I would like to think that Australian-manufactured buses have better side-impact protection than this American bus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ANtYTPSBE
Side impact protection
-
- Posts: 1987
- Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:01 pm
- Favourite Vehicle: 1640. In service - 1738
- Location: Earth's Scania capital
Re: Side impact protection
That is nasty! Sort of makes me glad that I don't sit at the front of a bus by default. This sort of reminds me of a scenario on a PMC O305 rigid in the early 2000s, but in short, what I just said. I hate sitting in front of the middle door, unless I'm chatting to the driver.
He'll probably get off with a 6 month good behaviour bond, with the poor man who had to jump for his life receiving the much heavier sentence.
He'll probably get off with a 6 month good behaviour bond, with the poor man who had to jump for his life receiving the much heavier sentence.
Re: Side impact protection
I don't understand the logic of that. The car could have hit the bus anywhere along the side, it just happened to hit at that point in that particular accident.TA3001 wrote:That is nasty! Sort of makes me glad that I don't sit at the front of a bus by default. This sort of reminds me of a scenario on a PMC O305 rigid in the early 2000s, but in short, what I just said. I hate sitting in front of the middle door, unless I'm chatting to the driver.
- boronia
- Posts: 21567
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
- Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
- Location: Sydney NSW
Re: Side impact protection
I think the inference is that the floor line is higher behind the centre door, and the rear axle might offer even more protection from a side intrusion. (One of the downsides of a fully flat floor??)
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
@ The Museum of Fire.
Re: Side impact protection
Low floor trams have a lot of protection against side intrusion and I assume the same is now done on low floor buses (except in USA??). That's the point I'm asking about.boronia wrote:I think the inference is that the floor line is higher behind the centre door, and the rear axle might offer even more protection from a side intrusion. (One of the downsides of a fully flat floor??)
- busrider
- Administrator
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:35 pm
- Favourite Vehicle: Maybe not my car...
- Location: Not in the Gutta
Re: Side impact protection
A few years ago in Adelaide, a bus was hit side-on by a truck, the damage was nowhere near as severe as the crash shown in the video. However, the truck didn't hit the door side of the bus, so that might've been a reason the damage was less severe. Image from ABC article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/c ... de/4481748
Re: Side impact protection
It was still hit in the low floor area (wheelchair space too by the look of it) with no intrusion. There's no reason the door side should be different, still the same vertical members and horizontal (and maybe diagonal?) side intrusion beams. I suspect the American bus is simply crap design/manufacturing quality, which is interesting considering they usually tend to be notorious for over-engineering.busrider wrote:A few years ago in Adelaide, a bus was hit side-on by a truck, the damage was nowhere near as severe as the crash shown in the video. However, the truck didn't hit the door side of the bus, so that might've been a reason the damage was less severe. Image from ABC article: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-24/c ... de/4481748
Last edited by tonyp on Tue Jan 31, 2017 9:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
- boronia
- Posts: 21567
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:18 am
- Favourite Vehicle: Ahrens Fox; GMC PD4107
- Location: Sydney NSW
Re: Side impact protection
It is difficult to compare damage like this without knowing more about the circumstances of both accidents.
The ute in the video seemed to be going quite fast, whereas the truck in the Adelaide incident could have been going much slower. With the ute, its KE would be concentrated into a small contact area, whilst the truck's is more spread out across its full front.
While the US bus should probably have performed better, let's not forget that the STA Mk4s had sides weak enough to require rebuilding within a few years of service. I wonder how they would have performed under similar circumstances?
The ute in the video seemed to be going quite fast, whereas the truck in the Adelaide incident could have been going much slower. With the ute, its KE would be concentrated into a small contact area, whilst the truck's is more spread out across its full front.
While the US bus should probably have performed better, let's not forget that the STA Mk4s had sides weak enough to require rebuilding within a few years of service. I wonder how they would have performed under similar circumstances?
Preserving fire service history
@ The Museum of Fire.
@ The Museum of Fire.