150 replies to this topic

[Melbourne Park]

I am wondering where I can get the number of drownings in cars ... when a car with electric windows is covered with water, its extremely difficult to get out of the vehicle. I am wondering where I might find statistics for such incidents?

[cosworth bdg]

Not the car manufacturers, for a certainy that is ....SADLY...

[Engineguy]

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 600 people die yearly in immersed vehicles. According to the agency, 2,000 nonfatal crashes occurred in 2004 in which vehicles were immersed, and 282 fatal immersions occurred."

For the US of A...

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

You can query their database online, but at the moment...

"All National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) web sites are currently undergoing scheduled maintenance.
This may cause temporary problems when trying to access these pages.
We apologize for any inconvenience and encourage you to try accessing the page at a later date."

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Engineguy
"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 600 people die yearly in immersed vehicles. According to the agency, 2,000 nonfatal crashes occurred in 2004 in which vehicles were immersed, and 282 fatal immersions occurred."

For the US of A...

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

You can query their database online, but at the moment...

"All National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) web sites are currently undergoing scheduled maintenance.
This may cause temporary problems when trying to access these pages.
We apologize for any inconvenience and encourage you to try accessing the page at a later date."

Thanks very much.

I wonder if immersed means completely covered?

Those statistics don't quite add up ... 600 who die every year, I imagine mostly due to not being able to get out of their vehicles.

[Chubby_Deuce]

That could mean that they were unconcious or too injured to escape.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Chubby_Deuce
That could mean that they were unconcious or too injured to escape.

Likely ... but I know of some where it has not been possible to get out.

[rhm]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Likely ... but I know of some where it has not been possible to get out.

I'm sure that happens a lot, but I doubt the statistics would be able to differentiate in a lot of cases. Unless an autopsy turns up evidence of a heart attack or similar, it's hard to say whether they drowned because they couldn't get out of the car, or because they didn't try because they were unconcious from the impact (unless there was clear trauma of course).


Top Gear did a test on escaping from submerged cars a few series back. Richard Hammond (who seems to get all the dangerous assignments) was inside a big saloon (a Vauxhall Carlton AFAIR) that was dropped from a few feet above a tank. The electric windows failed almost immediately. On the first try he was testing the popularly held theory that if you wait until the car is almost full of water, the pressure on the door will equalise and you can open it then. He found that although it would open, it was very difficult still due to the water resistance and of course a lot of people would have paniced and taken on water themselves before then because there was only a small pocket of air at the top of the compartment by then. On the second attempt he just tried to open the door as soon as he hit the water. That actually worked a lot better AFAIR. Although it required all his strength to get it open, he was able to exit the car a lot sooner.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by rhm


I'm sure that happens a lot, but I doubt the statistics would be able to differentiate in a lot of cases. Unless an autopsy turns up evidence of a heart attack or similar, it's hard to say whether they drowned because they couldn't get out of the car, or because they didn't try because they were unconcious from the impact (unless there was clear trauma of course).


Top Gear did a test on escaping from submerged cars a few series back. Richard Hammond (who seems to get all the dangerous assignments) was inside a big saloon (a Vauxhall Carlton AFAIR) that was dropped from a few feet above a tank. The electric windows failed almost immediately. On the first try he was testing the popularly held theory that if you wait until the car is almost full of water, the pressure on the door will equalise and you can open it then. He found that although it would open, it was very difficult still due to the water resistance and of course a lot of people would have paniced and taken on water themselves before then because there was only a small pocket of air at the top of the compartment by then. On the second attempt he just tried to open the door as soon as he hit the water. That actually worked a lot better AFAIR. Although it required all his strength to get it open, he was able to exit the car a lot sooner.

Well ... in the case I know of, the coroner's report is not out yet. But being a member of my family, we know that one of the three people was yelling from the car. All three occupants were members of the SAS and could hold their breaths for 4 minutes. The car was in 7 feet only, and a following car with 2 SAS soldiers stopped and one dived to assist them out, while the other ran to where a military phone was to get help. One soldier was likely hit on the head, don't know about the other, but none could break any windows. The solder who dived in heard the noises under water, but he could not break windows or open doors. He then went to the surface, opened his car's boot and removed the car jack, went to the submerged car, broke the rear window and removed one body (it was then 7 minutes from the car going off the road). He then went back and got a second body, and made an executive decision that it would be tough to resuscitate two let alone three people. He was unable to save any of them.

So ... the car's were Army Ford Falcons, Mercedes E class in size, and quite new cars.

The car was I think on its side though ... and the guys were absolute elite SAS troops, water trained and comfortable in it, who were active in various conflicts such as Afghanistan.

I will try and find the Top Gear episode - I am impressed they have done such a thing.

The car industry seems to prefer making cars that are difficult to steal in preference to making it possible to exit a car when its mechanically compromised.

[Ray Bell]

Certainly a good case against electric windows!

Very interesting line of thought here... as I drive up the Pacific Hwy alongsed the broad and deep Clarence River I often think of this...

[Chubby_Deuce]

I thought it was a case against driving into water..

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Chubby_Deuce
I thought it was a case against driving into water..

The same inane thinking dominated cars until the late 1960s ... now they have safety features when they have an accident. Getting stuck into water can happen by accident too.

When I bought a 4WD, the basic model offered manual windows, and the cockies preferred that model, because if you got stuck crossing a river, the electric windows in the deluxe models would fail and you could not get out of the vehicle. Or you lower the windows before entering any water - which all 4WD drivers are trained to do. But electric windows don't help if you accidently find yourself in water.

A few years ago in Melbourne, a gambling addict left her child outside the casino, passers by saw the child in the car, and got the police, but the child died from the heat in the car. The car was a BMW 3 series. A year or two earlier, I had left my son in the car to go into a super market, he was 9 at the time, the car a E46 325 BMW. When I came back with a few more things than intended, he had cried - he could not get out of the car, which I had locked out of habit when I strolled away from the car.

So I said sorry, now I'll show you how to get out - I locked the car with the remote, but I could not get out. So I rang BMW, and asked them how to get out ... eventually, they said you cannot.

I get annoyed enough in Australia that you drive a new manual Porsche and the indicator is on the same side as the gearshift - how can one indicate and change gears at the same time with such an unsafe arrangement? But getting locked in is unsafe - but the car companies are more interested in anti-theft issues, I guess because they lower running costs.

I would like to find more about this so I can try and do something about the issue.

[Limits]

A woman drowned in her car today. In the middle of the road.
http://aftonbladet.s...1113798,00.html
The water was about half a meter deeper when she drove into it during the night.
The article contains no info about technical issues though.

I guess that if the water locks the doors just before, or rather just after, electricity siezes to function, panic must be very near if your windows was closed as well.

[Greg Locock]

http://www.atsb.gov....pdf/rfa2004.pdf

is probably of some use, but my version of acrobat can't read it.

Googling around, UK 25 deaths per annum, USA 600, so we'd 'expect' 10 to 30. I suspect we're at the lower end of that scale, as most Australian driving is urban.

This is the user-problem with more powerful window motors

http://www.wric.com/...49&nav=menu28_2

The moral from which is not that electric windows cause stupid parents.

[Chubby_Deuce]

1/5 our population yet 1/24 the number of deaths... all while living on an island. I love this country.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Limits
A woman drowned in her car today. In the middle of the road.
http://aftonbladet.s...1113798,00.html
The water was about half a meter deeper when she drove into it during the night.
The article contains no info about technical issues though.

I guess that if the water locks the doors just before, or rather just after, electricity siezes to function, panic must be very near if your windows was closed as well.

With the soldiers though, they are trained to be able to function when fearful. But presuming at least one was conscious, he still was unable to not only get out via the doors (the diving soldier also could not open the doors), but at least one soldier was yelling, so he was conscious, be he was unable to break a window to get out.

Thanks for post too!

I read a couple of years ago about a BMW 5 series that was using its GPS, and it was foggy, and the GPS ran the car up to a river - the car barely stopped before entering the water. If it had of not stopped, they would have died, due to the electronics failing.

The old Mercedes used to have locking via pneumatics - although I am not sure how the system was activated. I think the Grosser 600 Benzes had pneumatically powered windows too (although I am not so sure about that).

If cars had a battery back up and some water resistant circuits, lives would be saved.

[Greg Locock]

What depth was the car in?

[Limits]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
What depth was the car in?

The car in my post - it was one metre on the road and two meters in the ditch. The woman drove in there during the night and was found in the morning when tghe levels had gone down. No onw knows exactly when and how she ended up there.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park



If cars had a battery back up and some water resistant circuits, lives would be saved.

If we made the speed limit 20 mph, many more lives would be saved. I would venture to say it would all but eliminate traffic fatalities. However, That doesn't make it a good idea.

Let's make your feature optional and see how many new car buyers check the box.

I don't think I need to be paying for that feature, nor do I wish to see the automakers burdened with the solution. They have enough on their plates at the moment.

I will continue to do as I was taught: when driving in the proximity of water, frozen or unfrozen, open the window.

[McGuire]

Power windows and door lock control systems are not really the issue.

When your car goes into the water, you absolutely will be disoriented in space with little sense of direction, and in a state of panic and confusion. You and the other occupants of the car will probably be injured, quite likely seriously. And you will have water pouring in on you from all directions, and you will have zero visibility. You will have a great deal of trouble finding the relevant switches and controls, let alone operating them.

The automakers cannot save your life here -- you will have to save your own. When you are driving where water is a foreseeable risk, OPEN THE GODDAMNED WINDOW. That is the ONLY thing you or anyone else can do that has a reasonable chance of saving your ass.

Please read this:

http://www.caranddri...wning-pool.html

[McGuire]

Also worth a read...

http://mythbustersre...s.com/episode71

[Greg Locock]

Just in case anyone thinks that a power window should be able to do the job - just 6 ft down the water pressure is 3 psi. On a 2 sq ft window that is a side force of 900 lb. Assuming a friction coefficient of 0.3 (oiled steel on steel, ie very low) the window will need to be pulled down by 270 lbf. As alluded to above, the main upper constraint on system size is parents chopping bits off their offspring, so I would hazard a guess that current systems are capable of perhaps 20-50 lbf. I suspect the friction coefficient is much higher than 0.3.

Therefore you would have to increase the system size by a factor of 5 to 10 (or more). And figure out a way of pulling on the glass. And make sure the flexure in the door under the water pressure does not lock the mechanism up. You would also need a position sensor to make sure that people didn't wind the window down through the bottom of the door. A more powerful system will need different anti-guillotining safeguards - at present this is done by adjusting the stall torque characteristic of the motor I believe, although I have a feeling there is a current detector as well. All solvable, all will cost money, all will add weight.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by McGuire
When you are driving where water is a foreseeable risk, OPEN THE GODDAMNED WINDOW. That is the ONLY thing you or anyone else can do that has a reasonable chance of saving your ass.

Well, there is one other thing. There are also devices like the "Life Hammer," which you can buy for cheap at many auto parts stores etc. This gadget is only a small hammer with sharpened peens that will easily shatter a tempered doorglass or backlite. Some also have a razor knife built into the handle for cutting shoulder harnesses etc. (Which is a little over the top for me... if I thought road driving was that fraught maybe I would quit doing it.) Or you could just throw a hammer or crowbar under the seat.

Couple of things about the tools though... unless you fasten it down inside the car, after a crash it is not likely to be where you originally put it. And betting your life on this tool presumes that you will be physically able, and have the presence of mind, to go for it when you need it.

So to me, while the tool is not an entirely horrible idea, far better to have the glass down in the first place. Manual or windup: underwater, windups will not work either until the interior is nearly full of water and the pressure on both sides of the glass is roughly equalized. Me, I would prefer not to wait that long.

I grew up one mile from Lake Erie, where using vehicles to pull boats and trailers in and out of the water, driving along canals and on top of levees, ice fishing, floods, etc and so forth were daily routine. You put down your windows when you drove near the water, just because. I knew of many people who took bad dunkings, but none who drowned in their vehicles that I can recall... though I am sure some did.

Ironically, I was reminded of this habit last week on a trip up to the St. Ignace Car Show. As I headed up over the Mackinac Bridge I caught myself running down the windows -- without even thinking about it, like fastening the belts. No way could I ever survive a fall from that height, but at least I was not going to drown.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
As alluded to above, the main upper constraint on system size is parents chopping bits off their offspring, so I would hazard a guess that current systems are capable of perhaps 20-50 lbf.

Excellent guess. The DOT pinch force limit for door glass and sunroofs is 100 N.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by McGuire
Power windows and door lock control systems are not really the issue.

When your car goes into the water, you absolutely will be disoriented in space with little sense of direction, and in a state of panic and confusion. You and the other occupants of the car will probably be injured, quite likely seriously. And you will have water pouring in on you from all directions, and you will have zero visibility. You will have a great deal of trouble finding the relevant switches and controls, let alone operating them.

The automakers cannot save your life here -- you will have to save your own. When you are driving where water is a foreseable risk, OPEN THE GODDAMNED WINDOW. That is the ONLY thing you or anyone else can do that has a reasonable chance of saving your ass.

Firstly, thanks to everyone for the contributions!

Just a reply about dis-orientation. The men in the car - 7 feet of water - were all experienced SAS soldiers, and two were water specialists. One was only 23, but the other two were 32 and 34 years old. The older ones (one being my family member) were multi-decorated, and were proven performers in combat, under some most extraordinary situations. They had not only had several mission in Iran and Afghanistan, but also had missions in Indonesia and Timor, had trained with various elite groups for extended periods including the US Navy Seals etc. I was told by his fellow SAS after the event that each of them could hold their breaths for 4 minutes.

However more details will come with the Coroner's report.

If there had of been a hammer/device to break a window in the vehicle, it would have saved likely two lives, maybe three (my guy had a small bruise on his forehead so he was likely not conscious, and the SAS trooper who broke the rear window and retrieved two of them had to leave him in the vehicle because he made an executive decision concerning the likelihood of survival and resuscitation, which he was trained to do.

It was on a narrow road with water on each side ... and they were driving quickly, night time of course, the road has blue stone rocks on its edges, which visually merge with the sea. Curiously they did have windows partially open, but only 4 inches, which probably hurt them as the water would have come in faster.

With the forces discussed, could a manual window winder have lowered the windows in 7 feet of water?

[stuartbrs]

Years ago, a young woman I went to school with was killed along with 4 young kids in the car she was driving when she lost control and slid off the road, down a bank and ended up upside down in a fast flowing river. The car had manual windows, they all drowned.

Utterly and completely tragic.

The road was slippery and wet, the car was rear wheel drive, the handling of these vehicles ( 70`s Holden Gemini, oversized "mag" wheels ) was bordering on lethal in those kinds of conditions anyway, and the outcome was horrible.

[Ray Bell]

I don't see any impediment to opening the windows under water with a manual winder...

You would assume, too, that a sliding door as on the side of a Hi-Ace or similar would have no problems.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I don't see any impediment to opening the windows under water with a manual winder...

You would assume, too, that a sliding door as on the side of a Hi-Ace or similar would have no problems.

Yes I think the same with the windows, but I am not so sure about the sliding door as they have to pop outwards before sliding back.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by stuartbrs
Years ago, a young woman I went to school with was killed along with 4 young kids in the car she was driving when she lost control and slid off the road, down a bank and ended up upside down in a fast flowing river. The car had manual windows, they all drowned.

Utterly and completely tragic.

The road was slippery and wet, the car was rear wheel drive, the handling of these vehicles ( 70`s Holden Gemini, oversized "mag" wheels ) was bordering on lethal in those kinds of conditions anyway, and the outcome was horrible.

Yes utterly tragic.

Strange thing for all of us was that three of the most capable, enormously highly trained professionals and actually dangerous people in the world could all die in 7 feet of water in a late model sedan.

[Wilyman]

Originally posted by McGuire


Well, there is one other thing. There are also devices like the "Life Hammer," which you can buy for cheap at many auto parts stores etc. This gadget is only a small hammer with sharpened peens that will easily shatter a tempered doorglass or backlite. Some also have a razor knife built into the handle for cutting shoulder harnesses etc. (Which is a little over the top for me... if I thought road driving was that fraught maybe I would quit doing it.) Or you could just throw a hammer or crowbar under the seat.

Couple of things about the tools though... unless you fasten it down inside the car, after a crash it is not likely to be where you originally put it. And betting your life on this tool presumes that you will be physically able, and have the presence of mind, to go for it when you need it.

So to me, while the tool is not an entirely horrible idea, far better to have the glass down in the first place. Manual or windup: underwater, windups will not work either until the interior is nearly full of water and the pressure on both sides of the glass is roughly equalized. Me, I would prefer not to wait that long.

I grew up one mile from Lake Erie, where using vehicles to pull boats and trailers in and out of the water, driving along canals and on top of levees, ice fishing, floods, etc and so forth were daily routine. You put down your windows when you drove near the water, just because. I knew of many people who took bad dunkings, but none who drowned in their vehicles that I can recall... though I am sure some did.

Ironically, I was reminded of this habit last week on a trip up to the St. Ignace Car Show. As I headed up over the Mackinac Bridge I caught myself running down the windows -- without even thinking about it, like fastening the belts. No way could I ever survive a fall from that height, but at least I was not going to drown.

I bought one of those "Life Hammers" from K Mart for around Aus. $3. I have it attached to the console near my left leg.
I dont drive near water but I've always thought some device capable of smashing a side window, manual or electric would be handy.
Like a fire extinguisher you may not need it but the hammer may help some other poor bugger.

PS. I wonder whether the energy required to wield the hammer under water is possible?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
Just a reply about dis-orientation. The men in the car - 7 feet of water - were all experienced SAS soldiers, and two were water specialists. One was only 23, but the other two were 32 and 34 years old. The older ones (one being my family member) were multi-decorated, and were proven performers in combat, under some most extraordinary situations. They had not only had several mission in Iran and Afghanistan, but also had missions in Indonesia and Timor, had trained with various elite groups for extended periods including the US Navy Seals etc. I was told by his fellow SAS after the event that each of them could hold their breaths for 4 minutes.

This is only my opinion... but unless they had performed specific exercises with this situation (which is a deceptively tricky and special one as we can see) I'm not sure their training could have made much of a difference at all.

In the special forces, as in any part of the combat military, soldiers are trained to do things over and over until they are essentially a matter of conditioning. Special forces troops recieve even more extreme conditioning of their minds and bodies. But if they had no specialized training in escaping from a submerged automobile, they could be as helpless as anyone else. Special forces soldiers are not supermen.

Let me be clear that I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the soldier who attempted the rescue, but obviously he was untrained and therefore ill-equipped for this specific situation: after his first dive, he had to make a trip back to his car for a tool to get the car open, then go back for a second attempt. However, an ordinary EMT with experience in submerged vehicles would not have made that "mistake." He would know to bring a tool on the first trip.

Indeed: knowing what we know now in reading this thread, that is what we would all do in that situation. And we are not special forces, just ordinary citizens. Live and learn. If we can just manage to end every day a tiny bit less stupid than we were the day before, it was a good day.

But again I would like to emphasize that it's not the soldier's fault at all. We have every reason to believe he did the best he could with the training he had recieved, the resources at his disposal and the situation at hand.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Wilyman



PS. I wonder whether the energy required to wield the hammer under water is possible?

With tempered door glass, no problem at all. Assuming your arm isn't broken so you can't swing the hammer. A six-year old can easily shatter the glass into a million pieces with a medium effort.

However, with laminated safety glass (like the windshield, or the door glass in older cars) all the Life Hammer will do is create small dents and holes in the glass.

As a rough rule of thumb, flat door glass is laminated while curved glass is tempered. There is supposed to be a bug (etched marking) somewhere on the glass stating what it is and who made it, but it could be out of sight behind a seal etc.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by McGuire

In the special forces, as in any part of the combat military, soldiers are trained to do things over and over until they are essentially a matter of conditioning. Special forces troops recieve even more extreme conditioning of their minds and bodies. But if they had no specialized training in escaping from a submerged automobile, they could be as helpless as anyone else. Special forces soldiers are not supermen.

That's very far from what the SAS do in actual fact. They are trained to take the initiative and to think, and I know for a fact that this happens, but I cannot give you examples. They are very different from normal soldiers, at least the Aussie ones are. As for rules, well they are very capable of breaking most of them. Being in black water is normal stuff for those guys too. I could go on and on about that too, but obviously I shall not.

The confines of the car and the shock of the accident is so far an unknown - but at least one person was yelling from the car, so there was air in the vehicle but he or both could not get out.

You can argue that they were not functioning - but one should presume that they were functioning. That is what this thread is about.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by McGuire


With tempered door glass, no problem at all. Assuming your arm isn't broken so you can't swing the hammer. A six-year old can easily shatter the glass into a million pieces with a medium effort.

However, with laminated safety glass (like the windshield, or the door glass in older cars) all the Life Hammer will do is create small dents and holes in the glass.

As a rough rule of thumb, flat door glass is laminated while curved glass is tempered. There is supposed to be a bug (etched marking) somewhere on the glass stating what it is and who made it, but it could be out of sight behind a seal etc.

In Australia, many cars have tinted glass that is dealer applied. They laminate light filtering plastic onto the glass, and this makes the glass unbreakable. I had an SUV broken into, and a multiple blows from most likely a brick eventually folded the glass enough for a hand to go in and unlock the door. And then the briefcase was removed.

Many of the Army Ford Falcons I've seen have quite dark tinted glass - but I don't know if they were driving standard Army cars or just normal hire cars, they had had the cars for six weeks. I suspect the glass was film tinted, hence very difficult if not impossible to break.

I had not thought about the tinting films - thanks for that.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I don't see any impediment to opening the windows under water with a manual winder...

Get an old car door (with glass and manual winder still installed inside) and place it on a pair of sawhorses, horizontally. Now place oh, 700 lbs of sandbags on the glass. Now try to wind down the window. It will be extremely difficult if not impossible to wind down the window, because the glass is jammed in its channel by the weight of the sandbags. If you are strong enough most likely the crank handle will break off in your hand, or the glue will fail and the glass will separate from the regulator channel.

Same thing underwater, at least until the vehicle's cabin is filled with water and the hydraulic pressure is roughly equal on both side of the glass.

[phantom II]

Originally posted by McGuire


If we can just manage to end every day a tiny bit less stupid than we were the day before, it was a good day.

However, if you deal with stupidity on a daily basis, you begin to understand the concept of infinity.

[phantom II]

McGuire is correct. Simply by observing a staged experiment like the Myth busters underwater car escape, which I did, you will increase your chance of survival in a similar situation by 90%. I cant speak for the other armed forces, but the airforce is virtually all repetitive. Actual combat becomes instinctual especially in high fatigue missions after much repetition in training .
The rest is what God has given you. You can't be taught situation awareness, or back up a car like Bill claims he can.
You can bring back a crippled plane with low fuel and severe weather without thinking one bit even to the extent of being completely unconscious. Before an engagement, you can revise a tactic in your mind, but the actual engagement becomes subconscious.
We had to learn how to fight in the Jungles against the Japs before we defeated them. Mountbatten didn't have a clue how to fight in Burma in the beginning.
The unique individuality of the allied solders became the advantage that led to victory over the Japs. The tactical changes were derived from experience and culture.
To defeat the new enemy in the middle east and the Chinese, requires the dismantling of the politically correct training the combat forces are receiving at present and replacing leaders with the likes of Patton and Mountbatten.
Repetitive training has its drawbacks.
Many big rigs are driven while the driver is asleep. Some haven't any idea how they covered the last 1000 miles. A pilot could bring back the plane in this mental condition but would not be able to engage in combat. The driver would not be able to back into the dock. Yet without this discipline, survival at the extreme would not be impossible.
Continual reinforcement of procedure is the single most important survival factor in combat.
Are we adapting sufficiently to defeat China? White people can't survive the way we are going.

NASCAR drivers think whereas F1 drivers react and the thinking is done in the pits. The faster things happen the less one aught to rely on thinking.
In the under water escape situation, what makes things difficult is the necessity to think without a complete data pack. Some people can't think under stress and panic will make some freeze. Sufficient training can overcome this also.
An engineer will have a better chance of survival in this situation than a little old lady who knits. The more information that you can draw on in your subconscious for a given situation, the greater the chance of survival.
In the movie,"Apollo 13" survival was determined by the amount of knowledge that was available to draw on and much training was designed to draw on this knowledge under pressure..

Put your finger on your nose. Good, now put your finger on your physiosopholis.
Which action required thought? One is living in the past and one is the present. Experience puts everything you do into the past.From a baby grasping for it's wrattle, all knowledge and experience is derived from negative feedback.
It is a rare thing to think accurately under pressure without training. Think of heavily armed gang leaders negotiating territorial disputes. It is a little different from a trial lawyer in the safety of a court room or the CEO contemplating a corporate bid.
I think the military should recruit gang members like the Dirty Dozen. With another Clinton in the White House, our military will be filled with trial lawyers again.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


That's very far from what the SAS do in actual fact. They are trained to take the initiative and to think, and I know for a fact that this happens, but I cannot give you examples. They are very different from normal soldiers, at least the Aussie ones are. As for rules, well they are very capable of breaking most of them. Being in black water is normal stuff for those guys too. I could go on and on about that too, but obviously I shall not.

The confines of the car and the shock of the accident is so far an unknown - but at least one person was yelling from the car, so there was air in the vehicle but he or both could not get out.

You can argue that they were not functioning - but one should presume that they were functioning. That is what this thread is about.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by phantom II
McGuire is correct. Simply by observing a staged experiment like the Myth busters underwater car escape, which I did, you will increase your chance of survival in a similar situation by 90%. I cant speak for the other armed forces, but the airforce is virtually all repetitive. Actual combat becomes instinctual especially in high fatigue missions after much repetition in training .
The rest is what God has given you. You can't be taught situation awareness, or back up a car like Bill claims he can.
You can bring back a crippled plane with low fuel and severe weather without thinking one bit even to the extent of being completely unconscious. Before an engagement, you can revise a tactic in your mind, but the actual engagement becomes subconscious.
We had to learn how to fight in the Jungles against the Japs before we defeated them. Mountbatten didn't have a clue how to fight in Burma in the beginning.
The unique individuality of the allied solders became the advantage that led to victory over the Japs. The tactical changes were derived from experience and culture.
To defeat the new enemy in the middle east and the Chinese, requires the dismantling of the politically correct training the combat forces are receiving at present and replacing leaders with the likes of Patton and Mountbatten.
Repetitive training has its drawbacks.
Many big rigs are driven while the driver is asleep. Some haven't any idea how they covered the last 1000 miles. A pilot could bring back the plane in this mental condition but would not be able to engage in combat. The driver would not be able to back into the dock. Yet without this discipline, survival at the extreme would not be impossible.
Continual reinforcement of procedure is the single most important survival factor in combat.
Are we adapting sufficiently to defeat China? White people can't survive the way we are going.

NASCAR drivers think whereas F1 drivers react and the thinking is done in the pits. The faster things happen the less one aught to rely on thinking.
In the under water escape situation, what makes things difficult is the necessity to think without a complete data pack. Some people can't think under stress and panic will make some freeze. Sufficient training can overcome this also.
An engineer will have a better chance of survival in this situation than a little old lady who knits. The more information that you can draw on in your subconscious for a given situation, the greater the chance of survival.
In the movie,"Apollo 13" survival was determined by the amount of knowledge that was available to draw on and much training was designed to draw on this knowledge under pressure..

Put your finger on your nose. Good, now put your finger on your physiosopholis.
Which action required thought? One is living in the past and one is the present. Experience puts everything you do into the past.From a baby grasping for it's wrattle, all knowledge and experience is derived from negative feedback.
It is a rare thing to think accurately under pressure without training. Think of heavily armed gang leaders negotiating territorial disputes. It is a little different from a trial lawyer in the safety of a court room or the CEO contemplating a corporate bid.
I think the military should recruit gang members like the Dirty Dozen. With another Clinton in the White House, our military will be filled with trial lawyers again.

I think this is interesting, but likely a bit off topic. And Aussie troops are very different. In Nam if US troops would saw a sniper in a tree, they'd take the whole tree out. But Aussie troops would do it with just one bullet. We have a different philosophy, as does our SAS compared to the Seals. The US have very expensive but highly inefficient transport - they take an enormous amount of time to even be able to return fire. The Aussies have cheap gear, but they return fire immediately. If your were the enemy, which would you rather attack? It's a different philosophy. Aussie hardware costs a fraction, but its much more effective, there are many examples. There are many crack troops in the world - they all have their own characteristics, for instance the Indonesians have them too, and they are also excellent.

But to say all inside every vehicle where people drown were incapable is a cop out. It's a presumption that all people die in the submersion accidents due totally to their own failings. The auto and safety authorities say too bad - were are just too busy to think about it at the moment.

And these days people are being dumbed down. its been said the best way to get saver driving would be a six inch steel blade, placed in the steering wheel hub and pointed to your heart? If everyone had one, most people would drive safer. But instead we get air bags, ABS, brake assist, Sat Nav, and security software. Its all good stuff, but when you hit the water, the car suddenly transforms itself from a thinking helper to your enemy.

And I think it was McGuire who said that Auto companies are too busy at the moment to do anything about that issue.

Its not about panic under water either. A few years ago some good drivers had an electrical failure in a 7 series BMW - one of them was Alan Moffat, the retired motor racing ace who won many touring car battles. The occupants of the car waited two hours to get out, at the golf club, on a mid thirties day, without air conditioning - or the windows open. The Automobile Club rescue people came, but they could not open the car. The could always break a window, but the car was BMW's so the occupants said leave it (BMW were on the way). BMW came two hours later and opened the car.

IMO that is outrageous - but we are so dumbed down, we even accept that as being OK. And in the water, things get worse.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
.....I had not thought about the tinting films - thanks for that.

Yet another reason to avoid tinted windows!

Virtually all windows in cars in Australia are 'toughened' glass except windscreens, and most of these were before the seventies.

But I wonder if toughened glass is prone to shattering if it has the comforting pressure of water behind it?

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Yet another reason to avoid tinted windows!

Virtually all windows in cars in Australia are 'toughened' glass except windscreens, and most of these were before the seventies.

But I wonder if toughened glass is prone to shattering if it has the comforting pressure of water behind it?

I don't think so - it would be good if it did though.

The Falcon in question likely would have had Chinese made glass, since ACI lost the Ford contract a couple of years ago. I thought it would be the crumbling "safety" type glass - laminated would only be on the windscreen. But with film tinting, any glass would become unbreakable.

[phantom II]

So, why can't the manufacturer build a door or flap on the floor of the car or the firewall or trunk that opens under pressure? Huh. Why? The Cadillac XLR has concealed levers on the floor inside and the car and on the rear bumper in order to open the car in case of electrical problems.

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


I don't think so - it would be good if it did though.

The Falcon in question likely would have had Chinese made glass, since ACI lost the Ford contract a couple of years ago. I thought it would be the crumbling "safety" type glass - laminated would only be on the windscreen. But with film tinting, any glass would become unbreakable.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by phantom II
So, why can't the manufacturer build a door or flap on the floor of the car or the firewall or trunk that opens under pressure? Huh. Why? The Cadillac XLR has concealed levers on the floor inside and the car and on the rear bumper in order to open the car in case of electrical problems.

Good on Caddy for that!

But with water pressure, the doors won't open. And neither will the windows.

Too hard basket anybody?

[McGuire]

I had left my son in the car to go into a super market, he was 9 at the time, the car a E46 325 BMW. When I came back with a few more things than intended, he had cried - he could not get out of the car, which I had locked out of habit when I strolled away from the car.

So I said sorry, now I'll show you how to get out - I locked the car with the remote, but I could not get out. So I rang BMW, and asked them how to get out ... eventually, they said you cannot.

A few years ago some good drivers had an electrical failure in a 7 series BMW - one of them was Alan Moffat, the retired motor racing ace who won many touring car battles. The occupants of the car waited two hours to get out, at the golf club, on a mid thirties day, without air conditioning - or the windows open. The Automobile Club rescue people came, but they could not open the car. The could always break a window, but the car was BMW's so the occupants said leave it (BMW were on the way). BMW came two hours later and opened the car.

Why not just unlock the doors manually?

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


I don't think so - it would be good if it did though.

The Falcon in question likely would have had Chinese made glass, since ACI lost the Ford contract a couple of years ago. I thought it would be the crumbling "safety" type glass - laminated would only be on the windscreen. But with film tinting, any glass would become unbreakable.

Tinting film does not render tempered glass "unbreakable." Not in the least. It merely causes some of the glass pebbles to cling to the film. The glass still shatters into a zillion pieces. Try it.

You are suggesting that tinting film gives tempered auto glass the properties of laminated safety glass. Not at all. Laminated glass is composed of one or more plies of structural plastic with one or more layers of float glass on either side.

[phantom II]

Like Corvettes and Caddies,there is no actual door handle, either outside or in. It is a button. I can't believe the BM doesnt have a lever to open the door placed somewhere inside and out.

Originally posted by McGuire




Why not just unlock the doors manually?

[phantom II]

...and you can't lock it manually.

Originally posted by phantom II
Like Corvettes and Caddies,there is no actual door handle, either outside or in. It is a button. I can't believe the BM doesnt have a lever to open the door placed somewhere inside and out.

[stuartbrs]

The reason all 5 people died in the accident I described earlier, was simply that the river they slid into has an almighty current.. even if they had got the windows open, they would not have been able to get themselves out of the car in time. They were only in a few feet of water, but the current and the fact the car was upside down, meant that there was only ever going to be one outcome.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by phantom II
Like Corvettes and Caddies,there is no actual door handle, either outside or in. It is a button. I can't believe the BM doesnt have a lever to open the door placed somewhere inside and out.

BMSs do have door handles - but they are disabled when the car is locked.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by McGuire


Tinting film does not render tempered glass "unbreakable." Not in the least. It merely causes some of the glass pebbles to cling to the film. The glass still shatters into a zillion pieces. Try it.

You are suggesting that tinting film gives tempered auto glass the properties of laminated safety glass. Not at all. Laminated glass is composed of one or more plies of structural plastic with one or more layers of float glass on either side.

No I am not! I should have said virtually I guess - from a surrounded by water perspective, which is the tenant of the thread.

The strength of a tinted window would depend upon the characteristics of the film and how its applied. over here films vary, but Mylar is tough stuff, which I think the film was. Some companies over here claim greater protection and more thief resistance if you use their products, but I don't know if that is still true. In my SUV's case, some of the glass crumbled, but the film held - the film was tough stuff. And getting out of the vehicle would have been much more difficult with a film coated side window if it resembled the one attacked by the thief on my vehicle, which was applied by the dealer when I bought my new SUV some years ago now. It's a Toyota and it's the first vehicle (besides the collectables) that I've owned for more than three years - but it was not a Toyota tint, it was a local company that applied a tint film.

We don't tint our windscreens over here except for a tint stripe at the top of the windscreen, due to visibility laws.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by McGuire
Why not just unlock the doors manually?

As I said earlier, if the car is locked with the remote locking, the E46 325 won't unlock without either the remote, or a key in the external door lock. I rang BMW and they - after a lot of time spent - confirmed that it was maybe not a good feature. Look up Alan Moffat - you'll see he's well known motor racer in Australia - he and his mates couldn't get out of a seven series either.

My wife's new Mercedes does though - it was a feature she looked for, the mercedes has an unlock button in a central and obvious position.

With luxury cars increasingly having powered opening and closing of their doors, IMO they should have the ability to power open when the normal power is disabled. But they won't - better to have a more sophisticated massaging seat and larger DVD screens in the back headrests.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


BMSs do have door handles - but they are disabled when the car is locked.

Only if you double-lock the car with the exterior remote, arming the security system. If the car is locked in the normal fashion ("single-locked" in BMW lingo) you can unlock the door manually by pulling the door handle twice.

I totally agree that it is a silly and overly complicated system, but then this is a German car we are talking about. And you bought one, which can only encourage them.