[amit_mechengg]

Originally Posted by RajaTaurus

I too am inclined to believe that the car should have hit something else after it had hit the boy before coming to halt, like a road side barricade or a lamp post or another stationary thing...

After he hit the cyclist, he would have panicked and left the car to stop on its own, instead of taking it in control and it could have hit something stationery, before it came to a stop.

The Punekar Blog Archive A national-level cyclist was injured by another youth’s car

Please check the above article. The boy was driving the car at breakneck speed with 3 girls inside.....

one thing i have already made it clear. i had reached the spot just 2-5 min after the event had occured. if you see the road (please some one scan and attach the road pic that had come in the news paper) its very broad with no lamp posts , no trees , no dividers , no barricades absolutely plain private road wide enough for the worst driver in the world to judge the track in which he should go. but this moron (the more you curse his the less) managed to smash this cyclist in the middle of the road. there was no scope of car traveling further and hitting something else. both the car and cycle were tangled and i saw the front tyre of the bike stuck in front of the car. the car had stopped right in the middle of the road with a puntured/burst tyre.

[mayjay]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

4)
The rear ends of cars are generally not as easy to crumple as the front. When our Baleno rear ended the Accent ( a seperate thread on this exists ), the damage to accent was just limited to bumper. Where as ours was more damaged. Both the Accent and Balneo are 2 out 5 stars at Euro NCAP.

Not really the case.. the car at the rear in any 'rearending' incident ends up absorbing most of the energy. The one at the rear has its forward motion arrested and its reduction in forward momentum is much greater than that of the car in front, which can move forward.

I've seen a baleno rearend an 800 and end up with a broken front end, with little damage to the 800.

An alto rearended my wagonR once, with the front of its right fender getting caved in, and only the clip on the side of my rear bumper broke - I didn't even feel like asking the guy to pay up for the damage.

[liberal]

Then, I believed that fatter sheet metal defines the safety of the car & ABS/AIRBAGS are not worth it as I drive carefully, and might as well save some money.

Now, I trust in crash test ratings and believe that ABS/Airbag must for car occupant safety.

Some info:-

TOI 28.06.08 (Mumbai) pg11 article Design of new cars saved Matunga teen - "Pune-based auto expert Adil Jal Darukhanwala said it was a wrong notion that more metal meant extra strength. “It’s the other way around. Heavy usage of metal would mean the car is not be able to dissipate the force in the opposite direction and can cause injuries to passengers seated inside,’’

Eye opener :- See this Volvo big car crash with new generation Renault compact car.

YouTube - Fifth Gear - Renault Modus Vs Volvo 940 - crashtest - 9.27min

[married2speed]

It never ceases to suprise me how ignorant we can get and based on our ignorance and assumptions, we head out to tarnish the image of someone, without even trying to verify the facts.
On a careful inspection of the pictures, a lot of information is revealed and people who have actively supported the crumple zone phenomenon, are right while the others who have been hell bound on tarnishing the image of Honda for light weight steel, here's an insight to you.

If we look carefully at the pictures, and inspect the damage, the damage is only confined to
1. Honda - The front end
2. Bicycle - Front End
3. Honda - The headlights are still intact.

Now keeping the above points into consideration, one can safely assume
a) the crash that took place was at a slow speed. Had the crash been at a high speed, there would have been more damage to the bicycle than the car and would have probably been nothing more than a crushed bar.
b) the headlights of the car should have also been broken. The headlights remaining intact only reiterates the fact that Honda quality cannot, under any circumstances be questioned. Plastic/glass is a lot cheaper than Steel and is used at more places than we often know. If honda were not to emphasise on quality, why do you think they would use good quality plastic/glass.

Moving back to point a. It surely is correct to say that nothing else but the bicycle hit the car, but how did the child manage to break his C-bone. From the way I look at the pictures, the child driving the car did try to stop the car to avoid the accident but was not able to control it, the biclyclist too saw the car coming, did brake but the impact of the crash flung him over and made him land on the bonnet of the car with a impact. It is due to this very reason that the car is in the state that it is and the child has a broken C-bone. I guess, if we put this scenario to place, then all theories of the crumple zone are true and Honda indeed does a good job with their cars and predestrian safety.
Also, both the driver and the injured kid are alive, which only goes to show that Honda's quality can't be questioned. I can guarantee that had this been a 800, one of the 2 would have not lived.
Moreover, for all those who are supporting the "harder steel" factor, here's a question. Where do you think the child would have landed had a fiat hit the child. On the bonnet, behind the car, on the roof or 10 feet backwards? The harder steel would have ensured that the bonnet doesn't go for a toss and the repair cost is kept to the minimal but then, where would have the impact been transferred to? I guess the bicycle isn't built that strong to sustain crashes like these.
So, let us not jump the gun and target people/companies without verifying the facts. After all these companies have more knowledgable people than we guys.

drive safe and keep watching the rear view mirror
Cheers!
M2S

[rjstyles69]

To add salt to the wound, we have another thread here (Is the NHC all show and no go ?) . I foresee the same fate here too.

[bblost]

@married2speed: brilliant. Was a pleasure reading your post.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by bblost

@married2speed: brilliant. Was a pleasure reading your post.

I too loved his post. On the hind sight, why do I pay for the mistakes of others? Example a cow on a expressway, or a fool running across the road, or a drunk jaywalking or a rickshaw attempting a quick u turn. Do i pay for these follies with a heavily damaged car? Consider this against those SUV's with the bull bars, what happens if my crumple zone equipped car is banged by these monsters?

I am all for saving of lives but my take is, why should the car owner pay the price?

[RajaTaurus]

--> married2speed:
Excellent analysis and I tend to agree with you in the theory that the boy landed on the bonnet of the car after the crash and also the impact happened at slow speed and not at very high speed.
Having said that, the theory of crumble zones etc. would come into picture if a relatively heavier object hits the car and not a 50 kg bike at a max. of 10-15 kmph speed. It could do just nothing to the crumble zone.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

I too loved his post. On the hind sight, why do I pay for the mistakes of others? Example a cow on a expressway, or a fool running across the road, or a drunk jaywalking or a rickshaw attempting a quick u turn. Do i pay for these follies with a heavily damaged car? Consider this against those SUV's with the bull bars, what happens if my crumple zone equipped car is banged by these monsters?

I am all for saving of lives but my take is, why should the car owner pay the price?

The car owner pays the price for his own saved life. They cannot design crumple zones differently for different cars/vehicles that would hit your car.
Not all mistakes from others will damage just your car and not you.

[amit_mechengg]

Originally Posted by srishiva

The car owner pays the price for his own saved life. They cannot design crumple zones differently for different cars/vehicles that would hit your car.
Not all mistakes from others will damage just your car and not you.

but its better of damaging your own car than killing someone else and paying the guilt the whole life.
crumple zones are very important aspect of design in modern day cars. but the frame/sheetmetal surrounding the cabin should be very strong not to let the people sitting inside the car get hurt.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by RajaTaurus

--> married2speed:
Excellent analysis and I tend to agree with you in the theory that the boy landed on the bonnet of the car after the crash and also the impact happened at slow speed and not at very high speed.
Having said that, the theory of crumble zones etc. would come into picture if a relatively heavier object hits the car and not a 50 kg bike at a max. of 10-15 kmph speed. It could do just nothing to the crumble zone.

The way this thread is going is like Honda doesn't know how to design crumple zones. Lets be fair. Honda has shown that small and light cars are not unsafe compared to big and heavy cars. This was proved by them answering critics who questioned small and light car's safety aspects while U.S government was mulling a increase in fuel economy standards.

Are we trying to break some new ground here by questioning safety designs and agencies that enforce and test the conformance ratings ?

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by amit_mechengg

but its better of damaging your own car than killing someone else and paying the guilt the whole life.
crumple zones are very important aspect of design in modern day cars. but the frame/sheetmetal surrounding the cabin should be very strong not to let the people sitting inside the car get hurt.

You seem to be going around the point being made here by others. There are things called non-intrusion beams which protects the occupants. No automaker tries to compromise on this to save costs. Its not the thud of the door that protects you.

[amit_mechengg]

Originally Posted by srishiva

You seem to be going around the point being made here by others. There are things called non-intrusion beams which protects the occupants. No automaker tries to compromise on this to save costs. Its not the thud of the door that protects you.

its not about going around anyones point. its about the basic design aspect which everyone knows. non-intrusion beams are now the most common thing which u will see right from alto to luxury cars. Indica and Indigo/ FIAT cars too have them despite of having a strong sheet metal.

if you read the posts correctly and give an unbiased view you will read some posts which say that some people have 13 NHCs in their family and they dont feel them strong. also a minor hit which is very common in Indian traffic conditions cause you 30-50 k is a very big hole in your pocket.

come and drive in pune. according to your crumple zone theory and craving for safety , you will end up spending more than your car in few years for its repairs.

[diabloo]

Thats a great video - must watch for all. This challenges the norm. Not many can predict the result of the test. Thanks for the link.

Originally Posted by liberal

Eye opener :- See this Volvo big car crash with new generation Renault compact car. YouTube - Fifth Gear - Renault Modus Vs Volvo 940 - crashtest - 9.27min

[reignofchaos]

^^Good link but unfortunately with a crash like that in the case of an NHC, the driver will perish as it has no airbags (other than the VTEC Plus model).