There are two major routes that unrestrained persons take in a front-end MVA (Motor Vehicle Accident). Up-and-over or down-and-under (AKA “submarining”). With up-and-over, the upper body launches forward and up. The head strikes the windshield. (This produces the classic “windshield star”) Your injuries here include concussion, scalp laceration, and various brain bleeds. You can suspect fractured cervical vertebrae (and if you have a fracture with compromise to the spinal cord at C-4 or higher, you’ve lost the nerves that control chest expansion and the diaphragm. “C-4, breathe no more,” as the saying goes).Go a little farther through the windshield, and it isn’t unexpected to leave some or all of your face behind stuck in the broken glass. You’d be surprised by how easily faces come off the facial bones . . .
. . . A little farther through the windshield, all the way out of the vehicle (a situation we call “pre-extracted for your convenience”), and in addition to whatever damage you took on the way through, you get the damage from hitting the ground, trees, and metal poles at however-many-miles-an-hour.
Sure, you hear people talking about wanting to be “thrown clear” in the event of an accident. If you want to simulate being “thrown clear,” go to the fifth floor of a building and jump out the window.
Related posts:
- Jon Corzine: A look as his injuries
- The baby with two faces
- Startle easily?
- Face transplant at the Cleveland Clinic
- First day in the hospital, a trauma to remember
- Beer, 1 can po tid with meals
- Man sues hospital for a "forced" rectal exam
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 7 comments }
Kevin:
The second sentence is patently incorrect when applied to unrestrained occupants. Submarining, by definition is the passage of an occupant under the lap belt portion of a primary restraint system. Submarining was a substantial problem in the days of 2-point restraint systems (lap belt only) in which the occupant would pass under the belt (the lap belt overriding the anterior superior iliac crests bilaterally). I would be more than happy to post references from the J. Trauma, Injury as well as the Stapp Car Crash Conference Proceedings. The first path described is appropriate when discussing high head strikes for unrestrained occupants in frontal MVAs. The term high referring to contact high on the windshield near the headliner. The forward path of travel of the occupant is readily explained by the vehicle being decelerated along the longitudinal vehicle axis with the occupant continuing forward at the preimpact speed of travel. The vertical differential (i.e. the occupant hitting higher on the windshield than the location directly in front of them) is because of the forward velocity of the torso coupled with the contact of the lower extremities against the dash/knee bolsters (thereby generating a moment on the torso secondary to the now decelerating or stationary – with respect to the vehicle – lower extremities).
Going “through” the windshield is a bit of a misnomer. Contact with the a laminated windshield will generally preclude passage of an occupant through it (see the discussion on NHTSA regarding various proposals for using laminated glass for side windows). If the A-pillar fails and/or if there is compromise of the cowl/anterior superior roof attachment of the front windshield, then an unrestrained occupant can pass through the compromised area (not through the windshield per se).
~Criminallopath~
Until I read the news stories about Corzine’s accident, I had never heard that some non-seat-belt-wearers claim they would prefer to be “thrown free” during an accident. I’ve been wondering for days now if these people truly believe that, and what exactly it is that they think being “thrown free” means. Do they really imagine themselves sailing gracefully through the windshield (as the “safety glass” shatters harmlessly) and then landing comfortably on a conveniently-located bush or a nice spongy piece of roadway?
I’d like to know exactly how they think being “thrown free” is supposed to work.
Allopath, if it’s normal for EMTs to use “submarining” to describe accident victims who go under rather than over the dashboard, whatever their relationship with their seatbelt, then the usage is not incorrect, patently or otherwise. As far as I know, there’s no formal or legal definition of “submarining” that limits it to what you describe. Specialized occupational slang is defined by the usage of people who work in that occupation.
Teresa… Look at the context of the use of the term submarining. The context was one of occupant motion in frontal collisions in which no primary restraint is being used. Thusly, the term is patently incorrect when used as it was. The term “submarining” has a very specific definition for those of us who actually engage in the scientific study of trauma biomechanics. Again, I would be happy to post a reference list of the actual learned and scholarly work in this field and not the quips from those that know so little about occupant kinematics as to incorrectly use the most basic of terminology.
~Criminallopath~
“Thrown free” is imagined as an alternative to being trapped, conscious, by jammed seat-belts in a burning car.
The term “submarining” has a very specific definition for those of us who actually engage in the scientific study of trauma biomechanics.
Perhaps it does. Folks who just cut bodies out of crumpled cars may use the term more informally.
That well may be. Unfortunately, it is still the incorrect usage of the term (regardless of whom it is that using the term). The use of correct, accurate and established terminology helps to facilitate the discussion the relevant issues regarding the topic of interest. As an example, knowledge of the correct definition of the term submarining would have precluded its discussion on the efficacy of primary restraint system (modern three point harness systems) in the subject discussion.
~Criminallopath~
Comments on this entry are closed.