Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Road Safety (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/)

-   -   Accidents in India | Pics & Videos (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-safety/109249-accidents-india-pics-videos-1889.html)

I'm pretty sure from the video on FB which you've shared that the guy driving the City pulled the handbrake toward the end. The video is shaky and ends abruptly but it's bad driving for sure all the way. It takes quite some doing to roll a low-slung sedan over.

Could this be a Scandinavian flick attempt gone wrong?

I see no reason for the City to 'fold' like a piece of paper even if the top of the car hit the pole. The structure holding the base should not have given in so dramatically. In one of the pictures taken in the aftermath in the previous page, the rear wheels are not even touching the ground meaning the structure itself is bent.

Did this video cut off just before the crash? If that is the case then the car is not doing above 60 Kmph.



Looks like the car is heading towards a pole from this screenshot.

Not sure about it mate. It looks like it though. I stumbled across this post on HVK's FB forum. Read the discussion here and thought it would help understanding the reason for the crash.

Whoever feels that the honda city should not have folded like what the image shows, despite hitting (at considerable speed), 'roof member first' into a pole with ~50x it's tensile strength, and that too something deeply grouted into the earth, should understand that this is a perfect case of 'inelastic' collision. When one object is immovable (tree with strong roots, well grouted cement/iron pole), all the energy of the collision will dissipate on the object with lesser tensile/compressive strength. Result = bending/breaking.

That's the reason something like a roll-cage is invented, to provide additional reinforcement, to act as the next 'tensile strength' barrier, after the original structure of the car has given away.

I came across this 6 year old video. Skip to 04:30

https://youtu.be/mPne-q4ynts?t=252

I don’t know whether this is the correct thread or not to post this thought, but I just want to ponder over the following matters:

1. Each and every vehicle even of the same make, model and trim level has got a different weak spot and a strong spot at any given point of time, the moment they are out of the assembly line.
2. Every car safety assessment program does exactly the same test on the vehicles covering exactly the same area pinned down to the last millimetres. They plan the very area of impact of each vehicle and the same is standardised for all. We never see a side impact barrier hitting the front door or a rear quarter panel. Or a frontal offset crash happening at 12.3% rather than the usual 60% / 40%. The point I am trying to understand is, if an accident does not happen by the book, how much reliance can be placed on the car safety assessments?

I am a total layman in terms of understanding the critical scientific calculations done by the safety assessors to determine the crash-worthiness of each vehicle but do remember one phrase which probably all of us have come across during our school / college days i.e. ‘Considering the fact that all investors are rational and the market is tax-free’, which we all know, is a myth.
But since as always, a line has to be drawn somewhere, which is where the safety ratings come into play and give an average Joe like me some sort of assurance but again with a pinch of salt. Probably it acts as an added incentive to the thought of driving safely.:)

I absolutely agree with your point of view (backed up by so many cases) that tree or pole against car is an unfair contest: the car will loose, and in ways quite horrible to its occupants.

hair splitting, but... I think I have heard that, with trees, it is the slight elasticity that actually makes them the most dangerous. A pole may be knocked over, whilst the small amount of give in a tree allows it to remain standing and bounce back. Double whammy!

+1 to that - really tall skyscrapers are designed at their mid-point to move with the wind. Hydraulic devices are in-built in which ensure that the top-half of the structure can move in tandem with the wind. And in any case, isn't that the gist of the saying - "strong enough to bend but not break"?

But can this be done in cars?

Cautionary note to self and all: Let's not stray too OT.

Well another crumple zone doing its job here.



If only the Nexon guy would have driven a bit more sensibly. The Ciaz bore the burnt here. I guess the Ciaz was taking Right/U-turn.

Video link:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h4iQ58m1dDs

Credits to the respective owner.

If we look carefully, we can see alcohol bottles in Snapchat story for a split second. Could this be a DUI case?

Looks like the Ciaz either 1) Broke Down 2) Fiddling with GPS 3) Taking a phone call 4) Drinking water and taking a break.

Doesn't look like a split in median anywhere for taking turn.

I would say extremely lucky Ciaz that it wasn't the Bus :)

If you look closely, you can see a stationary pickup truck carrying water cans(?) right in front of the Ciaz.

I agree. The Nexon guy must have been a fool to assume nobody in his sane mind would park in the rightmost lane without the blinkers without a care tothe safety of himself and others. He should have known better.