patrick.net

  new post
register or log in

#investing   #housing   #politics   #humor  
10,718 registered users, 3 users online now: APOCALYPSEFUCK_is_ADORABLE, PCGyver, YesYNot

SUV collides with Semi

By New Renter   2013 Jan 6, 2:36am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   4,480 views   39 comments   watch (0)   share   quote  

Taken from a state trooper's dash cam.

Comments 1-39 of 39     Last »

1   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 4:33am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

SUVs are horribly dangerous and wasteful. They are built cheaply on truck frames, and sold by clever marketers for high prices to idiots. A well designed unibody sedan, e.g. Mercedes, would have a reasonable chance of protecting the passengers in a collision like that. The SUV basically shattered, probably no survivors. Every time I see an SUV, I think "idiot." I don't like to speak ill of the dead, since they are no longer around to defend themselves, but this video looks like a Darwin award to me.

2   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   2013 Jan 6, 4:40am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

They're completely worthless in slush like this, 4 x 4 or no. In this kind of crap, in the most well-designed AWD, there is still a *likelihood* of hydroplaning after 40 MPH. You have to drive in this kind of weather, you take the slow lane and let the crazies take the changes.

3   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 4:45am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Online reports say the video is from Russia, so probably not an American state trooper:

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/suv-truck-smash-video.shtml

I don't know what Russians call their version of state troopers. Many Russians have dashcams, for a variety of reasons.

4   Peter P   2013 Jan 6, 4:48am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

A well designed unibody sedan, e.g. Mercedes, would have a reasonable chance of protecting the passengers in a collision like that.

I would not be so sure. That is a very violent collision.

I think a unibody crossover will be the safest. A slightly taller vehicle is safer when colliding with another vehicle.

5   Peter P   2013 Jan 6, 4:49am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Do they not have center dividers?

6   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 5:07am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

This video makes a strong case for center dividers, but many rural roads around the world do not have them.

I counted two lane markings per second in the video. In the U.S., those markings are usually 10' long and 30' apart. If Russian distances are similar, that would mean 80 feet per second, i.e. around 50mph. Hitting a tractor trailer would cause the SUV to reverse direction instantaneously, achieving nearly the tractor's speed, so a total change in velocity of almost 100mph. The Mercedes crash that killed Princess Diana was around 100mph, and one front seat passenger survived even though nobody in the car was wearing a seatbelt.

7   Peter P   2013 Jan 6, 5:17am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

In some parts of the world the distance between lane markings varies according to the design speed. This could be used as a visual cue to the current speed.

8   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 6:24am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Lada occupant walks away from collision with tractor trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OUeISZMVJyo

I don't recommend crashing into tractor trailers, but if you absolutely must, at least don't be in an SUV.

9   elliemae   2013 Jan 6, 6:27am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Wow - to both those videos.

The scarey part about walking away is that often people suffer from soft-tissue damage, which sets in later.

10   Peter P   2013 Jan 6, 6:34am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

We need self-driving cars and trucks.

11   Patrick (150/150 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 6:36am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Holy crap. I knew there was a reason I don't like the highways.

12   Peter P   2013 Jan 6, 6:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Urban intersections are just as dangerous.

13   Dan8267 (56/57 = 98% civil)   2013 Jan 6, 8:55am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

We need self-driving cars and trucks.

maglifts, the only solution. Self-driving and zero chance of fatality or collision.

14   Peter P   2013 Jan 6, 9:14am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Dan8267 says

maglifts, the only solution. Self-driving and zero chance of fatality or collision.

What about EM radiation?

Perhaps we should put our consciousness in the cloud.

15   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 3:56am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

A slightly taller vehicle is safer when colliding with another vehicle.

I wonder if the height of the SUV might have increased the risk of crashing. In the video, the SUV loses directional stability while overtaking a truck, around the point where the SUV straddles the truck's airstream wake boundary. If you've ever been wakeboarding or waterskiing, you can visualize the airflow in that wake region. A taller vehicle has more surface area exposed to wind shear, and may also be less stable when steering.

On the other hand, if the SUV driver had hit a car instead of a semi, he would probably have killed the car occupants instead of himself.

Overall, SUV occupant fatality rates are higher than for occupants of lower cars like the Jetta. Even though in a collision between an SUV and a lower car, the SUV's height tends to transfer the fatalities to the lower car, nevertheless the SUV has a higher overall fatality rate. Height is no defense when colliding with a tree or bridge support, for example. SUVs are more vulnerable to wind, steering instability, rollover, and especially operator arrogance.

16   Peter P   2013 Jan 7, 4:18am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

This is why I am considering getting a crossover next.

You sit higher up. It weighs more. The CG is not much higher.

17   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:23am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Compared to SUVs, crossovers have a much better windshear profile. I don't know exactly how the safety data compare to passenger cars. Crossovers are newer, so it may take some time to get reliable data.

One of the ironies of the Toyota acceleration issue was, five of the 10 safest vehicles on the road were Toyotas. Overall risk depends on the net result of various advantages and disadvantages.

18   Peter P   2013 Jan 7, 4:25am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Or perhaps a taller sedan like the Ford Taurus.

19   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:33am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

IDDQD says

Not a chance, taking into account the speed and difference in mass.

Evidently you didn't watch the Lada video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OUeISZMVJyo

Or read the comment about Princess Diana's crash, where one passenger survived even though nobody was wearing a seatbelt. "A reasonable chance" doesn't mean 100% certainty, but it's clearly higher than "not a chance."

20   Peter P   2013 Jan 7, 4:38am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Want one of these:

http://www.dartz.us/

21   TechGromit   2013 Jan 7, 4:42am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I think the main problem with SUV's is people feel safer, so they drive more reckless. Despite the advantages of better traction to get a SUV going in the ice and snow, they suffer the same problem all cars suffer in the ice and snow, control and stopping. You don't get any more control in an SUV that any other car once you get moving.

22   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:44am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

Want one of these:

http://www.dartz.us/

LOL - I'd rather have a plug-in hybrid and life insurance. Nobody lives forever anyway.

23   lostand confused (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:52am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

wonder if the height of the SUV might have increased the risk of crashing. In
the video, the SUV loses directional stability while overtaking a truck, around
the point where the SUV straddles the truck's airstream wake boundary.

Actually if you look at the video, the SUV loses control right at about the 17 sec mark. Looks like it crosses into the "divider" or whatever it is and the wheels go into the slush/dirty snow/ice and it loses control, smashes into the truck and then loses control and goes to the other side where the big semi ploughs into it and blasts it into smithreens. If it did that to solid metal-I can't imagine what it did to the flesh of the humans inside! Dear Lord.

They were travelling in opposite directions-so if they were going 60mph each way-that is 120 mph crash-give or take a few miles for the spin out of the SUV. No way a car migh have survived this.

Now SUVs are rather not stable at high speeds and curves-nothing like a car with low center of gravity. But I think this was due to the SUV losing control due to the slush/snow/ice/whatever.

It does seem to be Russia though-they seem to have TV recorders in their vehicles like this collection of Russian accidents below

24   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 4:56am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

lostand confused says

Actually if you look at the video, the SUV loses control right at about the 17 sec mark.

I watched several times. I agree the SUV entered the slush at 17 seconds. There had been slush along the whole center line. The difference at 17 seconds was that the SUV began surfing the airflow wake of the truck that it was overtaking. The wind shear pushed the SUV toward the center slush, and then everything else followed.

25   lostand confused (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 5:04am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

The difference at 17 seconds was that the SUV was surfing the airflow wake of
the truck that it was overtaking

I have driven large vehicles, while towing 9,000+ pounds. Yes you can feel the difference when a semi overtakes you or in a 2 lane road, goes against you. You adjust to it -I have also driven heavy loads in windy conditions-real southern california santa anna winds-you adjust.

The truck that the SUV was overtaking, was not even a big one to cause that much of a windstream. It probably looks similar to a regular sized F450 or 550-it is defnitely not a semi.

26   Peter P   2013 Jan 7, 5:09am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

So I guess a safe vehicle is a tall, heavy, unibody one with low CG and good wind profile.

What will that be? (other than a RR Phantom)

27   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 5:11am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

lostand confused says

I have driven large vehicles, while towing 9,000+ pounds. Yes you can feel the difference when a semi overtakes you or in a 2 lane road, goes against you. You adjust to it

The SUV has less directional stability than a heavy load especially towing 9,000#. If you don't think wind shear was an issue, then why did the SUV veer into the slush at precisely the point where it was overtaking the slower truck's wake, and at no prior time? In your experience, you felt the difference and adjusted to it; in the video, the SUV operator failed to do that.

Peter P says

tall...low CG.... What will that be?

For those factors, your crossover idea makes sense. But as TechGromit pointed out above, operator attitude is probably a bigger factor. For overall safety, check NHTSA data, and always fasten your seatbelt.

28   Peter P   2013 Jan 7, 5:19am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

What about wheelbase? Longer is better right?

29   lostand confused (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 5:36am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

The SUV has less directional stability than a heavy load especially towing
9,000#.

Depends on the SUV. Something like a Jeep Liberty-absolutely . But otherwise some of the bigger SUVs are pretty sturdy -like a Suburban.

Now with a pick up truck of the same rating-you can tow with a gooseneck/fifth wheel which makes it more stable, rather then bumper pull-well that is how I felt towing both ways.

The only thing bad about an SUV I noticed was in speed and curves-above 70-75 mph and very curvy can get dangerous very fast-and this is without towing. Flat roads, that speed is fine. Now with snow/mud etc, if you have 4 wheel drive -SUVs are real nice. they have high clearance and I like them. But defnitely not as stable as a car with low centre of gravity.

30   Quigley (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:02am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Driving in snow conditions is tricky. 4 wheel drive is helpful for getting started, but can't help much on turns or stopping. A drive wheel hitting traction less surface will make the car start to fish tail. A wrong move at that point by the driver (brakes, overcorrection, etc) will send you into a spin.
Driver experience and care will make the difference in such treacherous conditions. I'd rather be driving a rear wheel drive vehicle here, as they are easier to manage when the wheels begin to slip. This sure ain't California weather tho! If we had such weather here, I doubt you could find a spare spot in the ditch; they'd all be taken.

31   lostand confused (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:06am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Quigley says

This sure ain't California weather tho!

LOL! It sure isn't CA weather. After I moved to the mid-west, winter weather has been interesting to say the least! But for me the worst part is when you have to go to work and your car is covered in snow/ice and you have to scrape it off in the cold and wind -well at least the windshield and then drive again. Yuk!!! This year has been pretty mild though-except for that one big storm and a few other days of snow.

32   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:17am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Don't try this at home:

man who survived 100+ mph flying Trans Am crash good - thanks for asking

SUV buyers pay extra imagining they are safer than passenger cars, but statistically they are less safe both for the occupants and especially everyone else.

33   HEY YOU (3/3 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 6:45am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Best car advice: Don't hit semis head-on.

34   New Renter   2013 Jan 7, 8:50am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Quigley says

Driving in snow conditions is tricky. 4 wheel drive is helpful for getting started, but can't help much on turns or stopping. A drive wheel hitting traction less surface will make the car start to fish tail. A wrong move at that point by the driver (brakes, overcorrection, etc) will send you into a spin.

Driver experience and care will make the difference in such treacherous conditions. I'd rather be driving a rear wheel drive vehicle here, as they are easier to manage when the wheels begin to slip. This sure ain't California weather tho! If we had such weather here, I doubt you could find a spare spot in the ditch; they'd all be taken.

Once upon a time I had an SUV with selectable on the fly 2/4/AWD. In heavy rain I could feel a subtle difference in the handling, AWD did feel more planted than 2WD. I never pushed the limits to see if AWD made a difference there.

35   Peter P   2013 Jan 7, 9:09am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Cars need to have thrusters so that they can maneuver in a complete lack of traction. Just like the Apollo module in space. :-)

36   curious2 (16/16 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 9:26am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

Peter P says

Cars need to have thrusters so that they can maneuver in a complete lack of traction. Just like the Apollo module in space. :-)

Or, you could put cowcatchers on the front of tractor trailers. Maybe a scoop, like in Soylent Green. There was a lot of protein in that SUV, and in this economy, it shouldn't go to waste.

37   lostand confused (9/9 = 100% civil)   2013 Jan 7, 9:47am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

I guess if you are in Russia, don't honk at a biker!!

38   TechGromit   2013 Jan 7, 9:57am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

curious2 says

always fasten your seatbelt.

Unfortunately I don't think seat belts would have helped that guy much. There comes a certain point where even the crumble zones, salt belts and air bags on a car can save you.

39   KILLERJANE   2013 Jan 7, 11:40am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   top   bottom   home   share  

This post sucks.

Comments 1-39 of 39     Last »

Watch comments by email

home   top   users  
housing crash   thunderdome   sexy pix   site suggestions  
best comments   ad hominem comment jail   random post   patrick.net on twitter  
about   contact  
please recommend patrick.net to republicans