Paging car crash experts

Which seat is safest in the event of a crash, one facing forwards or one
facing backwards?

Assuming its fitted with a three point belt.

 

Which direction is the crash? Forward impact/side impact/off a cliff?

 

Lets say head on.

 

Depends upon front end crash, side or rear shunt ?
--
Vass
................................................
YZF-R1, CBR1100xx-x, A4 Cab
http://www.naldernet.plus.com/index2.html
Gamertag: RIPPPER

 

Depends how the car crashes... If it rolls, it probably doesn't make a
lot of odds. And in the car crash I had last year, as we went
backwards into the armco, we were pushed into the seats by the impact
rather than out of them. So it's by no means a binary answer.

 

Rearward facing.

Military aircraft apparently have passenger seats rearward facing because
of improved survivability in the event of a crash. Trains, sit with your
'back to the engine'.

 

flash says...

Facing backwards, as far back in the car as possible, is this a trick
question?

 

[snip]

One would assume the backwards-facing seat would be better, as the victim
would be pushed into the seat by the impact.

 

They do, at least the RAF does. Civil airlines don't follow the
practice as they think that staring downa steeply inclined tube on take
off would be too scary [1]. Though the survivability of any large
passenger jet crash once the thing has gone past take off speed is
dubious to say the least.


[1] Dilbert said that you should be scared by airline travel as you
have just allowed yourself to be strapped into a tube in order to be
fired into the stratosphere by exploding chemicles..

 

Nurse! Massive dose of cynicism over here, stat!

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2
`\|/`
`

 

"consumer resistance"

Which is the same reason civilian airlines haven't changed.

From:
Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs
Fourteenth Report
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cme
nvtra/275/27510.htm

"..
83. Another matter considered in 1991 was the provision of
rearward-facing seats. It was pointed out that military aircraft had
rearward-facing seats in order to reduce injuries in the event of a
crash,[218] and evidence from the Kegworth accident showed that the cabin
crew, who were sitting in rearward-facing seats, had suffered lesser
injuries than the passengers, who were not.[219] There are, however,
safety-related concerns about rearward-facing seats: they would have to
be higher-backed, and stronger, in order to resist the whiplash effect of
the passenger on impact, and, because passengers would be more exposed,
there was a risk that they might be struck by objects thrown around the
cabin on impact—"if a passenger is facing rearwards and the aircraft
crashes there is a risk of projectiles coming down the cabin and
seriously injuring the person".[220] Both of these problems are of course
surmountable: seats can be constructed to meet the demands of being
rearward-facing, and objects could and should be prevented from being
thrown around the cabin by better construction of internal fittings, and
particularly the overhead luggage lockers.


84. It is, therefore, clear that the main reason why rearward-facing
seats have not been adopted is the airlines', and the Regulator's, belief
that passengers would not be in favour. British Airways told us that "we
operated a fleet of aircraft in the past with rearward-facing seats [but]
they were found to be unpopular with passengers",[221] British Midland
said that "there certainly would not be a commercial advantage" in
introducing them,[222] and the Safety Regulation Group told us that "with
modern high performance aircraft ... there is a passenger comfort issue
because the aircraft is taking off steeply, and people tip forward".[223]
This assessment may be correct, but we received no evidence that
passengers had been consulted about the matter. Furthermore, the Safety
Regulation Group's concern for passengers' comfort should not deflect it
from its primary purpose, to make air travel safer. We recommend that
further research be conducted by the Safety Regulation Group into the
benefits and dangers of rearward-facing seats, and by the Civil Aviation
Authority generally into passengers' views of them, particularly
passengers fully informed of the benefits they might bring in the event
of an accident. The results of that research should form the basis of the
Safety Regulation Group's approach, through the JAA, to the issue.
..."

 

Hands up everyone who would rather sit backwards in a car... ah.

Video feed to the driver from a front-mounted camera.

 

Much like using the portaloos at Glastonbury then.

 

Bear came up with the following;:

Mirrors?

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Eddie

Been done. Captain Scarlet - SPV.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Manufacturer of the "Champion-105" range of rearsets
and Ducati Race Engineer.

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"

 

.... relative to the passenger? ...

 

"Boring: See Engineers." - Yellow Pages.

It's not without reason though, first of all, people are more relaxed when
they see where they're going, facing backwards would mean that you don't
know when the next turn/bump/lorry is coming. Apart from that, I personally
get motion sick more easily if I can't see what's next and therefore
anticipate the vehicle's reaction.

Geo

 

[snip]

I've sat facing backwards in a civilian aircraft.
A Dan-Air BAC-111, IIRC, in the seats by the emergency exit,
over the wings.

And yes, it was really weird on take-off.

 

I've been in more than several car crashes, usually in a
well-constructed car with roll cage, proper seats and full harnesses.
Whenever the car has gone in backwards, it was a damned sight easier
to walk/bend/breathe without pain the next day. If I'd not been
fenced so hard by a **** in a V6-engined VX4/90 I'd walk a lot easier
altogether, but it did teach me that sliding straight into the fence
post with full lock applied and feet flat on brake and clutch is a Bad
Idea.

Letting the seat take the impact and spread the forces evenly over
your back is, IMO, a Good Idea. As an old fart told me, "All the rear
end does is stop the tail lights dragging on the deck. If you're
going in, get the handbrake up and go in backwards". The old fart was
on the money, afaic.

Barrel-rolling is less fun but ultimately less damaging than
end-over-end, providing you don't collect loose items and toolboxes
around your soft parts. Having one's driver pile into an unexpected
gatepost or an unforeseen viaduct support, while he may be showing
Good Form by stuffing the navigator's side in first, is
contraindicated, should one have one's arm between seat and door.
Flying aerobatically over a hedge is a thrill worth experiencing, but
bouncing therefrom into a sudden, substantial tree is never worthy of
repeat.

The purple/red bruises from a full harness, the ones that run down
both sides of the chest, into the groin and across the waist last for
ages and are quite difficult to explain to one's inquisitive parents
who are otherwise ignorant of the way one chooses to spend one's
Saturday nights.

In short - back the fucker in, let the seat take the strain.
Yet better, choose not to crash in the first place.

 

It's a wonder you've made it thus far!
*One* good excursion into the trees of a border forest was enough for me
really. Kieldar/Spadeadam.

'Hog