Front Seat Or Back Seat: Which Is Safer? - Fifth Gear
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- Most would assume that the back seat of a car is safer, but with modern safety technology the front might just be the best place to be.
For more fantastic car reviews, shoot-outs and all your favourite Fifth Gear moments, subscribe to our Official Channel: goo.gl/IPXAgl
Check out our website for the latest car videos and news from around the web: fifthgear.tv/
![[Live] : ONE 168 วันนี้!! "โจนาธาน vs ซุปเปอร์เล็ก"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jIN65KgJsI/mqdefault.jpg)
Further research by experts have conclude that it's safer to just stay home.
im not gonna trust it unless they test dummies at home
That was really funny,lol........
More people die at home than on the roads!
They have to get rid of the dummies on the road 🤣
Yeah gotta be pretty dumb to do that no one home
the safest was the mother in law , in the trunk
Another poor Focus laid to rest.
it prob done 30,0000 miles that is why
Looks like an older mark 2. The new one has airbags in the seats. I wonder how well that would do. Mind you id rather have an old focus than the new ecoboost ones. I dont think i would want to survive a crash like that anyway.
most mk 1 focus's these days have something wrong anyways
@@robloxfan4271 mk1 focus are quite reliable
Plenty of Mk1 Focus's around even 10 years after this was filmed, this was most likely a scrap car anyway.
This test doesn't replicate a 50mph crash into a stationary car. Main reason being, a stationary car would also be launched forwards on impact lessening the impact on the moving car, not act like a solid immovable wall.
BluePixel Gaming That is true but say this scenario just replicates brake failure at a t intersection?
Only if you ploughed into a solid, immovable wall at 50mph. Hitting another stationary car or even the side of a house, wouldn't do this much damage. It's as accurate as when they say 2 cars hitting each other headon, each doing 60mph, is equal to a 120mph collision when it's not, it's equal to a 60mph collision as both cars cancel each other out. Obviously it's a little more complicated than that as the weight of each vehicle plays a big part as well.
BluePixel Gaming yeah of course its gonna be a bit different if you hit 2 cars together.
Ever hear of equal opposite reaction
another type of crash
say if another car is going 65 and you are going 70 did you hit the other car +5mph or did you hit it going 70mph?
The crash they did with a Mondeo and a tractor probably replicated the stationary car rear ending better.
should have used a 7 seater and have 1 in each of the 3 rows
You REALLY dont want to be on the back row and be hit from behind! They did a test of that and the results were not good!
@@soundseeker63 be in the middle!
I'm not sure about Europe, but in the US there's barely any safety requirements for the 3rd row seats in SUVs (except for basics like seatbelts and headrests). There are no airbags on the sides and your upper body would be sent flying towards the seat in front of you. Maybe they just assumed that if there was a 3rd row it would be the worst out of all
@@oOgy172 don't curtain airbags usually go from the very front to the very back of the car?
Craigslist be like minor damage, still runs like new
Jordan Carriveau ha ha
Advert says 'Slight dent in front which extends back to the rear seats.'
Depends on too many variables - car design, rear impact / front impact, size & weight of passengers, luggage within the vehicle etc etc.. I.E - not very scientific. But interesting nonetheless :)
Also you are not gonna be going into a brick wall if you rear end a car, the rear of the other car with also crumple slowing you down
True. This is actually analogous to having a collision with another vehicle (allowing for crumple zones on both vehicles) at around 100 mph. Still, extreme examples show the differences better to the untrained eye.
Joop Media
Dash cam Nissan UK 1990, I never understood the point of hitting concrete blocks, I wonder how different the outcome would b if they had of used a trailer from an articulated truck
Should redo the test with a more modern car than using a 16 year old car..just to see the difference
picklesrule69 tru
picklesrule69 or maybe actually get 2 of the same cars, one is moving and the other stationary, with a crash test dummy in every seat of both cars, and crash the two into each other! Front on rear, I mean.
picklesrule69 lol ikr
They can't afford that
@@ConyaBalls2004 yess!
No seat belt can protect better than:
- Keeping a safe distance
- Driving according to road conditions
- Maintaining your car in proper working order.
Things people in california dont do in a nice compact list
There's a slight problem with your list, and that is that it's all about what the driver is doing. Alas, there are lots of other people on the roads, and keeping a safe distance to the car in front (and back) of you won't help should someone going the opposite direction falls asleep behind the wheel/drops something on the floor and picks it up/gets distracted by screaming children in the back and veers off into your lane.
Always wear that seatbelt, and follow the advice on the list.
@@bpomowe224 I am not saying that seat belts are useless at all. These conditions are IN ADDITION to wearing a seat belt and child restraints. A lot of people don't even do anything on the list.
@@Hampstead343 a lot of people are idiots.
It was the phrasing "No seat belt can protect better than" when there are a lot of things that ONLY the seat belt can provide protection from I questioned, though we do seem to fully agree that everyone should do all :)
The main reason people die in car crashes is speed, if people slowed down fatal car crashes would go down dramatically
I had a crash in the same car like this one (2001 mk1 Focus) back in 2009 when my friend was driving and some drunk idiot swerwed into us head on, I was sitting on the rear passenger seat and we crashed at around 40mph (65 kmh) - the driver had a broken right foot, 2 broken fingers (police said it was from the airbag cuz he probably wasn't holding the wheel correctly) and a serious headache which lasted for a week, but me and the other two friends were completely fine (except for minor bruises, seatbelt burnmarks and a neckpain). So if I will ever have another crash, I'd prefer to seat in the back or at least on the passenger seat. The focus is a really safe car though, my neighbor got killed a couple of years ago in a 2002 Renault Megane when he crashed into a bridge at 30-40mph because the car then caught fire and he couldn't get out cuz the doors were still locked, even when firemen arrived. After that, I always keep two window breaker tools in the glove box (got them for 5$ on eBay).
my parents rear ended a truck in a Renault megane and the side wings moved backwards and locked them inside the car not able to open the doors. they climbed out from the back. what kind of design is that!
Sorry to hear that.But the 2001-2004 Ford Focus aren’t so good at techinc parts.Dad has an 2003 Ford and something got fire.Dad repaired the car,but we hope it wont happen again.My whole family drives Ford.Mom,Dad,my Aunt and my grandparents!I consider them trash cars.That is why i prefer going with my mom.I saw in my city,another Ford Focus like dad’s.It got in fire(i cant spell..I dont live in America or England)It scared me and my little sister like..hell. I.Don’t.Want.To.See.Them.Again.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooohel oogod must have hurt ALLOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CoreTech951 omfg thank you. I will try to buy window breaking gloves god bless u
It's always bad to hear that, was it the Mk2 Megane? My parents have one and it protected my mother very well in a 30/40 mph crash into another car (was kind of a T-bone, my mother being the one who crashed the front). She left the car by herself, no problem opening the doors, only busted the wipers water reservoir, even the front bumper was reusable (very similar to the Top Gear Megane crash). It also survived a rear end crash into a wall at 30/40 mph (loss of brakes due to electronic failure) and my mother didn't have any problem after that. With this + the 5 star EuroNCAP i always thought we were in a pretty safe car (we don't use it on highways, it's a commuter car). I was maybe needing this actually to change my mindset.
I play a lot of BeamNG and as my tests modern cars do a great job of making a chamber with the passengers and most impact does not reach the box in which the passengers are in upon front or rear impact
You should not rely on a game . though BeamNG's physics are good , its better just to use an actual car and do the crash in real life
Colderunz well you are correct you at least get similar results at least not to far off
True
Asghar Muna Tuna right? I love that game lol
Atleast you don't loose money destroying cars in beamNG
Sorry wut? The back should be the most relaxing? In the back of most cars you sit awful
supersimon126 ikr
That only goes for the very cheap cars. For cars at the middle segment and up the rear seats are actually very comfy. You always have two arm rests as well!
Maybe if you're in the back of a grand tourer with a super sloped rear window.
What if the rear passenger wasn't wearing a seatbelt?
The rear passenger would crush the driver. Thats why always make rear seat passenger belt up when i am driving.
The Roads Here Suck they would smash their head into the back of the drivers head rest and possibly have enough force to kill the driver too
The Roads Here Suck It will fly and pushing the driver seat to the airbag
Ther American IIHS did that. It is much uglier for both the rear passenger and the person sitting in front of them. This is because the person in front gets his/her seat slammed from behind by the unbelted rear occupant, and gets shoved into the airbag, and the rear passenger slams into the hard surface of the seat in front of him/her.
Like Dodi and Diana...they are dead...(belt is lonely chance of stay alive for rear passenger)
A collision with another car would push it forward, meaning not as much energy is transferred into the car hitting it. So although you can make projections, I don't think it would be nearly as severe as hitting a concrete barrier that doesnt budge an inch.
a collision with a wall or worse: a car coming front at 60 mph means doubling the speed.
@@philippe5249 It goes all down to deceleration in given distance which transforms into g-forces. If you hit the car head on, both going 50km/h, both having same weight, than your car stops in a split of a second from 50 - 0. Deformations of your car makes your body to stop from 50-0 in a meter.
If you hit the wall, also your body stops from 50-0. Deformations and so distance of stopping to 0 would also be the same so that makes equal g-forces.
But if you hit a stationary car, it means that deceleration will be 25km/h because you would push the car in front of you and you would not stop to 0 but to about 25km/h... And also deformations would be grater because your car would deform for 1 m and the opposite car for 1 meter giving it 2 m to stop from 50-25... Which gives less g-forces...
Actually yes you are right, funny I was convinced that a collision with a car was worse
@@philippe5249 I had the same logic until recently... Because it actually looks worse... But when you think of it closely you get the picture
Things are going forward even for the rear occupants. FORD is the first company to introduce airbags in seat belts - in Focus models in particular.
Dubai DRIVER that's only on the Explorer (SUV/4x4) in the US
They can't replace rear frontal airbags.
Those old Ford airbags are brutal. You can see in the crash test footage here that the passenger’s airbag in that Mk 1 Focus deployed with such force that it broke the windshield.
Honestly I hate these dummy tests... humans react different than a motionless dummy... if the driver noticed that cars were stopped last second, they would most likely scream, causing the rear passenger to look up, realize the car is about to smash into the rear end of another car, and then tense up and hold themselves back or something along those lines... they aren't just gonna sit there like a dead fish lol
Yes and flail their arms like they are at a rave... But the dummies are good for getting the estimates in the ball park of the real life results...Or we could use expendables like Ethan Smale
I think based on most crash tests the front generally seem to fair better than the rear for side impacts. I assume if you're in a head on crash it might be better in the rear, if you get hit hard from behind by a truck, the front might be better.
in my toyota there are airbags in all door panels, curtains everywhere, airbags in every seat, leg protecting air bags and basically every kind of airbag you can imagine
"Behind the wheel are two dummies" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Don't worry about it. There are countless things that could kill you every time you leave the house. Don't let fear dictate your life.
True, but that's not what this experiment is about. The purpose of these tests is to learn what could happen, which can lead to more safety in cars. So next time you leave the house, you're safer :) My 2002 Fiesta could surely be a death trap in a crash. It doesn't stop me from driving 20.000 km a year though :)
I thought the point of the test was to see if it is safer being as passenger in the front or the back. If the dummy had been in the front passenger seat it would have fared better because there are no pedals or steering wheel
2:36, "so where would you sit?"
Sadly my legs and arms can't reach the controls from the back seat, so I'd have to day "I would sit in the drivers seat." 🙄
I swear at this point i only come to these videos to read the troll comments XD
not the Ford focus. I love the focus
I just dont get it a Wall is solid and isnt moving or deforming just the 1 Ford Focus has to do all the work with the forces having to comprehend it all while 2 Cars would both share the force (Lets not forget Stopping Time) and the crash wouldn't be such severe also its very unlikely to crash into a wall and in most cases you either crash into a Tree,Car,Truck or into a ditch and all of it can work up the force while a rock solid wall can't do anything and just brings the Car to a Stop in an Instant and there isn't extra stopping time
I used to have a 2005 Ford Focus and I was in a bad car accident on March 7,2012 with another car. The other car hit me on the side and made my car in a rolled over. I was wearing my seat belt. I had a broken ankle, few bruises, and a little bump. The broken ankle was the worse injury from it. The car was 4 Door hatchback just like this Ford Focus in Body style.
"...because we should ALL know whether the front or rear seat is safest."
Yeah... if it turns out the rear is safer I guess I'll just drive my car from there, Mr. Bean Style, steering and honking with my feet."
1:07 I love how the dummy says to the car to go and stop
If you collide into a stationary car at 50, the law of conservation of momentum says that you won't come to a complete stop like this impact. Assuming both cars weight the same, the collision would decelerate your car down from 50mph to 25, not to zero like the collision with a fixed wall. It's a completely different severity of impact, since energies involved in a collision varies with the square of velocity change.
On the other hand, this crash does show what happens if you run into something very heavy and uniform. Like a bus...
I'll drive in the back then hand me that steering wheel ... Haha
My reaction to the video: Seats doesn't matter. Your responsible driving is what really matters.
the new fords have multi stage airbags that cushion the lower half of your body so it is also protected.
most of the time, crashes are with other cars and not concrete walls.
grabir01 If you crash with other car that is coming to you, it will be the same as crashing with a concrete wall.
Sebastián Cariñanco no way
grabir01
Try it
grabir01 with how you don't get how this is true you should try it.
CrazyRoadblock You are the one that does not get it. Obviously it was you in that car into the cement wall.. I did not know that the Germans also engineered cement walls with crumple zones.. Did you dumbass? wow !!
it was not a test of a front and rear passenger, it was a driver and a rear passenger. Why there was no dummy in the front passenger seat?
also why telling and example of a highway collision on a stranded car and than testing with a collision to a solid concrete block?
The story was flawed, the test was flawed... in short the program was flawed
Front passenger and rear passenger would have been a much more appropriate comparison. I mean, whatever you do the driver is always gonna be in this seat... A front passenger doesn't have pedals or a steering wheel, and unlike the rear he has an airbag. Front is better imo
I wonder why you don't get bags in the rear of the seat . Also a bag the is situated in the foot well that's job is solely to knock your feet off the pedals and towards the seat bottom, as the pedals start to intrude into the foot space.
Stephen Butler in modern cars they have some in the rear seats
that crackle from the impact though.
And that's an older car, so it will obviously have terrible seatbelts.
Iihs has started testing this now
Our family car is a 2010 fiesta (a 5 star car for front passenger and driver) but the rear is 4 stars so also good
Welp, I always thought the back was the safest, will you do this again but with a 2017 or 2016 version that actually have airbags in the back?
50 miles an hour into a solid block? Another car isn't solid, as implied. So rear-ending another car doesn't impart the same amount of crash energy into the cars structure. It would have been better to a deformable barrier.
I'm sure they take that into consideration. Hitting a concrete block at 50mph will be an equivalent crash to hitting a car at x mph with x depending on the weight of the car you hit and whether it's moving, etc. This was a TV programme, they weren't intending to get right in to the physics calculations.
Back seats are safer but not the most comfortable for the passenger. Auto manufacturers know that most people just drive their cars alone to work and back and have just one more person sitting next to them in the front on rare occasions so they don't have to improve the ride comfort and luxury in the back half of the car. The back seats just have children sitting on them during the school run which means that giving them any sort of control would be a distraction for the driver. Hence why the back seats in most are are plain. Unless it's a luxury long wheel based car that comes with its own driver.
I want to know how a service bus performs in a crash, with no crumple zone, the driver sitting in front of the wheels.. no seatbelts, no airbags, bars all over the place...
My looking at it now: wait there *is* airbags in the bag
Crashing into a solid wall is different then rearending a car. The rear end will deform and absorb some of the energy. The driver would likely survive at 50 miles per hour.
But although the test is flawed you got your point across. Back seat is safer in frontal crashes.
Not a fair test. If you hit a stationary vehicle at 50mph. That vehicle is going to move with the impact, so it's less of a sudden stop.
Futher studies showed that it is safer driving a donkey. It has lower speeds and has built in self steering away from broken down donkeys on the middle of the road. No seat belt or airbags required.
What about the passenger seat? I mean, the driver can't very well sit in the rear, but how does the front passenger seat fare for safety, given it has no pedals to intrude or steering wheel against which to smash?
"perhaps with the introduction of rear air bags" how old is this ??? uploaded in 2016 but even then rear and side and basically everywhere air bags were not special
There are rear side airbags in almost every new car, but no car has rear frontal airbags.
I hate these tests because it really depends on what kind of car you have
Seatbelt pre-tensioners in the back would have helped alot here.
Should've put the front dummy in the passenger seat because the driver has to sit in the front
passengers can sit anywhere
My mams car has rear airbags, I think. It has airbags in the pillar separating the front and rear doors but I don't know if they are meant to protect the driver or passenger...
Curtain airbags so you don't get a facefull of grille and engine in the event of a broadside collision
i would rather be in trunk . If it is front on
I would rather jump out before impact!
Why didn't they test a front passenger? He/she has the benefit of airbags and belt pre-tensioners, but without the intrusion of a steering wheel or pedals! I'd bet that was the safest place to be, although the way the passenger airbag shattered the windscreen in this car is a bit worrying! But admittedly hitting a concrete block at 50mph is MUCH worse than hitting another car at 50mph..
4:27 That airbag inflated with so much force that it almost cracked the entire windshield.
The passenger airbag is designed to use the windscreen as a deflector and does smash it when deployed.
Love how the passenger airbag breaks the windshield. also FUCK NO to rear airbags. that would make front seats hard as rocks and you'd have to replace the whole seat.
Now modern cars and ford galaxy has airbags underneath the steering wheel to. Cushion the drivers legs so the car makers trying to make drivers legs less hurt i don't know if this is right i might be Wong
More tests like this are good
Cars are now designed to be extremely safe in the type of crash simulated by Ncap. But every real world crash is different, and not at all like the Ncap test. A 5 star car, could, in the real world still kill you, where as in some situations, you may walk away from a 2 star car unharmed. It's all down to that elusive old thing called luck. Much better to modify your own driving style and drive in the safest possible way, don't take unnecessary risk, don't use excessive speed, leave plenty of stopping distance and help avoid as much as possible having the accident in the first place.
Whether it is front seat or rear seat, I'm definitely wouldn't want to take middle rear seat
What about a car seat? Also if kids are rear facing and are rear ended what happens?
the car would not stay still when hit it would still roll a bit so the impact will not be as dramatic
Unless you have a luxurious car, the back is usually cramped with no legroom.
A lot of cars these days have rear and curtain airbags, so maybe repeat this test on a car with rear and curtain airbags.
"no one really knows" - yeah im sure NCAP or any other regulatory body has ever tested to see if the front or back is safer, or got the results inadvertently
Decades of crash testing and no one has measured what happens to the kids in the back. Gee, Thanks, regulators, manufacturers, testers, journalists, and consumers!
The Front Passenger Airbag On The Focus Just Shattered The Front Windshield That May Cut The Passenger
I would sit in the front so I could drive
When you drive a car, where would you let your beloved one sit as a passenger, at the back or in front? We still don't know, because they forgot to put a dummy passenger in front. Strange mistake.
All the little dummy scenes are great
what if you are in a 7 seater, with three rows, would you be safer in the middle, front or back??
If 50 mph doesn't feel really fast, I want to experience a 125 mph crash test and 125 mph wheel falling off and/or flip.
I think for the driver is would be the safest place to be in the back because the car won't move
What happened to the front seat belt tenchior
In case of frontal impact, the back with seatbelt anytime.
This is why I like to drive safely not fast all the time unless u love to stay in hospital and u love to use a bed pan think about it boys and girls 🤕🤕🤕
Those crashes are for people liking to lay in Coffins
The passenger airbag smashes the windshield...
"This modern Ford Focus"
*2001 car*
I think from passagner vs back passagner would have been more ideal
why left airbag shoot the windshield while another airbag is not
Passenger seat is better than driver seat but both passenger and rear seats
Need more modern cars
Do this same exact test but tow the car in reverse
mlnlme1 what if the seatback breaks and the rear passenger is a child
I think it depends on the car like in a Volvo you would be absulutly fine in both places
like u say it depends, if you compare a volvo from the 20th century and one from 2022. well then u will see the difference direct.
Why Dont Car Manufactures Put Bucket Seat With Point 5 Harnesses The Car Alone With Only Those Two Things Are Safer Then A Car Full Of Airbags
The dummy in the front was my cosson
Silly test as it compares the driver to the backseat, and not the front passenger to rear passenger. So unless you can drive from the backseat, it's a pointless test.
What???I thought we were compering front and rear passangers not a driver???Drivere has to be behind the wheel.Question at the begining whas where to sit as a passenger with choice.So?No pedals and no steering wheel would make for an utterly different result.So what answers did we get?None.
I would rather be in trunk
It's Me what if something crashes from the back huh?
Galaxy Yeah back seats is the safest
If Dodi and Diana was belted they had 95% chance of stay alive
What about the front passenger seat? Since the driver's seat is for the driver, not a passenger.
What about a child in a safety seat? A rear facing baby in the passenger side we all know can be fatal as well all car seat bound children, so where would they sit?
It depends which way you crash e.g. Side
Depends which side u crashed if it was the front I would sit in the back if it is in the back I would be in the front
OK, WHY ARE CAR MANUFACTURERS COMPETING TO MAKE THE SMALLEST CAR. Dont say mileage, My F 150 Gets 28 miles to the gallon. That's highway, 22 in the city. The British say the roads are to narrow. Large trucks, able to carry tons. Yes I'm American and I love how things are completely different but are the same. !!!!!
Just get a minivan and sit in the middle row in the middle seat. You'd be safe.
In the hall he has a fresh pair of shoes😂😂
So Mr Bean was right all along.
Jamie Bales Indeed, ride in an arm chair on the top of the car!
I rather be inside the LARGER vehicle in a crash
looks like the dummy is really close to the steering wheel ... :)
This test sucks, cause car is hitting in the solid wall, I think this 50mph test in wall is equal to 80mph crush to other car or something else softer than the wall. Cause all the energy of impact is directed on car, wall cant even be moved...