-
Welcome! CLICK HERE to ask a question about the best carseat or safest choice for your family. Visitor posts subject to approval.
Question What type of crash is usually the most deadliest?
- Thread starter remken
- Start date
ADS | |
Mae
Well-known member
Side impacts.
I'll have to dig for some proof.
Here's an article. http://www.vandornandcurtiss.com/li...de-swipeside-impact-new-hampshire-vermont.cfm
Another: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6152951/
If this helps, it's from the Tech Student Manual:
I'll keep adding stuff as I find it.
I'll have to dig for some proof.
Here's an article. http://www.vandornandcurtiss.com/li...de-swipeside-impact-new-hampshire-vermont.cfm
Another: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6152951/
If this helps, it's from the Tech Student Manual:
I'll keep adding stuff as I find it.
Last edited:
canadiangie
New member
Side Impact.
To my knowledge...
Rollover is also right up there...
To my knowledge...
Rollover is also right up there...
Evolily
New member
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
Frontal impact kills the most people, followed by side impact, then 'other/unknown', then non-collision (rollovers are included in this I think?), and then rear impact.
Now, as for what is the most/least survivable, you'd have to do some math
but the data is there.
Frontal impact kills the most people, followed by side impact, then 'other/unknown', then non-collision (rollovers are included in this I think?), and then rear impact.
Now, as for what is the most/least survivable, you'd have to do some math
but the data is there.thepeach80
Senior Community Member
I think % wise, more people in side impacts die vs % of people who die in frontal crashes. More people die in frontal simply b/c it's the most common.
Thats the way I understand it also. But H insists that head on is. He uses the argument that two cars going 35 MPH hit each other head on would be considered a 70 MPH crash. Not sure if that is how you would calculate that or not? I've tried telling him about crumple zones and that you are farther from impact in a frontal crash than a side impact.
Thanks for the links so far. Whenever I try doing a search I get links for accident lawyers.
Evolily
New member
If two cars of equivalent mass are traveling at 35 mph (with no breaking) and hit this is the equivalent of hitting an unmovable concrete barrier. So this would be a 35 MPH crash in a crash test. It's a very serious crash, but also a very rare type of crash. It is very different from one car moving at 35 mph and hitting another stationary car of equivalent mass- I believe if the car was moving at 70 mph it would be similar to the solid barrier crash, but I'm not certain.
Fun, slightly off topic, non-scientific experiment- take two hands, move them at about the same speed and have them hit. That's a head on crash. You'll notice that both hands stop on impact. Take your hand, moving at the same speed, and hit a wall- again, it stops on impact. Now take two hands, hold one stationary, and hit it with your other hand- your other hand moves, decelerating the moving hand so it does not stop on impact
A car going 70mph has a lot more energy that two identical cars going 35 mph. The energy goes as the square of the velocity. 70 squared is bigger than 2 times 35 squared. I'd put my bets on the occupants of the two identical cars going head on;-)
Severe frontal crashes are both more frequent and more energetic than severe side impacts. Like Remken said, modern cars really do a great job protecting occupants in frontal crashes, especially since you have a lot more crush space. It's only in the last 10 years or so that side impacts have gotten more attention, but no matter what you do, you still have very limited crush space so they will probably always be quite dangerous.
So here's a point to ponder. Where would you put a front facing toddler. In the 2nd row outboard seat, or the center of the front row in a large sedan with no active airbag there? Assume they are otherwise correctly restrained.
We always say kids under 13 in back, but we also know the center is safest (though how much safer ranges from not much to considerable depending on the study). I'd probably go with the back seat, especially in a newer car with good side impact crash protection. But what about a car with poor side impact protection and no side curtain airbags? Either way, I'm not so sure it's clear cut based on statistics. Anyone have a study?
Severe frontal crashes are both more frequent and more energetic than severe side impacts. Like Remken said, modern cars really do a great job protecting occupants in frontal crashes, especially since you have a lot more crush space. It's only in the last 10 years or so that side impacts have gotten more attention, but no matter what you do, you still have very limited crush space so they will probably always be quite dangerous.
So here's a point to ponder. Where would you put a front facing toddler. In the 2nd row outboard seat, or the center of the front row in a large sedan with no active airbag there? Assume they are otherwise correctly restrained.
We always say kids under 13 in back, but we also know the center is safest (though how much safer ranges from not much to considerable depending on the study). I'd probably go with the back seat, especially in a newer car with good side impact crash protection. But what about a car with poor side impact protection and no side curtain airbags? Either way, I'm not so sure it's clear cut based on statistics. Anyone have a study?
mommy-medic
New member
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0225-O.pdf
Nearside crashes have higher serious injury and
fatality risks as compared to all crash modes [Samaha
and Elliot, 2003]. Nearside occupants are at
increased risk of significant injury due to their limited ride down space and proximity to the intruding vehicle structures. The limited crush space
and intervention time to protect the nearside occupant
in a lateral crash makes the development of effective
occupant protection features a difficult task.
Severe frontal for one car or both? In most wrecks at least one vehicle will have frontal damage. A TRUE head-on is not as frequent as a lateral impact, but based on anatomy, organs have far less allowable lateral movement before terminal injury than frontal. Frontal crashes are more common, but have been aggressively addressed with air bags, crumple zones, etc. Side impacts are deadlier at lower speeds, and even with the fairly recent introduction of side-impact curtains, there is significantly less "ride down" space in a side impact. The head, chest, pelvis, and abdomen all take the brunt of it. A frontal colission needs more energy to cause the same injuries a lower-speed lateral would cause.
Adventuredad
New member
Collisions are roughly divided into 70% frontal collisions, 25% side collisions and 5% rear collisions. Side collisions are the percentage wise the most deadly since cars are optimized for collisions to the front. Protection is simply a lot worse from the side.
It would be difficult to find out if there are more fatalities in total from the side despite these collisions being less common.
Rollovers occur in about 3% of accidents so they are uncommon and not much focus.
It would be difficult to find out if there are more fatalities in total from the side despite these collisions being less common.
Rollovers occur in about 3% of accidents so they are uncommon and not much focus.
Rollovers are only a small percentage of all crashes, but they account for a much larger percentage of fatalities. According to the IIHS:
It is sort of the reverse of rear end crashes. Those account for a larger amount of all crashes, but only a small percentage of fatal crashes.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rollover.html#
This is why we have seen mandated stability control, increases in roof strength and a proliferation of side curtain airbags with rollover protection. In the USA, we have a large number of pickups and truck based SUVs that have been very prone to rollovers historically. Many years, they account for over half our new vehicle sales. These vehicles are relatively scarce in many western European countries.
Here are some general statistics:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
It is sort of the reverse of rear end crashes. Those account for a larger amount of all crashes, but only a small percentage of fatal crashes.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rollover.html#
This is why we have seen mandated stability control, increases in roof strength and a proliferation of side curtain airbags with rollover protection. In the USA, we have a large number of pickups and truck based SUVs that have been very prone to rollovers historically. Many years, they account for over half our new vehicle sales. These vehicles are relatively scarce in many western European countries.
Here are some general statistics:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2008/occupants.html
A T-bone crash is counted as a side impact, even though it was frontal for one vehicle. Head-on frontal and frontal offset crashes are counted as frontal. The two types generally are about equal in frequency.
You can make your own FARS queries here-
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
They have a table here if you don't want to run a custom one-
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Vehicles/VehiclesPassengerCars.aspx
You can make your own FARS queries here-
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
They have a table here if you don't want to run a custom one-
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Vehicles/VehiclesPassengerCars.aspx
Morganthe
New member
The types I've known where people have died most were Vehicle vs immovable object. (Tree, wall, mountainside, guide-rail off into the woods).
Didn't matter if it was front, side, or rolling, they were all deadly, with and without seatbelts.
Have no clue how that factors into the general statistics, though. :shrug-shoulders:
Didn't matter if it was front, side, or rolling, they were all deadly, with and without seatbelts.
Have no clue how that factors into the general statistics, though. :shrug-shoulders:
LISmama810
Admin - CPS Technician
The other issue with side impacts isn't just having less there to protect you. Part of it is that the human head moves easily back and forth but is not designed to move sideways in the same way. Our necks can handle being whipped forward or backward much better than they can handle being whipped sideways.
That's why I like SIP wings on car seats. Even if there's no standard and even if their crashworthiness hasn't been tested, it feels better psychologically to have something closer to my kid's head.
That's why I like SIP wings on car seats. Even if there's no standard and even if their crashworthiness hasn't been tested, it feels better psychologically to have something closer to my kid's head.
I think the next steps for side impact protection will involve further strengthening of the safety cage, particularly with respect to the door and B pillar. It's amazing how much greater the post-crush distance has grown in the last decade in IIHS tests.
The 2014 E-class Mercedes was measured to have 24 cm of space *after* the side impact between the B pillar and the edge of the driver's seat, which is the highest I've ever seen in a passenger vehicle. Twenty-four centimeters might not sound like much, but in comparison, the 2005 Honda Accord, which also received a "good" side impact rating, was measured to provide 3.5 cm of space post-impact. Each additional cm translates into a higher speed impact you're likely to be able to walk away from.
This, by the way, also illustrates the importance of digging into the data whenever you can to examine the forces at work. Not all "good" ratings are the same, even when weight has been accounted for.
The 2014 E-class Mercedes was measured to have 24 cm of space *after* the side impact between the B pillar and the edge of the driver's seat, which is the highest I've ever seen in a passenger vehicle. Twenty-four centimeters might not sound like much, but in comparison, the 2005 Honda Accord, which also received a "good" side impact rating, was measured to provide 3.5 cm of space post-impact. Each additional cm translates into a higher speed impact you're likely to be able to walk away from.
This, by the way, also illustrates the importance of digging into the data whenever you can to examine the forces at work. Not all "good" ratings are the same, even when weight has been accounted for.
safeinthecar
Moderator - CPS Technician
What do you mean by most deadliest? Least chance of survival for an individual crash, or most deaths per category?
You must read your carseat and vehicle owner’s manual and understand any relevant state laws. These are the rules you must follow to restrain your children safely. All opinions at Car-Seat.Org are those of the individual author for informational purposes only, and do not necessarily reflect any policy or position of Carseat Media LLC. Car-Seat.Org makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. If you are unsure about information provided to you, please visit a local certified technician. Before posting or using our website you must read and agree to our TERMS.
 |  |  |
Please Support Car-Seat.Org with your purchases of infant, convertible, combination and boosters seats from our premier sponsors above.
Shop travel systems, strollers and baby gear from Britax, Chicco, Clek, Combi, Evenflo, First Years, Graco, Maxi-Cosi, Nuna, Safety 1st, Diono & more! ©2001-2022 Carseat Media LLC