road at NSL. I didn't notice at the time but the scaffold poles were not secured in the back of the vehicle with straps.
Anyway, all of a sudden a 4ft piece of scaffolding jumped out the truck. It hit the ground then spun towards my car windscreen (an e46 BMW 328i). I slammed on the brakes and managed to swerve mostly away from it, although it dented my bonnet and destroyed a headlight.
If it wasn't for the sharpness of the brakes, strength of the car and ABS allowing me to steer when braking I don't think myself/passenger would still be alive today.
I came to a complete stop and watched the scaffolding truck sail away in the distance completely oblivious.
I was once following a scaffolding truck in good conditions on a straight road at NSL. I didn't notice at the time but the scaffold poles were not secured in the back of the vehicle with straps.
Anyway, all of a sudden a 4ft piece of scaffolding jumped out the truck. It hit the ground then spun towards my car windscreen (an e46 BMW 328i). I slammed on the brakes and managed to swerve mostly away from it, although it dented my bonnet and destroyed a headlight.
If it wasn't for the sharpness of the brakes, strength of the car and ABS allowing me to steer when braking I don't think myself/passenger would still be alive today.
I came to a complete stop and watched the scaffolding truck sail away in the distance completely oblivious.
Edited by F4R on Wednesday 22 May 09:56
julian64 said:
This is why I think the euro NCAP is slighty suspect. It gives the impression that all modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
Agreed, completely. However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
A decade ago a close friend lost his life in an R53 Cooper S. His car span, and the rear of his car collided with the front of a Corsa C.
The front end of the Corsa was a mess, but completely survivable. IIRC, the doors were intact, and the A pillar and roof were crease free.
His Mini on the other hand was, and I kid you not, left about a foot wide at the rear, and the roof was crushed up like a Coke can. This was a 5 Star NCAP car.
It's all well and good calling a car 5 star NCAP, but there are more than 5 crash scenarios.
Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Wednesday 22 May 10:18
OP here. Just to say quite a few years back, decades back now, did some work involved with the investigations into lost and loose wheel collisions. Situation in terms of numbers of incidents was worse than it is today, and lots of reasons for that. However for a time afterwards it completely freaked me out, just the concept of hammering up a dark motorway on the way to something and the prospect of an HGV wheel appearing out of nowhere. With the closing speeds involved and the unpredictability of the bounce it's bad enough to make an avoidance in daylight having picked it up earlier.
BTW, suspect the other vehicle involved is parked in the background on the other carriageway with a traffic unit behind it.
BTW, suspect the other vehicle involved is parked in the background on the other carriageway with a traffic unit behind it.
Yeah this was on "Truck and Driver" facebook page a couple of days ago. A lorry tyre that was lost from the drive axle, apparently, of an HGV travelling on the opposite carriageway, came over the central reservation and lodged itself in the Peugeot.
Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
Shakermaker said:
Yeah this was on "Truck and Driver" facebook page a couple of days ago. A lorry tyre that was lost from the drive axle, apparently, of an HGV travelling on the opposite carriageway, came over the central reservation and lodged itself in the Peugeot.
Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
That's clearly not a drive axle tyre, if it came off a drive axle then wrong type of tyre fitted. Which is potentially another issue, it's most likely just had a wheel changed, have they fitted the wrong equipment, e.g. trailer wheel on a drive axle, different fittings? Incorrect size spigot hole? Who knows.Horrifying, and amazing that the occupant/s of the car had only minor injuries and were able to get to the hard shoulder.
This is an example of a drive axle tyre.
neutral 3 said:
................ stationary by the kerb and the impact pushed them back along the kerb a fair distance, with both n/s wheels digging into the kerb, so the body shell took even more forces through it. !
The Police estimated that the car that hit us was doing 85mph. (In a 30 zone).
Unfortunately, it was in the days before compulsory seat belts and so I did a rather impressive Glasgow kiss through the windscreen.
All these years later, as I turned the pavement red with my blood, I can still hear the voice of the driver of the other car saying, "Oh my bloody car".
julian64 said:
This is why I think the euro NCAP is slighty suspect. It gives the impression that all modern cars are orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
Not really. Cars ARE orders of magnitude safer than older cars. However when I used to have a morris minor and even subsequently a 323i BMW I would have thought nothing about standing on the roof or bonnet. I once spent a night sleeping on top of my 323i bmw.
If you tried that in a modern car the tissue paper metal they are made from would deform immediately.
Now there is a point where you want the deformation to absorb the forces involved but this photo shows how its all got a bit silly. If cars are getting progressively heavier and yet the metal is getting thinner and thinner then you have to wonder that the only thing making a car safer today is that they are twice the size of old cars. Its not really clever engineering
I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
NoAdverseDevelopments said:
Absolutely nothing you can do in that situation, it would all happen far too quickly for you to react.
I wasn’t there so I don’t know any different.Maybe it could have been avoided, maybe not.
Maybe the wheel had been bouncing down the road for 5 seconds, or maybe it had just flown off.
Maybe the wheel was heading off the carriageway but it hit another car and bounced into the path of the unlucky victim
But you can take some measures to give yourself the best chance of avoiding such a random event.
Before you set out:
Do you know how your car handles extreme steering and braking inputs?
Are your tyres, brakes and suspension in good condition?
Do you have any loose heavy objects in the car?
Whilst driving:
Keep a constant look out close ahead and into the distance
Is traffic ahead is behaving unusually eg. swerving or braking?
Do you have space to swerve into another lane if necessary?
Are you aware of what vehicles are behind and to the side of you?
Are you far enough from the car or lorry in front to see past them?
I can’t think of any scenario where I would prefer to crash a 20 year older version of a car versus its modern day equivalent.
SOL111 said:
Not really. Cars ARE orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
The damage looks very similar to that sustained in the Saab/Volvo Moose/Elk crash tests, whereby the car was driven into the "body" of the animal which impacted across the top of the windscreen. I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
SOL111 said:
Not really. Cars ARE orders of magnitude safer than older cars.
I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
Might not be relevant to you, but its where I would put my money in that accident. If I can stand on an old car, but on a modern car I cant, then I know which car I'd rather be in when a dirty great wheel hits the top of my car.I agree that the ncap is slightly suspect and many manufacturers will design cars specifically to pass the tests (as opposed to considering a wider range of scenarios).
However, modern cars will have roof strength requirements. It's just that what we're seeing here is such a random scenario that manufacturers are unlikely to design for such a case.
Your example of being able to stand on a roof isn't particularly relevant when the skin does nothing structural.
If your figures tell you otherwise then good luck to you.
Wills2 said:
The damage looks very similar to that sustained in the Saab/Volvo Moose/Elk crash tests, whereby the car was driven into the "body" of the animal which impacted across the top of the windscreen.
There are similarities but a large body impacting over a large area is a different test when compared against a relatively small concentrated mass targeted at possibly the weakest point on the roof structure.Looking at that Peugeot, I can't really imagine a worse place to hit that part of the car. I guess it's why the roof came off like a tin of sardines! Nasty.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff