Do you fasten your seatbelt for every journey?.....really?......I don't

POPPYOSCAR

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

Not if the under run bar takes your head off.

Please, please, you are putting me off ever getting in a car again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flyboy152

bigjl wrote: »

I have watched MythBusters once or twice and some of their "results" leave a lot to be desired and their experients are biased to get the result they want.

Don't know what they did or how they got their results, but there is the same forces involved in a 60mph impact against a stationary object as there are in a collision between two objects doing 30 mph.

There are many variables, were the objects concerned solid or could they deform etc.

A 60 mph impact against a wall will have broadly the same "Mechanism of Injury" as a collision between two objects doing 30mph.

I will believe what I have seen and been taught rather than a TV program to be honest.

Err.....care to explain the maths.

bigjl

What, the 30 + 30 = 60 thing too complicated for you!

Perhaps you could explain what your issue is with my maths.

I can then give your advice to the various people that write our textbooks.

I assume you know what "Mechanism of Injury" means aswell.

bigjl

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

I can't argue the injury but 60mph into a wall is a far greater impact than two cars head on each doing 30. Cars are designed to crumple in an impact to absorb energy. Two cars is two times absorbed energy. They will either move up or down on impact and a wall won't do this. That is what I was taught and not from tv.

This isn't about defining the exact energy being transferred, exact angle of collison etc, the statement is self explanatory.

At the scene of an RTC the "mechanism of injury" is considered the same in a 60mph collision with a stationary object, such as a wall. As it would be in a collision of two cars both doing 30mph.

Don't forget that walls also deform as do ARMCO, etc.

Do you really think in the context of this thread you need exact calculations of anything.

This isn't about degree level maths, degree level physics, exact impact trajectories, etc.

This is how you assess an RTC when walking up to it.

If you would rather the Ambulance/Police/Fire bods stop to discuss the exact details of a crash before helping anybody then fine, you keep living in your world I will live in mine, which is the real world.

The exact stuff is done later by the Police crash investigators, hence why roads remain closed for up to 12 hours after a serious fatal RTC.

I still fail to see any relevance in your and Flyboys posts, you are pushing the entire thread into another direction, or yet another MSE !!!!ng contest.

bigjl

Gandalfthesecond wrote: »

I can't argue the injury but 60mph into a wall is a far greater impact than two cars head on each doing 30. Cars are designed to crumple in an impact to absorb energy. Two cars is two times absorbed energy. They will either move up or down on impact and a wall won't do this. That is what I was taught and not from tv.

What was the context of your training? Was it engineering or some other science based disipline, or was your training given in the context of dealing quickly and efficently with the injured at RTC's etc.

Trained to assess the collision for the position of those most likely to be injured in seconds rather than minutes.

Sorry if the way things work in my workplace don't come up to standard and exactness of your workplace.

Howeve as this thread is specific to my workplace my opinion is relevant.

Nice to see everybody having a pop at the properly trained person posting on this subject and agreeing with the VAS who has only read the book and has posted, though with good intentions, rather innacurate conclusions and opinion.

MSE back on form then.

Flyboy152

bigjl wrote: »

What, the 30 + 30 = 60 thing too complicated for you!

Perhaps you could explain what your issue is with my maths.

I can then give your advice to the various people that write our textbooks.

I assume you know what "Mechanism of Injury" means aswell.

I assume you know what "staged impact deformation zones" means as well?

Flyboy152

bigjl wrote: »

This isn't about defining the exact energy being transferred, exact angle of collison etc, the statement is self explanatory.

At the scene of an RTC the "mechanism of injury" is considered the same in a 60mph collision with a stationary object, such as a wall. As it would be in a collision of two cars both doing 30mph.

Don't forget that walls also deform as do ARMCO, etc.

Do you really think in the context of this thread you need exact calculations of anything.

This isn't about degree level maths, degree level physics, exact impact trajectories, etc.

This is how you assess an RTC when walking up to it.

If you would rather the Ambulance/Police/Fire bods stop to discuss the exact details of a crash before helping anybody then fine, you keep living in your world I will live in mine, which is the real world.

The exact stuff is done later by the Police crash investigators, hence why roads remain closed for up to 12 hours after a serious fatal RTC.

I still fail to see any relevance in your and Flyboys posts, you are pushing the entire thread into another direction, or yet another MSE !!!!ng contest.

Sorry, but that's exactly what it is about.

If a wall deforms, it is no longer a static object.

stevemcol

A mature tree (completely immovable) is probably a better example than a wall. Deceleration g will be far greater hitting the tree at 60 than two cars head on at 30. Either way, not a pretty outcome.

Interestingly, the road traffic accident rate actually increased measurably when seat belts became law. A psychologist could explain it.

Gloomendoom

The car hitting the wall at 60mph would do so twice as hard as two cars hitting each other at 30mph.


A 2 ton car travelling at 60mph would hit a solid wall with a relative impact energy of 3600

Two 2 ton cars both travelling at 30mph and hitting each other head on would do so with a combined relative impact energy of 1800.

This is because the energy increases as the square of the speed.

E = (1/2) mass × (speed x speed)
.
.
.
.

bigjl

Flyboy152 wrote: »

I assume you know what "staged impact deformation zones" means as well?

NO, can you assess an RTC, consider all the relevant info given to you as you approach the vehicles by the witnesses that are screaming and shouting, then make a decision based on "mechanism of injury" and then be able to prioritise the patients in an intial triage based on what info you have gained in the 30 seconds you have to come to a decision?


You are, as I already stated, performing in the good tradition ot the MSE Forum, moving something that into cour comforrt zone, and by doing so trying to prove that you can !!!! higher up the wall than anybody else.


You can head off down the geeks forum if you want to be a smart !!!!, the simple facts are you are introducing all kinds of irrelevance into the thread to try and show yourself to be the top dog, mr I know it all due to be able to quote physics and dynamics.


I see your type all the time, in the real world, flapping and panicking and asking me for help.


You are trying to take a gun to a knife fight too quote Clarkson.


You are unable to understand what I mean by "mechanism of injury" so have introduced another issue to the thread.


You neither want to leanr or allow others to learn on this forum, just try and show yourself to be billy big !!!!!!!!.


When you are assessing an incident, in this case we are discussing an RTC, you don't stop to consider the NCAP ratings, what strength steel has been used, which car has deformed and why, you don't consider lots of things that will be considered at a later stage.

In other words all your theoretical mumbo jumbo, it isn't relevant at the time of an RTC and isn't relevant in this thread.

If the thread was to discuss the exact science behind the crash and its effects on the body, then we would all head down to MIRA and have a theoretical jawbone.

But this is a thread about usage of seatbelts.

Now go down your nearest Hospital and try and speak to one of the Basics Dr's or a HEMS Dr if you live near a large city.

Their training is broadly similar, Pre-Hospital Trauma, but they do the Gucci stuff like RSI and we only crack the chest with tuff cuts under their instruction.

We do however assess the scene in a similar way.

Anybody that has been involved in an RTC with a stationary object such as a wall at 60mph is considered to have a similar "mechanism of injury" as the occupants of a either car when they are in collision whilst both doing 30mph.

Not sure why this is confusing to somebody that likes to talk up how clever he is.

The angle of the collision is also considered, as is the mass of each vehicle and where the vehicles have actually made contact with each other.

Now why exactly are you continuing to introduce irrelevances into the thread?

Your point is as reletive to this therad as my asking you what exemptions an Ambulance can claim en route to a 999 call. That has nothing to do with this thread either.

I take it you know what being pedantic is?


Or is the actual issue that you are a member of the Polo mint carrying Johnnies? And have been upset by an Ambulance crew telling you to wind your neck in, is that it?

If you can't see why