Texting and driving is a huge problem today. Rear-ending is as common as cockney in London. These people don't learn from this kind of stuff...

I was behind a woman in Bremen a few days ago. Every red light was caught, because she wouldn't even get near the speed limit (50 kph/30 mph). At the lights, when they turned green, she wouldn't move until you pressed your horn. This went on for 3 sets of lights. At the 4th set I was able to get next to her, pressed my horn and said "Did you even notice that kid you hit back there?" as she had her nose crammed down at her phone. The next moment she had a few tears in her eyes.

I said "You didn't hit a child but put your f**king phone away and drive carefully!"

That moment she threw her phone on the passenger seat... She obviously had been driving totally ignoring anything going on around her. Wreckless...

But yes, texting and cell phones are the worst thing on the roads today. That is why the police here in Germany is more so nailing down on that. I have no worry about someone grabbing their phone at a light, quickly checking the homescreen and putting it away within seconds again. No traffic problem there. But when driving and then texting etc. - nah, ban it, jail em!

 

Currently I actually drive buses for a living, and the bus used in the crash was a very old design. Modern buses have their rear over hangs a lot lower to the ground to combat vehicles going under the back of them. Trucks in Europe have to have a bumper on the back of the trailer, which is also a barrier to prevent a vehicle going under.

However, if you're going to crash a Jaguar, Volvo, Renault, BMW, Audi, Mercedes G Wagon, Range Rover or Hummer H1 into a large object at 70 MPH I reckon it would be a similar result to this video. The shot taken of the X300 with the roof cut off is not demonstrative of a bad crash, most Fire and Rescue services will cut the roof off a car now to prevent neck injuries when lifting people out the car.

I may have posted these before, but here is my 2001 Sovereign after my accident. The side air bag went off and did it's job protecting the seat from the pillar, if anyone had been sat there they would've likely not be seriously injured probably just whiplash. After this accident I drove the car another 1.5 miles to my workplace, the next few days I had a bit of a sore neck but that was it. You can see in the photo on the trailer the car's RH side is more or less intact, despite the impact.

I'm not saying these cars are tanks either, but I'd rather be in one of these than in a mini.

 

Stu, the picture of the roof missing isn't supposed to show that the roof was ripped off. Just look at the angle the bonnet is to the car... It is NOT open... The car has buckled around it...

I've crashed an X300 as well. At 45 kph... The car was a write off... I slide sideways through a concrete pillar, smashed into a larger rock, through a billboard and landed in a front garden.

The car was bent like a banana... The drivers side doors wouldn't open. The passenger side doors wouldn't close. Once the drivers doors were open, they wouldn't close anymore. But then again, I hit it all with the B-pillar and then quite low down. Also folding the wings up like they were the lids of a sardine can. The drivers door had a cut right through the metal...

The engine still ran, just it shouldn't because the radiator wouldn't hold any water... See the attached pictures. My former '95 XJ6 Sport... With cloth seats!

 

The X300-X308 had a good crash score ..... while many past carried over from the XJ40. The car was completely redesigned by Ford for the introduction of the X300

 

I think you may have missed what I was trying to say in relation to the X300 having it's roof cut off; what I meant was nowadays the crash doesn't need to be that big to give the rescue services an excuse to cut the roof off a car.

There is a photo on Google somewhere of an XJR that crashed at 155mph on the Autobahn and it's actually broken in two.

But my issue here is crashing a 14 year old car with a poor history into an even older style of bus couldn't really be considered an accurate test.

 

In most cases I've not had to cut the roof off the car to get to someone. That is only in the case where the roof has been crushed down onto someone or the doors themselves are so far damaged that entering the vehicle can only be achieved through removal of the roof. That being said, most cars with a low stance will go under a basic pickup especially during hard braking in a crash situation. Survival rates are not that high for those types of high speed collisions.

 

Yes, but in the UK and Europe things are different. We don't have pick ups the size of the US ones, and the ones we do have are no where near as big.

 

I do agree that it might not be representative in comparing it to today's tests, but sadly (and realistically) it represents the exact daily situation for a lot of us here at the forum.

Our cars are 15 till 20 years old, some in a good, other in a worse state, and while driving, there are enough situations around which represent the back of the old bus in the video.

Crashing is dangerous and can be life threatening, and should better be avoided.

 

Exactly

It's all relative, and even modern cars have their limits, but it is certainly true that technology improves over time.

Case in point:



But any crash into a relatively solid high mass stationary object, especially if dramatic size/height differences at high speed in any car regardless of age is going to be high risk.




....no shortage of these videos


I thought I had read that the XJ40 was engineered based upon more stringent crash standards that didn't end up being adopted, so was ahead of the curve in safety for some time. So I feel like the subsequent X300 and X308 cars benefited from that engineering and are likely relatively safe when compared with their contemporaries and even reasonable when compared to modern cars.

My X300 doesn't have side airbags like the X308, and I wish it did. So new will be better for sure, but I don't worry that the X300 or X308 is "unsafe" based on the OP video. That's a horrific wreck that would be bad news even in a new car.


.

 

I was finally able to review to OP's video. The previous hotel had poor internet. Anyways, from my perspective, it wasn't the car that failed the test, it was the bus. If you watch closely, the bus has no rear support braces or bumpers in the rear, only a fiberglass panel cover of the motor/transmission assembly. Thus that assembly being raised above the hood line, it drives the car down under the bus, causing the seemingly disastrous wedge effect which is seen at the 3:23 mark. The front assembly of the car is in tact. Any vehicle that is directed in a downward action will almost inevitably loose its safety ability, I don't care what kind of side curtain airbags you have. If that bus had a proper bumper, at the proper height, these results would had been different.

 

It is called a real life bus... That is how MANY busses here in Germany are even today constructed. Engines are mounted to the top so they can "swing forward" in order to protect the engine in a crash.

Technically, there are no rear crash test requirements for BUSSES (not coach!) here... So for me it is still a possibility, that a crash like that can occur. You can't choose your crash opponent. It'll choose you when it's ready...

So it doesn't matter if the bus was too old and that caused the damage to be so bad... It matters that the car performed like that hitting a "non crash tested" item. It shows, that you can't be protected against everything on the road.

A good example (from Volvo, as I used to be a very active Volvo driver/fan...): as the Volvo 740 was released, it was the most safe car the world had ever seen. That was 1982. All crash tests were looking up to this car (apart from the 240 which was nearly on the same level).

In standard crash testing, the Volvo would be everything. Then came the VW T3 (Vanagon in the States). This vehicle would, if driven straight into a wall, basically fold up and the driver would nearly always be dead on the spot.

The same van though showed Volvo a weakspot in the 740 design: the nose shape! The T3 would slide up and over the wing, rip off the a-pillar and end up there, where the driver's head would normally sit.



As a comparisson: here the T3 on it's own in a test

And here the Volvo in some extrem testing:

Now, what I am trying to do here is not make our cars look unsafe. You have to see it in comparisson to other cars on the road. A death trap is a Rover Metro/100. THAT is a death trap. No, I just want to make us all aware that our cars are aging and that Jaguar uses the same materials as all the other manufacturers out there. The youngest X308 is now 14 years old. The oldest (amoungst which is mine) are now 20 years old. Rust will destroy the chassis quicker than you think... Hidden rust is the worst part.

I highly doubt that ANY of our cars will perform exactly in a crash test, as Jaguar predicted it would in the 90ies. Even if your car is rustfree, you still have fatigue due to the always constant twisting and bending of the chassis (which is why you get these little noises like creaks and co). Makes it all soft and spongey.

I hope nobody here needs to use their crumple zones... Just be aware, if your car ISN'T in a useable condition, it can look like the car in the first post... Or even worse!

 

Ok, but in that regard, do we have any footage of the Volvos and other cars hitting those same busses at the same 70mph, so we can compare how much better off they fare compared to the x308?

 

I found the photo of the XJR that I mentioned in an earlier comment. You can see the rear end further up the road. If I recall this accident happened at 150mph.

 

There is a Video from Fifth Gear of a Volvo 960 hitting a BMW 5 series. Slightly offset...

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you Daim, my accident wasn't a choice of opponent 25 yrs ago. I was slammed into head on by a teenage girl late for work. Her Toyota Tercel came flying across the road at 65-70 (in a 40) the officer said, and I was doing 40 (I had just turned down the road) and she crushed my 3/4 ton Dodge van. She ran the front wheel all the way into the motor and bent every panel on the van. I had to climb out of the windshield because none of the doors would unlatch. If I can find the pics, I'll scan'em.
I for one can attest to wearing seatbelts.

 

That car looked like it was on its side for awhile, slid into the guardrail on the B pillar, which created the can opener effect on the rear section, and halved it. Looks like the only reason the front stopped was the bridge piling/guardrail combo snagged it.

 

Wow, that was an extreme high speed impact, extreme ..

I don't know, maybe because it is as I am getting older, or maybe because I have been a sport bike rider most of my life (where you quickly learn that your crumple zone is not thicker than the thickness of your leather suit), but I am driving very pro-active, ans simply try to avoid some of the situations mentioned.

Our cars do 200+km, but I am simply not any more willing to try that, knowing that she is 20 years old, and that those guardrails, buses, trucks, and all other hazards are around.

Mind you, I still love to ride my SLK or my superbike fast around any circuit, but on the road, well, coming to my senses, maybe ...

 

Ever wish you could "unsee" something? YIKES! This was quite an eye-opener, as I have felt like I have been driving a tank in my Jag vs. the German and Japanese cars I have been used to. The bulk and weight of the car is very deceiving in terms of crash safety. Good to know.

 

Mentioned earlier, also remember that the X300/X308 are notably low cars when compared with modern cars too.

This is often pointed out in various other threads comparing aesthetics of the X300/X308 to other makes & models where the Jaguar is shown to look downright small compared to even today's small and midsize models.

So, that height difference plays a role in crashes like the OP too where the Jaguar has the disadvantage of possibly running under the other vehicles that modern cars may be resistant to.


BTW, that crash above is just horrific. I saw some photos of another similar XJR crash some years ago, and it is very disturbing to think about the fate of the passengers.

.

.

 

There are loads of X308 and X300 crashes here...

One person rolled his car at about 160 kph. His drivers seat head rest was pointing out of the sunroof opening.

Another XJ rammed 2 cars in town after fishtailing, resulting in EUR 25000 damage to the other cara.

And another one ended up in a lake at around 100 kph... Car totally destroyed.

Just google 'Jaguar unfall' and you can pick the pictures...