What if Volvo crashes with Volvo

Ouch!

Reply to
Bev A. Kupf
Loading thread data ...

Scary, at least on a freeway you would have ample room to manuever... On Ontario's rural highway system there is usually a gravel shoulder, then a steep ditch... Or opposing traffic to bail yourself out in. On the sections where it is 1-2 lanes either way and divded there are large "WRONG WAY" signs at every "intersection".... The highway traffic doesn't have to stop for these, and there are no on/off ramps.... sometimes an offramp lane for

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Momentum - mass trime velocity - is what counts in this situation.

Reply to
Marvin Margoshes

In the early '50s. driving west on US 30 in Iowa, I came to the crest of a hill at 70-80 mph and saw a truck coming up the other way in my lane. It was a two-lane road, with no shoulder. The choice was head-on or into the ditch. I was in a heavy Studebaker, but that wouldn't have saved me. What did was that there was a wide entrance into a parking lot at the top of the hill, and I was able to get around the oncoming truck by using the entrance as part of the road.

One of the things that I learned as a combat infantryman, was the role of luck in deciding between life and death in dangerous situations.

Reply to
Marvin Margoshes

I theory, yes, you have several lanes to work with. But, you never know which way the other driver is going. And in my case, I tried to change to the lane to my right away from the incoming car. And the other driver, started going the same way. I went straight and lightly tapped on the brakes and the driver steered back to the shoulder. Lightly, because I didn't want to lose control of the car. I know the S80 has a "stabilty control" feature, but it didn't register at all at the time, no time to think.

The next couple miles, it was, "Whew!".

Reply to
Paul in SoCal

Actually all cars are safer than they used to be because of federal safety requirements. I have an '81 240 wagon, which in the '80's was arguably much safer than other similar vehicles. This safety was because of designed-in crumple zones, a strong passenger compartment cage and its excessive weight.

Now, however, I don't believe Volvos are much different from other makes. Not because Volvo is less safe, but because all cars must meet stringent safety standards--all cars are safer. Volvo could make its cars safer than other makes, but at the expense of cost and added weight, which don't help it compete. Added weight hurts fuel mileage and that plus cost could push a buyer to another make. Not good for Volvo.

Bottom line, any crash with enough speed will be fatal regardless of how safe your car is. KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Reply to
KHanawalt

Ahem. Make that penny-pinching, shareholder-dividend-worshiping Ford. Ford has a long record of making vehicles as cheaply as it can get away with - so making them safer than anything else isn't going to happen.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

Yes.

Gert

Reply to
gert

There is no safe car, some are safer than others! So the above text from Franz is just my point (earlier on) that the energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared. Thus the faster you go, the harder the crash.

Gert

Reply to
gert

Agreed, but in Ford's defense, these companies are not in business only to be humanitarian and protect lives. First, they must make money. To do this, they have to have a product not only that consumers desire, but which they can afford.

You can make money on fewer vehicles if you make more profit per unit, but that is not how Detroit likes to operate. They want to sell more vehicles, and are willing to make less on them. An to sell more cheaply than their competition, they must cut costs, hence either lower quality or fewer features, such as added safety, may be the consequences.

KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Reply to
KHanawalt

Yes but that's all obvious, the key is still to *not* crash.

Reply to
James Sweet

I might as well add something as everbody else seems to be commenting on this one.

Bear in mind with side impacts that the accident has to be absorbed in around 6" of door whereas a front impact has 5 feet or more. As speed is proportional to the distance travelled & the time taken, the potential for harm is much greater in a side impact than a front. the only way this will change is if car manufacturers add 41/2 feet of car on each side.

Take a look at a crash test video at full speed. Notice how severe it is. Now realise that most legislative test are done below 40mph, so this is the maximum speed you can expect to hit something & expect to walk away with minor injuries & no permanent brain damage. All other accidents above @40mph rely on speed being dissipated before the first major impact to give anyone a chance to survive. Even an Indy driver hitting the wall on an oval hits at around 60mph tops, because his forward speed maybe 200mph+ but his speed sideways into the wall is a fraction of that.

I survived a head-on impact when I was doing @45mph & the other driver was doing about 30 in a car with seat belts & an airbag (not a Volvo though). I had a cracked Sternim (where the chest joins at the front), concussion, temporary loss of hearing & deep bruising where my seatbelt was. The medics could estimate my speed because they said that over 45mph the seatbelt actually starts cutting through the body!

Had the other driver been doing more than 30mph, I think I would not be here now typing this message.

Drive safely out there.

Reply to
Andrew Potter

ouch is right...tremendous energy in that footage....

Reply to
richbonilla

There is an important factor in the equation that you've left out: "Drive safely".

Even the safest car on earth won't save the occupants if they drive irresponsibly.

There was a time when Volvo drivers could pretty much be expected to be the most courteous and safe drivers on the road.

In the 240 days, I would have said that the possibility of a Volvo crashing into a Volvo was zero. Nada. Zip. Just wouldn't happen because Volvo drivers simply don't put themselves into situations where that would happen.

Nowadays ?

Reply to
Eunoia Eigensinn

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Wait, let me make a note of that. It sounds like a great idea.

Reply to
L David Matheny

Well you don't always get that much of a choice choice :-). Back in '97 I had a front tire suddenly blow out at about 65-70mph on a downhill interstate curve. The rim immediately dug in and the car flipped over

4-5 times (or so I was told by a eyewitness ) and ended up remarkably barrel-shaped and upside down in a drainage culvert in the central divide - I lost a small piece of one of my ears and various cuts and bruises and but otherwise was undamaged. Then in '99 I met a sleeping driver  who suddenly swerved  across a state highway into my path - probably an 80-90mph offset head-on impact. I came off a bit worse that time. In neither case was there time to avoid a crash, you just had to try to make some very quick decisions  about whether you could make the situation a bit more more surviveable.

So I run an XC which I f There is no safe car, some are safer than others! So the above text from Franz is just my point (earlier on) that the energy is proportional to mass times velocity squared. Thus the faster you go, the harder the crash.

Yes but that's all obvious, the key is still to *not* crash.

--------------010404050801090404000204--

Reply to
John Benham

had a front tire suddenly blow out at about 65-70mph on a >downhill interstate curve. The rim immediately dug in and the car flipped over 4-5 times (or so I was told by a eyewitness ) and ended up >remarkably barrel-shaped and upside down in a drainage culvert in the central divide - I lost a small piece of one of my ears and various cuts >and bruises and but otherwise was undamaged. Then in '99 I met a sleeping driver who suddenly swerved across a state highway into my >path - probably an 80-90mph offset head-on impact. I came off a bit worse that time. In neither case was there time to avoid a crash, you >just had to try to make some very quick decisions about whether you could make the situation a bit more more surviveable.

tires for signs of road damage and always wear a seat belt.

Yes my comment was taken a bit out of context. The "avoid crashing" was referring to not driving significantly slower than the other traffic in order to be safe, and my argument was it's better to use common sense, stay aware, and avoid causing a preventable crash in the first place then to drive really slow hoping to make the crash less severe. Obviously you can't always avoid it, there's plenty of stupid people on the road and if you never make a mistake, chances are someone else will sooner or later.

Reply to
James Sweet

Most brake hard just prior to the accident lowering the total speed as like when you see a police car you hit the brake knowing this they ask what speed were you doing and if you reply I don't know whamo your done .Most likely you were with in the limit but they prey on ignorance they are well trained in such matters in fact experts at being ignorant so dont let them bluff you carry a tape with you they freak out when they know you taped them saved me many a time .Like when a smuck tried to make out my son had his arm out the window on the sill (the window wont go down the last 5 inches will it so it was on the tape on the sill out the window "got him "he backed off nice try .Thats besides the fact he was driving dangerously close and pulled me up on a curve which was stupid as well .When challenged he backed off ,they are full of bluff and power games 1.8miles or 3 klm over the limit your gone yet the speedo is allowed 10 %plus or minus .ASK FOR THE PHOTO they have been sending several people the same fine and been paid by all when the number is not clear .If the photo cant show your nmber its not on .I dont speed its stupid but so are police who try to book you for doing a 100 klm an hour 60 miles an hour when they are in the 35 mph or 60 zone with the camera facing you in the 100 klm or 60 mile zone got him on tape addmitting it and he backed off as he admitted he took my reading while I was in the 100klm\60 mile zone and I was legal .He asked whats that for I replied for accidents and liars who try me on .I got off so to speak but in fact my cousin was his inspector and more corrupt than him .We dont speak .

"~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com...

Reply to
John Robertson

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.