[ebonho]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

You are missing the context. Since all 7 seaters are unsafe, as per to the OP, owing to the head being too close to the rear windscreen in the last bench, the impact even if were to happen wont be straight to the head, the headrests will be in the way as well. They arent designed for rear impact apart from whiplash so its incidental, not intentional.

I'm actually not getting into the debate between the two of you.

Just setting right the presumption that a padded neck brace fitted on a car (that's essentially what a headrest is) is going to offer any barrier in a rear impact.

Otherwise why bring in the headrest into the equation when talking of air bags and crumple zones at all.

Cheers, Doc

[rbg]

Originally Posted by ebonho

Headrests are designed to stabilize the head and prevent whiplash of the head moving suddenly and violently in a backward direction.

Not to protect in any way the head from a vehicle smashing in from behind with the impact in the forward direction.

This was the second time I read about these headrests as an argument for a barrier protector, so having actually studied whiplash among other things professionally, thought I'd provide a bit of perspective.

Cheers, Doc

The concern was originally raised by me and it actually is for the benefit all stakeholders whether they agree to the clear and present state of the truth or not either by stating ingenious analogy of a meteor sent from heavens to be fallen on top of the roof of an exotic sports car or if side impact also has same if not more protection compared to a rear end by a careless rich and young driver of an endeavour or a tempo traveller.

Point being made is honestly genuine and numerous international online posts are also there to highlight the same concern.

The difference in relative momentum between a opposite head on frontal impact and a rear end is obviously correct and most of the folks know about it however even if the speed of a rear end is 10 to 20 kmph also the potential impact of cerebral matter being so close to the strong frontal impact structure of the vehicle that rear ends me isn't a debatable proposition that I would wish for anyone who has precious family member (young and or old) in one of the rear seats during such a potential heart and life shattering incident.

The 3rd row seat headrest practically touching the rear glass area and me being oblivious to the risk it brings is something that is concerning me and there are similar minded folks who share the same concern albeit with varying intensities.

I am attaching my incident from October last year at mg road bangalore where I was involved in a 4 car pile-up when a young endeavour rear ended an elderly couple in Ameo. The Ameo hit my rapid and I also rear ended a desire in front of me. Desire guy was a Delhi plate North Indian and he only bumper damage but his first concern was for my 3 old who was in left rear seat with family. Ameo rear passenger were not so fortunate the senior lady travelling from Hassan to Yelehanka for a marriage suffered head concussion minor glass shatter injury to hear ear and neck area. Son was driving and he was violently attacking the young endeavour (less than 3 month old) driver who completely forgot to brake. My 3 year old chipped his front tooth and wife suffered bruised elbow.

I thank the boot of my rapid more than anything.

Anyways many points and counter comments have been shared and I will try move on to the original thread and try not to dwell in my concerns. Otherwise mods might deem my post digressive and delete.

Thanks Doc and team

[Aditya]

Concerned about the safety of 3rd-row passengers in SUVs & MPVs - Posts moved to a new thread.

[CARDEEP]

There are only a few SUVs / MPVs that have bigger boots, which implies more space at the rear to crumple in case of an accident. '21 Safari, Scorpio, XUV, Xylo, Marazzo, Hector Plus, Ertiga, XL6, etc all are same. But, I don't think safety should be measured on the parameter of size of boot. Rather, it should be the rear crumple zones that should also be tested and the rear passengers should also be belted up rather than just having a space behind the rear seat and / or rear impact beam / bar.

Unfortunately, I don't think rear impact test is conducted by any testing authority across world. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Personally, I have come across accidents where rear passengers are more impacted because of not being belted up and / or headrests being removed.

[SmartCat]

My kids always travel in the 3rd row of BR-V:



I'm NOT concerned about their safety in the 3rd row - the gap between seat and tailgate is comparable to that of hatchbacks and compact SUVs.

But then, if a loaded truck slams into the back at 64 kmph (as shown in video in the initial post), I don't think occupants of ANY car are likely to survive. Because such an incident will happen only at a traffic signal/traffic jam - and your car is likely to be crushed between the truck and the car/bus infront of you. Something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8FTFpyQMI

[CEF_Beasts]

This is a pretty valid topic and I can relate to it!

In pre-covid times our family used to travel together in our Fortuner be it along with my grandparents or family friends rather than take 2 cars, naturally I would sit the 3rd row of seats due to good space and letting the elderly take the 2nd row. The ability to recline the backrest even in the 3rd row giving crucial few centimeters of additional headroom is where the problem lies! Once the seat is fully reclined and headrest is all the way up, the headrest touches the glass of the boot-lid. While sitting there I have sometimes thought what if someone comes and bangs into the rear, especially when trucks and buses are often trailing us.

Although the boot is sufficiently large with all rows up, the contact point in case of the crash will be my headrest and eventually my head when the seat is fully reclined!


Previous generation Fortuner of mine. (pic taken from the net)


Latest Fortuner, the last row fully reclined and headrests all the way up is the same like the previous-gen Fortuner. (pic taken from the net)

[gkveda]

Rear end collision will have very less impact as compared to front collision

Consider front collision scenario:
A car running at 80kmph and a truck at 60kmph from opposite direction. The relative velocity at time of collision is 140 kmph. This is a huge impact. Hence all those crumple zone and other safety measures are designed.

Now consider rear end collision scenario.

Car is at 60 kmph and assume truck behind is 80 kmph in the same direction. Now, the relative velocity at the time of collision is 20 kmph. Impact is 7 times lesser.

So, naturally, crumple zone is not absolute necessity for rear end.

[viXit]

It's amazing how this totally skipped my mind. My father had a truck rear end our Honda city and a polo rear ending me last week in the Safari. My brother in the back seat both the times. The boot lid rear bumper, rear quarter panels of the city were destroyed.

My brother kept thinking about what could've happened if we were in mom's i10. The glass would've shattered and there was a real possibility of impact to the rear passenger's head.

[GTO]

I have to sheepishly admit that I NEVER sit in the last row of an SUV / MPV for exactly this reason. The thought of a bus or truck rear-ending us on a highway even at 60 kmph is just too scary.

It's why people were scared of the Maruti Omni, just in reverse:

[landcruiser123]

Well, we have to understand that traveling on a road is a risk. Designs are optimized for safety when there are too many accidents of a particular type. Decades of statistics have indicated that most deaths in car crashes are due to head-on and side collisions. With R&D and engineering, we've now got strong body structures and airbags (front & side) to protect us from the impact of unfortunate crashes.

If we optimize for every single type of crash that is out there, we'd either be driving tanks or staying home due to the fear of injury/death.

Is there a high % of deaths (of the third row passengers) when a 6/7/8 seater SUV/MPV/minivan is rear-ended? Probably not, else we'd have seen some sort of crash protection structure. Will there be legislation for extra safety devices? My hope is that with newer vehicles having driving aids and people driving carefully, we may never need regulation requiring an extensively large rear-crumple zone.

[TrackDay]

Only once in my life, have I been in the third row (Innova). That was also the last time! I can't deal with that kind of trapped claustrophobic feeling. This read head rest thing too was there on my mind. But I thought I was the only one feeling that. Whenever I see a MPV or 3 row vehicles ahead with passengers in the third row I do think that their heads are way too close to the hatch door.

There are many minor accidents taking place daily & the after effects are rarely discussed later. The only thing people take note are the Number of deceased at the time of accident. What about life long injuries due to minor rear endings ? Especially injuries to the back of your neck can affect the quality of one's life.

The only 3rd row seat I feel that are a little more safe are the long wheel base vehicles similar to big American SUV'S like the Chevrolet Suburban/GMC Yukon.

[Sanidhya mukund]

In most cars and SUVs, the engine bay and the boot are the crumple zones. In 7 seater cars, the third row is in the boot, which itself is the crumple zone. The earlier video that I had posted may have been an old one, but here is a slightly more recent one involving a Toyota Sienna that shows the MAYHEM a rear end impact can cause to the life and limb of the third row occupants. This particular test was conducted at 50 MPH/80 Km/h:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J-T1AvYHNlU

Also attaching pictures of 7 seaters that got rear ended. (Source: Accidents in India thread)

[locusjag]

This thread makes me want to give up altogether on 3 row MPVs and UVs, which I covet for their ability to cart around my extended family in. Why would I put them in a situation where they'd be endangered in the 3rd row? I should rather be renting a Force Traveler for everyone to travel in perhaps.

[srishiva]

The problem is mostly with cars where they are adding 3 rows to tick off a 3 row car for sales. Its the same in hatchbacks too.

On the move, with the relative speed difference not being high, its not that disastrous. Also, not sure if buses and trucks can travel at much higher speed than cars and hit from behind. There is also the fact that your car will move ahead when hit and not much of force is being absorbed just by the rear end.

When there is no space for crumple zones, atleast they should use high strength steel on the trunk periphery and along the sides.

[McLaren Rulez]

Originally Posted by rbg

Son was driving and he was violently attacking the young endeavour (less than 3 month old) driver who completely forgot to brake.

Off topic, but getting violent in these situations is a really poor response. Beating someone up for bad driving doesn't teach them anything - only leads to even more aggression on the roads.