Impact of SUVs in a crash

[MassiveCars]

Recently there was a terrible accident involving a 2 ton car
What stood out was the mention of the weight of the vehicle
So I did a couple of calcs
An SUV of 1972kg doing 30mph has the same Kinetic Energy of a small car of 1221kg doing 38mph
A larger SUV of 2598kg has the same Kinetic Energy of a small car of 1221kg doing 44mph
All these large SUVs doing 30mph create the same damage as a smaller car doing 38mph to 44mph
There must be enough maths & physics teachers on here to check this out
I did think of mentioning the small car and the big car types ?

But large SUVs (=large weight) are a much more serious danger to kids at 30mph than your small cars at 30mph

There is great emphasis on 30mph, perhaps we should enforce slower speeds for heavier vehicles if safety is the objective

If pedestrians and cyclists increasingly wear headphones or pods it really doesn't matter if the vehicle is electric and quiet or combustion engine and noisy.
I think it's insane that so many people are happy to block off one of their essential senses and massively reduce their spacial awareness.

So far

• I’ve been called a frantic woman that “hubby” has had to soothe -Sexism
• ”hubby” is a mansplainer -sexist
• I am a mansplainer ‘apologist’ -sexist

Did I get all of them? I admit I may have missed some.

So are firefighters now collision analysts nowadays? I thought that was the job of highly specialised teams within the police force. Typically it's a degree level forensics job. It's something I could've done when doing my degree but preferred aero.

I've no doubt he's an expert in extrication but that's different to investigating the physics of an accident.

It's more important that people in charge of a few tonnes of heavy machinery, take the responsibility seriously and read the road (like they were trained to). Pedestrians and cyclists wearing headphones is not something I do but shouldn't make much difference to whether cars run them over or not.

Mansplaining is a symptom of sexism. It is not sexist to call out sexist behaviour. You have parroted mansplaining - calling in your husband's views to end the debate is just that.
Maybe you have a point about the 'soothing' but, on the other hand, reading through your posts you don't seem that rational. 'Other road users should pre-empt me mowing them down and blame themselves for not sitting in a large SUV-surviving vehicle...'

Yes, go ahead and conveniently ignore all the fossil fuel powered machinery in places across Africa digging out the precious metals needed for your woke virtue signalling overpriced milkfloat.

Same old tripe from you sorts of climate paranoid people.

Oh my gosh why didn’t you say this earlier. I should have absolutely agreed with your assessment earlier of this situation. Well color me embarrassed. I will absolutely defer your extensive experience in this particular crash.

Please tell me what you think the impact the weather conditions played on that day? How about the alertness of the drivers? The other vehicles involved? Speed?

Nope you assume mansplaining because he’s a man. That is sexist. And you’ve just called me an irrational woman because I have a different opinion than you. So ah…yeah sexist again.

The weird quote thing was a nice touch. I forgot what’re I wrote that, can you help me out?

Where* (damn autocorrect) (I hope that wasn’t too much of a hysterical outburst)

Agreed...its ridiculous.Nobody needs the bloody things- its all just for status and appearance sake.They mostly don't seat any more people than a smaller car anyway, and if someone needs the bigger boot for a dog/fishing stuff/golf clubs/carrying furniture or whatever else, why not just get an estate!
I saw a massive brand new huge landrover discovery the other day carrying an elderly couple who couldn't park the thing for the life of them! WHY?! 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

Say what earlier? Your post makes no sense at all.

It entirely depends what you are crashing into!

Momentum (mass x velocity) is just as important as the kinetic energy.

Impact force is proportional to the rate of change of momentum. F = (mv)/t

So if you're crashing into a wall, a car that is double the mass will have to undergo double the change in momentum, which will double the impact force. The only way to lessen this is to increase the time period (e.g. have a bigger crumple zone at the front).

BUT... if we're talking head on collisions, then a smaller car will not come out well. Momentum is conserved, so if they're doing the same speed, the bigger car will end up pushing the smaller car back the other direction, so the smaller car will experience a bigger change in momentum and therefore a bigger impact force.

(Physics Nerd🤓)

Your credentials, now that I know them you are clearly the expert to be deferred to. I’m wanting to hear more of your assessment of this crash.

Swapped to an SUV back end of last year, love it, will get another one after this one.

I love physics :) The world explained in easy to understand formulas.

-signed
a wanna be physics nerd 🙂

Nope you assume mansplaining because he’s a man.

No I observed mansplaining and have explained why it is mansplaining. You presented a man's opinion in order to end the debate.

I don't need credentials, but as an engineer that understands physics I'm questioning his as a firefighter, given it's a specialised field.

Stating the bleeding obvious, the car that hit the SUV is the cause of the rollover, as cars rarely roll on their own. But the propensity is increased in an SUV, specifically because of the high CoG. To say otherwise is why people are questioning his credentials.

Stating the bleeding obvious, the car that hit the SUV is the cause of the rollover, as cars rarely roll on their own. But the propensity is increased in an SUV, specifically because of the high CoG.

Psst nobody (including me) has said otherwise.

I actually don’t even know what you are arguing about with me about at this point. Perhaps you should step away unless you want to insult me or “hubby” some more which is all you seem to want to do.

Once again, a man with first hand knowledge of the situation. You and others on the other hand don’t but are trying to explain to me what happened 🙄

Now one of those things is mansplaining. You tell me which?

You're claiming your husband is an expert in collisions aren't you?

The one he had first hand experience in, yes. More than you who literally knows nothing about it. Please carry on with insulting and deriding both of us. I’ll attempt to keep my histrionics to a minimum.

Nice.

Cant debate the topic, go off on a tangent about hot summer weather (in the summer, duh!) and then name call.

Standard default position of people who get found out.

At least you got called a twat… I’m apparently a silly little woman

It's never too late to become a physics nerd and go back to studying!

I teach it and often use car crash examples to explain momentum and impact forces.