B
Bev A. Kupf
Ouch!
Ouch!
R
Rob Guenther
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
200m or so - there is usually a small street between the two opposing lanes,
so if you want to go North and you are close to the Southbound lane, you hop
the Southbound lane, sit in the middle area, then accelerate in the
Northbound fast lane (if there is one) till you get up to speed.... It's a
good system since there isn't all that much traffic using the roads, but you
hear of some really good accidents up there.
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
200m or so - there is usually a small street between the two opposing lanes,
so if you want to go North and you are close to the Southbound lane, you hop
the Southbound lane, sit in the middle area, then accelerate in the
Northbound fast lane (if there is one) till you get up to speed.... It's a
good system since there isn't all that much traffic using the roads, but you
hear of some really good accidents up there.
R
Rob Guenther
And overly slow driving creates terrific cases of road rage, which could
cause a vehicle 10-20 cars back in the que that begins to form behind a slow
driver to hit the accelerator and begin to pass the whole line of cars.....
Often ignoring a hill up ahead or some other vision limiting obstacle.... by
the time you would pass that many cars you could easily be up to 130-160+
kph.... so not enough room to slow down and get back in with the line of
cars in your direction, not enough time to stop to avoid an oncoming driver,
and way too fast to make a swerve onto the hard or soft shoulder.... if you
ever are in this situation you better be hoping that the slower oncoming
drivers swerve, and let you go straight through.
I've seen some close calls just driving to work, every couple weeks you get
that commuter newbie or someone who wouldn't be driving at that certain time
of day out on the roads, creating all sorts of slowdowns and pissed off
drivers.... And you get people who try to go round - passing with coffee in
hand, tiredness in their eyes, not such a clear head, bad visibility outside
(still dark at 6am), and an underpowered 4-6 cylinder commuter car.
cause a vehicle 10-20 cars back in the que that begins to form behind a slow
driver to hit the accelerator and begin to pass the whole line of cars.....
Often ignoring a hill up ahead or some other vision limiting obstacle.... by
the time you would pass that many cars you could easily be up to 130-160+
kph.... so not enough room to slow down and get back in with the line of
cars in your direction, not enough time to stop to avoid an oncoming driver,
and way too fast to make a swerve onto the hard or soft shoulder.... if you
ever are in this situation you better be hoping that the slower oncoming
drivers swerve, and let you go straight through.
I've seen some close calls just driving to work, every couple weeks you get
that commuter newbie or someone who wouldn't be driving at that certain time
of day out on the roads, creating all sorts of slowdowns and pissed off
drivers.... And you get people who try to go round - passing with coffee in
hand, tiredness in their eyes, not such a clear head, bad visibility outside
(still dark at 6am), and an underpowered 4-6 cylinder commuter car.
M
Marvin Margoshes
Stephen Henning said:
Momentum - mass trime velocity - is what counts in this situation.
M
Marvin Margoshes
Paul in Socal said:
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.
P
Paul in SoCal
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!".
K
KHanawalt
the new ones may not be so safe....i contacted
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.
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.
J
Joseph Oberlander
KHanawalt said:
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.
G
gert
Yes.L said:
Gert
G
gert
Franz said:
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
K
KHanawalt
Volvo could
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.
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.
J
James Sweet
Yes but that's all obvious, the key is still to *not* crash.
A
Andrew Potter
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.
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.
R
richbonilla
ouch is right...tremendous energy in that footage....
E
Eunoia Eigensinn
Ronald said:
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 ?
R
Rob Guenther
Yah, i've always thougth I would try to remember to hit my indicator in the
direction I am going to veer in to... to help the situation - solid idea in
theory, but if it is interpreted AND IF I REMEMBER TO DO IT!!! is the key in
an accident avoidance situation - most people freeze... who knows what I
would do... never really been in a really bad situation like that (knock on
wood).
direction I am going to veer in to... to help the situation - solid idea in
theory, but if it is interpreted AND IF I REMEMBER TO DO IT!!! is the key in
an accident avoidance situation - most people freeze... who knows what I
would do... never really been in a really bad situation like that (knock on
wood).
L
L David Matheny
Wait, let me make a note of that. It sounds like a great idea.
J
John Benham
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 find quite reassuringly solid, regularily check
my tires for signs of road damage and always wear a seat belt.
. Back in '97I 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 find quite reassuringly solid, regularily check
my tires for signs of road damage and always wear a seat belt.
J
James Sweet
had a front tire suddenly blow out at about 65-70mph on a >downhillWell you don't always get that much of a choice choice
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.
J
John Robertson
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 .
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 .