Romania Factbook 2000
 Estimating Global Road Fatalities
 
Contents
Executive Summary
The physics of an SUV rollover
Introduction
Economic costs of Road Crashes

Regional Analyses

Highly Motorised Countries
Asia & Pacific
Central & Eastern Europe
Latin & Central America & Caribbean
Central & S. Africa & Middle East
Summary and conclusions
Regional Statistics
HMCs Asia & Pacific
CEE LCAC
Africa MENA

 

 

MITSUBISHI PAJERO PININ - ACCIDENT REPORT - MAY 2001

Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV)

A 'ROLL OVER' ACCIDENT INVOLVING A MODERN DESIGNED SUV REFLECTS CONTINUING CONCERNS ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THIS CLASS OF VEHICLE.

A YOUNG WOMAN LOST THE USE OF A HAND IN THIS ACCIDENT - DIRECTLY DUE TO THE TOTAL COLLAPSE OF THE PASSENGER COMPARTMENT OF THIS VEHICLE DURING A 'ROLL OVER'. MITSUBISHI DO NOT SEE FIT TO RESPOND IN ANY WAY.

Global analysis of SUV - Roll Over Accidents & associated roof deformation

Ex Showroom
SUV tripped at 50mph on bend with uneven surface at entry. No collision with another vehicle nor foreign body -Just a 'roll over'!

Severe Roof Deformation

 

 

Front Pillar Collapse

Interior - Extent of collapse of roof onto Front Passenger

Roof collapse - Front to Rear of Vehicle

 

Reader Review Survey -
Influence the manufacturer

Please let us have your views - by cutting out this form and pasting it into an e-mail addressed to editor@factbook.net

Having seen the damage sustained by the Mitsubishi Pinin above, would you describe the Mitsubishi Pinin as a potential 'Death Trap' Yes / No / Maybe
Do you believe that Driver expertise can eliminate 'roll over' accidents of SUVs Yes / No / Maybe
Do you believe that Manufacturers of SUVs should do more to prevent roof collapse when their products are involved in 'roll over accidents Yes / No / Maybe
Having seen the above accident damage sustained by the Mitsubishi Pinin in a moderate speed 'roll over' - Would this affect your decision to buy this model Yes / No / Maybe

 

Is SUV stability a Mitsubishi Strength?

1 Montero aka Pajero

2 Montero aka Pajero 2

The Physics of Rollover Crashes

 

Passenger Car Roof Crush Strength Requirements
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rollover crashes, especially in the country, are usually very destructive events. About 15% of passenger cars in fatal crashes in Australia have overturned. Between about 13% and 16% of all passenger-car occupants killed in Australia died primarily as a result of injuries received in a rollover. Vehicle damage often includes deformation of the roof and its supporting structures. Head and neck injury are common, and associated with roof deformation.

Strengthening of the roof is often suggested as an appropriate countermeasure for such injuries.

 

Reports

 

Rollovers:
Death, Brain Damage and Quadriplegia

The Failure and the inadequacies of
Roof "Standards"

By Richard Alexander

US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216

Roof Deformation

 

The failure of the roof of a car or truck involved in a 'roll over' accident is the most likely cause of death or permanent injury to the vehicle occupants.

The roof is, without doubt, the least crashworthy part of a vehicle. In fact, roofs are often so 'fragile' that when 'test dropped' upside-down for a fall of 12 inches, the result is frequently a 'total roof crush' that in a 'real life' accident is the primary cause of death, permanent brain and spinal cord injuries.

Most SUV rollovers occur due to "tripping".

SUVs, because of the design constraint compromises affecting this class of vehicle:-

(ie - the provision of sufficient ground clearance for 'off road' use, together with suspension compromises, balancing customer requirements for both road and 'off road' use)

frequently results in vehicles being inherently unstable under 'emergency avoidance conditions' performed on tarmac roads - and the vehicles will often "trip" into a forward roll - when a mild turning movement in one direction is followed by a quick correction in the opposite direction.

The roll that follows causes the vehicle to be tossed and to land on its roof on the side opposite the roll. This is the primary reason why SUV drivers and passengers are twice as likely to be killed in a rollover than those in a standard vehicle.

Although all rollover death and injuries occur while vehicles are moving, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] in 1973, mandates a "standing" test.

Officially called a "static" test this "safety" rule has been in place since the 1974 model year for cars and the 1995 model year for light trucks and vans.

The standard provides that "a force of one and half times the empty weight of the vehicle or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less, be slowly loaded onto the roof over the A pillar, the front roof support that holds the windshield in place.

Weight is added to a steel plate approximately 3 feet wide and six feet long that is placed at an angle over the roof line. A roof passes even if it collapses five inches.

 

 

A SOLUTION TO INJURIES CAUSED BY ROOF DEFORMATION
PROPOSED AT VEHICLE SAFETY CONFERENCE IN 1991

'Because making roofs stronger results in increases to the vehicle weight and cost, and also by default results in decreased fuel consumption, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are reluctant to strengthen the roofs of their vehicles - This lack of roof deformation resistance is particularly relevant to SUVs which are proven to have a 'roll over' propensity 3-4 times higher than the average saloon car.

Instead, OEMs defend roof failure claims by arguing that high speeds and impacts are responsible for deaths and injuries, not the amount of roof crush.

Their contention is based on the 'simplistic' argument that "speed kills" while the truth is that the rate of deceleration is the controlling factor affecting structural damage to a vehicle involved in a 'Roll over' accident. It is not how fast you go, but rather, how quickly you stop that is critical.

[The most infamous incident of tripping was recorded with a Mercedes A Class which tripped during a "standard' swerve test" which was applied to all passenger vehicles made available for road testing by a Scandinavian motoring publication - The resultant damage to the A Class saloon was out of all proportion to the speed at which the accident occurred.]

It is estimated that the stiffening of roof supports would only add 50 lbs to the weight of a vehicle and would cost approximately $250, but it is also estimated that these measures could globally prevent 5,000 deaths and 5,000 spinal cord injuries a year.'

Friedman, et al, Roof Collapse and the Risk of Severe Head and Neck Injury, Experimental Safety Vehicle Conference, Paris

Full report

 

MITSUBISHI MOTORS FACING CRIMINAL CHARGES AFTER
COVER-UP OF DEFECTIVE VEHICLES

TOKYO, Aug 23 2000 (AFP)

Japan's government said Wednesday it was looking at criminal charges against Mitsubishi Motors Corp. after the firm admitted to covering up customer complaints about defective vehicles for decades.

Report

 

 

 
 


Google
Search site Search WWW






 

service provided by Investor Services & iNES, © Factbook 2000