Well actually. Trains are designed now to not have "telescoping" crashes. If you think the trains being sturdy doesn't lead to a reduction in loss of life in these collisions.. Well it could be much, much worse.
I'm not familiar with all the safety features in design now, but there are quite a few. I wouldn't be surprised if they are designed to deflect and derail during collision now.
That's also a possible factor in why those sitting in the rear half of the plane during a crash are more likely to survive - they have the front of the plane as the crumple zone.
Although for trains, it looks like the middle might be the safest (in case of a rear-end collision).
64 already. Those trains are quite long and sturdy. But there will be lots of severely wounded.
The trains being sturdy doesn't help much. The (de)acceleration alone is enough to kill, as is smashing against the seat in front of you.
Well actually. Trains are designed now to not have "telescoping" crashes. If you think the trains being sturdy doesn't lead to a reduction in loss of life in these collisions.. Well it could be much, much worse.
I'm not familiar with all the safety features in design now, but there are quite a few. I wouldn't be surprised if they are designed to deflect and derail during collision now.
That's also a possible factor in why those sitting in the rear half of the plane during a crash are more likely to survive - they have the front of the plane as the crumple zone.
Although for trains, it looks like the middle might be the safest (in case of a rear-end collision).