Auto Gossip

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32351, 17 July 1970, Page 17

Auto Gossip

by

Under-run Crashes When a car collides with a truck in such a way that the car’s nose goes under the truck’s deck, the stage is set for serious injuries, and probably for death. Windscreens and their supports can never be designed to stand the sort of impact which results in an accident like this, and because of the nature of the impact, it is one of the rare cases where even seat belts may be of little use. As modern cars and their bonnets become lower, and trucks become larger, the likelihood of such accidents becomes greater. Typical Situation

Often the scenario for such an accident is this: a heavily-laden and poorly lit truck labouring slowly up an incline, perhaps on a motorway, late at night; a car approaching rapidly from behind, perhaps with the driver paying less attention than he should, and perhaps another car coming the other way, so the fellow behind the truck cannot swerve to avoid the slow vehicle. At 60 m.p.h. the car will close on the 15 m.p.h. truck at 67ft a second. Even if last-minute braking halves his speed, the impact will still occur at 22 m.p.h. At this speed a truck deck can peel most of the superstructure off a car. Special Bumpers This type of accident is particularly common in Britain, where many accidents also involve parked but poorly-lit trucks. Safety authorities in that country have drawn attention to, the danger regularly since 1962, but so far the inertia of Britain’s Ministry of Transport has not been overcome. The safety authorities are pressing for better truck lighting, and specifically for the fitting of “under-run bumpers”— panels set below the truck deck to stop smaller vehicles running underneath. The cost of providing such protection is estimated at 880 to $lOO a truck. Should we be thinking of requiring such devices? I believe we should, and I also suspect

A.J.P.

they could often be provided for less than the 880 to 8100 mentioned in British reports. Nor would all trucks need them: some already have low decks, or spare-wheel cradles positioned so they would stop a vehicle running under the deck. But many of the larger vehicles offer no such protection: I believe they should. Badly-lit

I believe there is also a strong case for extensive improvement in the lighting of many of our heavy trucks, particularly sheep-trucks. I would even suggest many of the current National Roads Board worries about slow trucks on hilly motorways at night could be overcome if a proper standard of lighting was fitted. Anyone who has seen heavy vehicles on the roads at night in Australia, for instance, will realise just how badly-lit the New Zealand stock-truck is in comparison. As well as existing lights such trucks should have lights at the top front corners, every five or six feet along the sides, and at the top corners at the rear. At present it is impossible to judge the size of most trucks at night until they roar past: nor is it easy to judge their length, even when travelling quite close to them. And what rear lights they have are all too often broken or obscured by dirt. In contrast, a few large inter-city moving vans do have height and side-marker lights, and the ease with which a motorist can see and recognise them from a distance at night is very noticeable. The fact remains that our standards of truck-lighting, like our standards of suburban streetlighting, are well below par. We may be saving power, but losing lives. Quote of the Week

“How odd it is that our broadcasting friends refer to ‘racing’ when they mean horse-racing, but use the adjective ‘motor,’ or ‘cycle’ for other kinds. Bloody snobs!”—R. Thoresby in the “Motor” on 8.8. C. motorracing coverage.