An interesting few days

[JDNSW]

I have had an interesting few days. On Sunday morning I took a friend who has been with me for a few days down to the village to get his car (New Hyundai), left at my niece's because the road into my place was likely to be impassable to two wheel drives due to the rain.

Having seen him off for Melbourne at 0800, I was still having a cup of tea there when I got a phone call from someone on his phone to tell me that he had been in an accident just outside of Dubbo. So I drove in to the location.

It seems he came over a crest and there was a car and horse float turning right. He did not realise it was stopped in time, and estimates he was doing about ninety when he hit. However, the Hyundai is supposed to be the safest small car on the market, and lived up to this. When I arrived the car and horse float had gone off to the vet to get the horse checked, and police and ambulance were there. He was being treated in the ambulance, with the only symptom being back pain, and was taken to Dubbo Base for X-rays and assessment. With the permission of the police, I took all his stuff out of the car. By this time the fire brigade (not much need - diesel) and tow truck had arrived. I followed the ambulance to the hospital, where he was discharged about lunchtime, still with severe back pain, but nothing on X-rays. He was planning to fly back to Melbourne this morning, but has decided he is not fit to fly. He was due to fly to Vanuatu on Wednesday.

Yesterday I had to go back in to the towing company's holding yard - I had missed two pairs of glasses; one in a compartment above the mirror I did not know about, the others, the ones he had been wearing I found under the back of the driver's seat. Also I had missed the mount for his Tomtom, and his phone charger, and all the keys except the car key.

Looks like I have a guest for days if not weeks.

John

[87County]

Sorry to hear that happened to your mate JD, at least he's OK and he had somebody he knew who give practical support

....guests can be OK (for a while) :)

.........could have been worse

[weeds]

lets hope he is back on his feet soon.....bugger about the holiday to Vanuatu

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Sorry to hear for your friend John.


However, the Hyundai is supposed to be the safest small car on the market.

This did give me a chuckle. Almost certainly this is the only truth ever spoken in a hyundai dealer. Most of their cars have only just received their 4 star rating.

Anyway, undoubtably it is far far safer than the small cars that preceded it. This is my point that no one seems to be able to comprehend on this site. Modern crash safety is advancing incredibly quickly which is enabling crash outcomes that are far better than would have been expected in the past. Old thinking that big(heavy) and solid is always best definitely was true, but now it is far less clear cut than that. The very latest safest cars are getting outcomes for occupants that would defy belief ten (let alone 20) years ago.

[Scouse]

Bad luck about your mate but make sure you send us a postcard from Vanuatu :).





Well, it would be a shame to waste a holiday :wasntme:.

[Treads]

Glad to hear your friend is okay :)

I've been to quite a few prangs these holidays, and they haven't all been so nice.


By this time the fire brigade (not much need - diesel)

If it was called in as a 'persons trapped', or there were liquids on the road, the fire brigade will always turn up ;)

[BigJon]

Anyway, undoubtably it is far far safer than the small cars that preceded it. This is my point that no one seems to be able to comprehend on this site.

I comprehend it and I am sure many others do too. New cars are safer in crashes than old cars. Bit of a no brainer really...

[JDNSW]

Sorry to hear for your friend John.



This did give me a chuckle. Almost certainly this is the only truth ever spoken in a hyundai dealer. Most of their cars have only just received their 4 star rating.

Anyway, undoubtably it is far far safer than the small cars that preceded it. This is my point that no one seems to be able to comprehend on this site. Modern crash safety is advancing incredibly quickly which is enabling crash outcomes that are far better than would have been expected in the past. Old thinking that big(heavy) and solid is always best definitely was true, but now it is far less clear cut than that. The very latest safest cars are getting outcomes for occupants that would defy belief ten (let alone 20) years ago.

This is certainly the case, but the facts remains that firstly, everything else being equal, in a two car crash the heavier vehicle will always come of best. In fact, if the difference is large, even an uncrashworthy heavier vehicle will often be more survivable than a much lighter very crashworthy vehicle - for example, there are many cases of extremely uncrashworthy heavy transport vehicles suffering little or no injury to the driver in a headon collision with very crashworthy passenger cars where all occupants have been killed or severely injured.

The second point is that crashworthiness is, according to Monash University research, only slightly if at all related to overall deaths and injuries for vehicles - certainly it is closely related if you only look at the vehicles involved in accidents, but if you look at the entire vehicle population, the probability of having an accident (which is quite vehicle dependent) is a much bigger factor than the crashworthiness. And this appears to be unpredictable from a design viewpoint, probably being mainly a reflection of the type of driver the vehicle design appeals to.

In this case, as a pure guess, the vehicle characteristics which may have influenced the event could include effortless, quiet cruising, giving the impression of speed being lower and margin of control being larger than they really are. (The owner thinks my County seems to be going faster at the same speed, interestingly a different impression than the one I get - I think he is more influenced by the wind, where to me the County seems slower than most cars at the same speed because you are further from the road.

John

[Captain_Rightfoot]

This is certainly the case, but the facts remains that firstly, everything else being equal, in a two car crash the heavier vehicle will always come of best. In fact, if the difference is large, even an uncrashworthy heavier vehicle will often be more survivable than a much lighter very crashworthy vehicle - for example, there are many cases of extremely uncrashworthy heavy transport vehicles suffering little or no injury to the driver in a headon collision with very crashworthy passenger cars where all occupants have been killed or severely injured.

The second point is that crashworthiness is, according to Monash University research, only slightly if at all related to overall deaths and injuries for vehicles - certainly it is closely related if you only look at the vehicles involved in accidents, but if you look at the entire vehicle population, the probability of having an accident (which is quite vehicle dependent) is a much bigger factor than the crashworthiness. And this appears to be unpredictable from a design viewpoint, probably being mainly a reflection of the type of driver the vehicle design appeals to.

In this case, as a pure guess, the vehicle characteristics which may have influenced the event could include effortless, quiet cruising, giving the impression of speed being lower and margin of control being larger than they really are. (The owner thinks my County seems to be going faster at the same speed, interestingly a different impression than the one I get - I think he is more influenced by the wind, where to me the County seems slower than most cars at the same speed because you are further from the road.

John

I really do understand what you're saying but everyone seems to be missing my point. These studies like the MUARC (http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc287.pdf) one you referenced have too great a lag to pick up the trends I'm talking about. Read section 1.4 of the above report, and the last look at increasing crashworthiness found little correlation to safety increasing but the newest vehicle included in the research was 2000 and this section hasn't been re-evaluated.

However the main stats have been updated recently. Have a look through the report (page 29 and on) and you'll see that the newer vehicles, and particularly the europeans are making big jumps. The newest vehicles included seem to be about 07, and generally they are bettering the benchmark. So cars that crash well in consumer crash tests are also doing well in the real world.

You should note that the newest Hyundai Accent in the survey is 06, and it is performing worse than the benchmark by 3 increments. The Volkswagen golf from the same time is performing well ahead of the benchmark and on the limit of what is shown in the study. You get what you pay for.

It's my belief that good european designs with what I'll call 5 star safety have only really been available since about 2000, and the proportion of these vehicles in the Aus vehicle population is miniscule. 5 star crash safety has generally only been available in mainstream vehicles since about the middle of the naughties and is still not universally available.

Given the vehicle population of 15 million in Australia it's going to take time for this to be reflected in official stats. Also, should there be any improvements in road statistics state authorities will always claim it's their new draconian policies before handing the kudos to car manufacturers.

I am well aware that vehicles that are more than 200kg different in weight are not regarded as compatible. If you had a choice of crashing in two similarly crashworthy vehicles you'd always take the heavier one.

[JDNSW]

I really do understand what you're saying but everyone seems to be missing my point. These studies like the MUARC (http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc287.pdf) one you referenced have too great a lag to pick up the trends I'm talking about. Read section 1.4 of the above report, and the last look at increasing crashworthiness found little correlation to safety increasing but the newest vehicle included in the research was 2000 and this section hasn't been re-evaluated.

However the main stats have been updated recently. Have a look through the report (page 29 and on) and you'll see that the newer vehicles, and particularly the europeans are making big jumps. The newest vehicles included seem to be about 07, and generally they are bettering the benchmark. So cars that crash well in consumer crash tests are also doing well in the real world.

You should note that the newest Hyundai Accent in the survey is 06, and it is performing worse than the benchmark by 3 increments. The Volkswagen golf from the same time is performing well ahead of the benchmark and on the limit of what is shown in the study. You get what you pay for.

It's my belief that good european designs with what I'll call 5 star safety have only really been available since about 2000, and the proportion of these vehicles in the Aus vehicle population is miniscule. 5 star crash safety has generally only been available in mainstream vehicles since about the middle of the naughties and is still not universally available.

Given the vehicle population of 15 million in Australia it's going to take time for this to be reflected in official stats. Also, should there be any improvements in road statistics state authorities will always claim it's their new draconian policies before handing the kudos to car manufacturers.

I am well aware that vehicles that are more than 200kg different in weight are not regarded as compatible. If you had a choice of crashing in two similarly crashworthy vehicles you'd always take the heavier one.

I am not sure you do understand my point - I certainly get yours (and it was not a Hyundai Accent - it was a CSI or a name something like that - completely new design small, very economical diesel along European lines). There is no doubt that if you are going to have a crash, a crashworthy vehicle is better than a heavy vehicle within limits. But my point is that far more important than how crashworthy your vehicle is, is how likely it is to be in a crash in the first place. And this is almost impossible to determine in advance. It can be determined looking back, based on actual experience. But as you point out, given continuing development of cars, the currently available ones have almost no representation in statistics.

The road toll has been declining on a per kilometre basis, give or take random annual variations, almost ever since statistics started to be collected. The only events that look as if they made a major impression were the introduction of seat belts and the introduction of random breath testing. Looking at this overall trend, what I see is not the introduction of crashwoprthy cars, but steady improvements in road conditions. Many of these are small details, but their cumulative effect is significant. Just to point out some local ones - in the immediate area of the accident this thread is about, there are three similat tee junctions - following fatal accidents, the other two have had right turn lanes provided. The same sort of changes are being made all the time, all over the country.

As an example of random variations, NSW in 2008 had the lowest road toll ever - in 2009 it was up substantially, despite more stringent police action, reduced speed limits, road improvements, a larger proportion of more crashworthy vehicles. The only factor I can think of for 2009 is the great financial crisis, which may well have resulted in factors such as more people neglecting maintenance, particularly tyres, more people driving carelessly because their mind was not on theior driving, or even more suicides by motor vehicle (not unlikely - the suicide rate is already well above the road death rate, and an unknown number of road deaths really should be classified as suicide).

But in my view, it is more likely that the increase simply reflects random variation, that becomes a larger factor as the underlying level gets very low.

John

[BigJon]

(and it was not a Hyundai Accent - it was a CSI or a name something like that - completely new design small, very economical diesel along European lines).

Possibly an i30. Award winning car.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I am not sure you do understand my point - I certainly get yours (and it was not a Hyundai Accent - it was a CSI or a name something like that - completely new design small, very economical diesel along European lines). There is no doubt that if you are going to have a crash, a crashworthy vehicle is better than a heavy vehicle within limits. But my point is that far more important than how crashworthy your vehicle is, is how likely it is to be in a crash in the first place. And this is almost impossible to determine in advance. It can be determined looking back, based on actual experience. But as you point out, given continuing development of cars, the currently available ones have almost no representation in statistics.

The road toll has been declining on a per kilometre basis, give or take random annual variations, almost ever since statistics started to be collected. The only events that look as if they made a major impression were the introduction of seat belts and the introduction of random breath testing. Looking at this overall trend, what I see is not the introduction of crashwoprthy cars, but steady improvements in road conditions. Many of these are small details, but their cumulative effect is significant. Just to point out some local ones - in the immediate area of the accident this thread is about, there are three similat tee junctions - following fatal accidents, the other two have had right turn lanes provided. The same sort of changes are being made all the time, all over the country.

As an example of random variations, NSW in 2008 had the lowest road toll ever - in 2009 it was up substantially, despite more stringent police action, reduced speed limits, road improvements, a larger proportion of more crashworthy vehicles. The only factor I can think of for 2009 is the great financial crisis, which may well have resulted in factors such as more people neglecting maintenance, particularly tyres, more people driving carelessly because their mind was not on theior driving, or even more suicides by motor vehicle (not unlikely - the suicide rate is already well above the road death rate, and an unknown number of road deaths really should be classified as suicide).

But in my view, it is more likely that the increase simply reflects random variation, that becomes a larger factor as the underlying level gets very low.

John

OK :) I think I know what you are saying. I agree that road conditions are generally improving, and that statistical variation is always going to happen. (I call it the **** happens factor).

Queensland had a bad year last year and I tend to think that it is due to more wet weather than we've had for a bit.

No matter the government tells us that as a result of the poor outcome they are going to fix the problem by being even harsher on speeding. There will be no tolerance any more (like Vic) and we will have more mobile cameras, and new for QLD many will be stealth (old vans, no signage). They are introducing lots more fixed speed cameras too. So is that there entire strategy - yep :)

Is it just a coincidence that the state is broke?

[Bigbjorn]

I am not sure you do understand my point - I certainly get yours (and it was not a Hyundai Accent - it was a CSI or a name something like that - completely new design small, very economical diesel along European lines). There is no doubt that if you are going to have a crash, a crashworthy vehicle is better than a heavy vehicle within limits. But my point is that far more important than how crashworthy your vehicle is, is how likely it is to be in a crash in the first place. And this is almost impossible to determine in advance. It can be determined looking back, based on actual experience. But as you point out, given continuing development of cars, the currently available ones have almost no representation in statistics.

The road toll has been declining on a per kilometre basis, give or take random annual variations, almost ever since statistics started to be collected. The only events that look as if they made a major impression were the introduction of seat belts and the introduction of random breath testing. Looking at this overall trend, what I see is not the introduction of crashwoprthy cars, but steady improvements in road conditions. Many of these are small details, but their cumulative effect is significant. Just to point out some local ones - in the immediate area of the accident this thread is about, there are three similat tee junctions - following fatal accidents, the other two have had right turn lanes provided. The same sort of changes are being made all the time, all over the country.

As an example of random variations, NSW in 2008 had the lowest road toll ever - in 2009 it was up substantially, despite more stringent police action, reduced speed limits, road improvements, a larger proportion of more crashworthy vehicles. The only factor I can think of for 2009 is the great financial crisis, which may well have resulted in factors such as more people neglecting maintenance, particularly tyres, more people driving carelessly because their mind was not on theior driving, or even more suicides by motor vehicle (not unlikely - the suicide rate is already well above the road death rate, and an unknown number of road deaths really should be classified as suicide).

But in my view, it is more likely that the increase simply reflects random variation, that becomes a larger factor as the underlying level gets very low.

John

There was a chart published in yesterday's Courier Mail showing that the fatalities rate in Qld from road accidents was 30 per 100,000 people in 1967 and is now around 6 in 2009. There has been a steady decline in the rate with a few up and downs along the way since 1961 which was far and away the worst, or the peak in the rate. The decline in drink driving and the compulsory installation and use of seat belts are claimed to be the major reasons. I would add the exponential improvements in vehicles (brakes, tyres, steering and handling) and roads to be big contributors to the decline. Improvements in medical procedures mean people who would have died of injuries received in a traffic incident in 1961 are now surviving.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Possibly an i30. Award winning car.

Yep, that would be it if it's a diesel.

At release in 07 it only achieved 4 stars so they took another stab in 08 and got it across the 5 star line in the versions with ESC and curtain bags (not standard).

That doesn't sound worthy of "safest small car ever" to me. Cars such as the Merc A class, MINI, Peugot 208, 308, Renault Clio (3 - 05 on), VW Golf (05 on) have all offered 5 star safety, in some cases for some years already. It is worth noting that in the case of the Golf they are up to their third model release that has achieved 5 stars now.

[isuzurover]

Cars such as the Merc A class, MINI, Peugot 208, 308, Renault Clio (3 - 05 on), VW Golf (05 on) have all offered 5 star safety, in some cases for some years already. It is worth noting that in the case of the Golf they are up to their third model release that has achieved 5 stars now.

Sounds like you are contradicting your own argument. So the 04 and earlier euro small cars in the UK study were what - 4-star??? 5-star???

The 110/derender is what??? (but was still 2-3 points better than any small car).

What you are talking about are incremental changes - which will result in incremental improvements in vehicle related injuries - not revolutionary changes.

Australian data shows that the introduction of mandatory seat belts resulted in a huge drop in road fatalities. All other changes have produced only incremental improvements - though possibly due to their more staggered introduction.

Naturally, I would prefer to be in a 5 star rated car in an accident. However if the accident was between a small car and a big 4x4, I would prefer to be in a 4 (or even 3) star rated 4x4 than a 5 star rated small car. The real world stats appear to back up my decision.

Sorry for the hijack JD - hope your friend makes a full recovery soon.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Sounds like you are contradicting your own argument. So the 04 and earlier euro small cars in the UK study were what - 4-star??? 5-star???

The 110/derender is what??? (but was still 2-3 points better than any small car).

What you are talking about are incremental changes - which will result in incremental improvements in vehicle related injuries - not revolutionary changes.

Australian data shows that the introduction of mandatory seat belts resulted in a huge drop in road fatalities. All other changes have produced only incremental improvements - though possibly due to their more staggered introduction.

Naturally, I would prefer to be in a 5 star rated car in an accident. However if the accident was between a small car and a big 4x4, I would prefer to be in a 4 (or even 3) star rated 4x4 than a 5 star rated small car. The real world stats appear to back up my decision.

Sorry for the hijack JD - hope your friend makes a full recovery soon.
Well, you look at the report and tell me if I've got it right. Once again we have the lag factor, but in the real world, people who own Mk4 VW Golfs have better outcomes in crashes than the safest of the large 4wd's such as Range Rovers, Mercedes M-classes, or BMW x5's.

If you drove an 83 Nissan Patrol the crashworthiness was benchmark x 2 increments(3%). If you drove a 07 Nissan patrol was benmark + almost one increment (worse - 2%).

If you drove an 83 VW Golf you didn't have great chances - benchmark + 3 increments (+ lots! 6+%). However if you drove an 07 Golf you had better than benchmark (1%) chances and were better off than a Patrol owner. And these are the results from Ambulence chasers - not consumer crash testing. This backs my belief that cars that perform very well in crash testing are doing very well in the real world - better than much larger cars and particularly ones such as the nissan patrol (3stars) despite being over 1 tonne lighter!

You can see that large heavy cars were your best options in years gone by - by a long way. However many of them (and particularly large 4wd's) haven't advanced in design at the same rate but they are still reasonably safe cars in the real world due to their weight. However car safety design has taken such large steps forward, to the point where in the real world people are having better outcomes in the best small cars than they are in some large 4wd's despite their lack of weight. Unless I've totally misunderstood something - that's exactly what I've been trying to say with little success!

Maybe have a look at this video which was one of the things that alerted me to how things were changing in regards to weight and crash compatibility. The renault espace is a 1500kg car or at least 500kg lighter than a D2. Yet you look at the outcome...

YouTube- Renault Espace vs. Land Rover Discovery crash test

When I was working for a major fleet (10+ years ago) I always followed this stuff and knew that 200kg was the weight compatibility figure. We knew that the heavier the vehicle the better. However it's not clear cut anymore and heavier is not always automatically better. This report has been very interesting for me as I haven't looked at it since those days. The Defender is rated as a crash worthiness rating of 4% whereas the little shopping trolley I have for the wife and kids is 1%.

[slug_burner]

What a good friend you are John, and how lucky is your friend not to have been hurt.
Hope he loses his pains soon (for his sake, not yours) and is able to get back to normality.
Bet you have a good time for the extra few days he is with you :D

Well said ^.

Hope your friend has a full recovery.

[JDNSW]

Well said ^.

Hope your friend has a full recovery.

Thanks to both you and the others who have expressed similar sentiments. As of last night he is still pretty sore (plus side effects of Panadiene Forte). Hasn't surfaced yet this morning!

John

[weeds]

Panadeine Forte is not such the great pain killer as everyone makes out


totally agree, i have boxes of forte at home and have found they give limited/no relief, i tent to stick with panadol osteo and nurofen

[scrambler]

totally agree, i have boxes of forte at home and have found they give limited/no relief, i tent to stick with panadol osteo and nurofen
Completely off topic (perhaps) ...

1/10 of the population get NO pain relief from codeine (or from tramadol, a more modern alternative) because they cannot activate the drug in the body. These people are just as well off taking panadol as panadeine forte.

Everyone else gets pain relief from codeine, enough or not enough depending on the type of pain, severity, personality etc.

Very sorry to hear of your friend's accident JD, but very glad to hear he's "only" sore and sorry when it could have been so much worse.

[BigJon]

Yep, that would be it if it's a diesel.

At release in 07 it only achieved 4 stars so they took another stab in 08 and got it across the 5 star line in the versions with ESC and curtain bags (not standard).

That doesn't sound worthy of "safest small car ever" to me. Cars such as the Merc A class, MINI, Peugot 208, 308, Renault Clio (3 - 05 on), VW Golf (05 on) have all offered 5 star safety, in some cases for some years already. It is worth noting that in the case of the Golf they are up to their third model release that has achieved 5 stars now.

My guess is the i30 is significantly cheaper than those others listed...

[BigJon]

The renault espace is a 1500kg car or at least 500kg lighter than a D2. Yet you look at the outcome...
.

It is a D1 in that video :angel:. Not that the crash outcome would be significantly different in my opinion.

[JDNSW]

Well, he was not getting much better, so today I took him to the doctor, who took another X-ray and sent him to the Base Hospital. He has been admitted after a number more x-rays and has been told he must not move until a back brace is fitted, and apparently they are worried about being sued for discharging him on Sunday. It is unclear when he will be discharged.

John

[Captain_Rightfoot]

That's bad news John... Hopefully he'll be back to normal soon. [bighmmm]

[scrambler]

That sounds a bit more like it. If the "wings" out the side of the vertebrae (backbone) are broken then it can be almost impossible to tell on standard xrays. Either CT scan or specific xray views might be required. The amount of pain was out of proportion to the diagnosis of bruising (assuming the 90% chance that the analgesics were likely to be effective). Hard to see how they'd miss other fractures,

Hopefully this will be a step in the right direction, John. But will still be more than a month before things are even close to good.

[JDNSW]

He was discharged last Sunday with a back brace, and an appointment back at the hospital on Thursday. On Thursday he was fitted with a much more effective back brace, and an appointment next Friday.

In the meantime he has been contacted by AAMI about his car. None of the Dubbo panelbeaters are prepared to quote on repairs as they are convinced it will be a writeoff and they would be wasting their time and effort, plus they would not be able to start for six months as they are full up with kangaroo work. So AAMI is trucking the car to Melbourne for repair.

Looks as if he will stay with me until Australia Day when my son is coming up from Yass to pick up the grandchildren, so he will go back with him and get a flight home to Melbourne from Canberra.

According to the hospital he will be in the bbackbrace for another four weeks.

John