![]() | |
Originally Posted by DRIV3R
(Post 3303877)
And if we see, the passenger side damage is more bulged out, as probably he/she was unaware of what is to happen in the next few split seconds, the driver probably held himself as and when he knew that he is going to crash. |
Originally Posted by DRIV3R
(Post 3302801)
Here is the pic of the Safari which took the Punto head-on, or rather otherwise. This pic should also depict how important seatbelts are! The Safari occupants had head injuries, you can check to windshield as to why. (You can also see the Punto in the BG) |
Originally Posted by tazmaan
(Post 3304497)
The punto has taken the hit very well. The cabin is intact and the crumple zone has absorbed the impact rather than jolting the passengers. The safari did exactly the opposite it seems to have transferred all the kinetic energy to the frame and occupants. I wonder how much of that can be blamed on the bull bar. |
Originally Posted by Gansan
(Post 3304534)
^^ I think it must be squarely blamed on the bull bar which must be bolted to the chassis. So it protected the car body and passed on the shock to the occupants. |
Originally Posted by zenren
(Post 3304545)
I'm not sure I understand the argument about the bull bar. Even in Safari, the cabin looks intact. A-pillar is in perfect shape. Windshield is broken since the passengers didn't wear the seat belts and got thrown forward, which is the precise purpose for seat belts in a car. Where does the bull bar come into all this? Entire blame for injuries should go to the passengers who choose not to wear seat belts! |
EDIT: If the passengers in Punto escaped unhurt even without wearing seat belts, I've just two words for it - DUMB LUCK :) |
Originally Posted by RajeswaranK7
(Post 3304546)
Just spotted an accident between a lorry and a car on the flyover that connects the GST road near Chromepet(A2B and Buhari) to the Pallavaram-Throaipakkam road. Couldn't identify the car, but it was being pulled out using a crane. Not sure of the details, but the roundabout is blocked completely and those who take the flyover to turn towards Pallavaram are asked to go towards Chromepet and take a U turn in the GST road. Seems like it happened around 9-9:15. |
Originally Posted by zenren
(Post 3304545)
I'm not sure I understand the argument about the bull bar. Even in Safari, the cabin looks intact......... ......Entire blame for injuries should go to the passengers who choose not to wear seat belts! EDIT: If the passengers in Punto escaped unhurt even without wearing seat belts, I've just two words for it - DUMB LUCK :)..... |
Originally Posted by tazmaan
(Post 3304497)
The safari did exactly the opposite it seems to have transferred all the kinetic energy to the frame and occupants. I wonder how much of that can be blamed on the bull bar. |
Originally Posted by zenren
(Post 3304545)
Windshield is broken since the passengers didn't wear the seat belts and got thrown forward, which is the precise purpose for seat belts in a car. Where does the bull bar come into all this? Entire blame for injuries should go to the passengers who choose not to wear seat belts! |
Originally Posted by 500ContyCruiser
(Post 3301939)
Today noticed this Indica (sedan) on fire. Within no time, the car's nose on full flames. Luckily none were hurt. They could also manage to get their luggage out of car. Location: opp. Cauvery theatre, while coming from Mekri Circle towards city. |
Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao
(Post 3304809)
About the bull-bar, if it's bolted to a vehicle's chassis, the force of impact bypasses the crumple zones (the intended recipient of the force) and passes onto the chassis & cabin through the add-on contraption (which it wouldn't if the bull-bar didn't exist). |
Originally Posted by zenren
(Post 3304832)
I'm fully aware of how harmful a bull-bar can prove to be and I'd never recommend it to anyone but that's not the point here! All this theory about how bull-bars misdirects the force of impact is relevant only in case of damage to passenger cabin area. What I don't understand is how it becomes relevant in the context of this Safari-Punto accident where the cabin area of both cars are intact. EDIT: To rephrase the point I'm still not clear, how would the absence of bull-bar in that Safari prevent the injury to those passengers? I'm speaking about this specific instance and not a general case since someone mentioned that the entire fault is with the bull-bar. |
Originally Posted by zenren
(Post 3304832)
EDIT: To rephrase the point I'm still not clear, how would the absence of bull-bar in that Safari prevent the injury to those passengers? I'm speaking about this specific instance and not a general case since someone mentioned that the entire fault is with the bull-bar. |
Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao
(Post 3305000)
Someone well-versed in Physics might explain better (or correct if I got this wrong:)), but let me try. Isn't the primary function of crumple zones to absorb the forces of impact and 'soften' (there might be a more accurate technical term for this) the impact on the passenger cabin as much as possible? Agree with you completely that the absence of seat-belts (and not the presence of the bull-bar) is responsible for the injuries. But it's possible that if there was no bull-bar, the crumple zones would've absorbed more of the impact, and the occupants may have been catapulted into the windscreen with slightly less force. Still mighty stupid not to belt-up, but the bull-bar probably made things worse. They would still be injured, but probably a bit less grievously. Also, not all structural damage is visible immediately. How the chassis/body was affected under the impact forces may be unknown (no visible damage but reduced material integrity due to absorbing impact forces), and may cause issues at a later date/incident. |
Originally Posted by the_skyliner
(Post 3305031)
Not having bull-bar could have resulted in to the occupants being thrown at the windshield with less force which means less injuries. What bull-bar did is it transferred all the forces (kinetic) directly to the vehicle chassis (and eventually to the occupants) as it is not designed to crumble unlike the car body parts. If they would have belted then the bull-bar effect would have resulted in to a bigger jerk which could result in to neck or spinal injury. Look it at it this way: having bull-bar is liking sudden braking and not having is like gradual braking. You know which will hurt more especially without seat belts. |
All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 15:09. | |