the people complaining about crown vics and fires still are not seing the big picture

[Guest]

Many people are now complaining and suing ford saying that the police interceptor is not safe due to the fuel tank. I took a regular crown vic and a police interceptor. The police interceptor has much more meat to the frame, more protection and durability. If one of the 2 cars were going to get hit, I would expect the regular crown vic to explode. The truth to the matter is that the position of the car in a traffic stop is what puts the car at danger. The solution is not to sue ford,Because if you take any car and park it on the side or the median of a road, have another car hit it from behind at 70+mph the tank will rupture, possibly causing a fire. Dont Sue. Change you traffic stop procedures. Change how you pull off and position you car. I drive a crown vic, I have been rearended a few times at high rates of speed. There is a website http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/Statistics.html that shows how many fires there have been. The true meaning of this graph is to show that the poice interceptors are put in dangerous locations that the other cars are not. This graph is a very unfair and a failure to represent the fires per car. The other cars are not put in the presence of a police car. The crown vic and crown vic interceptor are in all means the same, the tank is in the same spot, why is that car not exploding in accidents. And the study was done in 2001, the two other years of crown vics are not event close to 2001. This study is not factual and is a flop. What do you think about crown vics. I drive one and I have been hit 9 times, no fires. That is because the car is not being used as a police car, it is not put in a dangerous location on the side of the road.

[leadlo]

WOW!!

After being hit 9 times I would just quit driving.... ANYTHING!! You might be able to get a job with the Ford legal department.

[NJFFSA16]

Re: the people complaining about crown vics and fires still are not seing the big picture

Originally posted by expvol
.... the poice interceptors are put in dangerous locations that the other cars are not.

This fact has been discussed in the other, long running thread regarding Crown Vics. I would have to agree. It's the nature of the job for those vehicles to be more susceptable to rear-end crashes....as they are positioned on the side of roadways. Perhaps all interceptor models should have fuel cells/bladders...as part of the package.


Crown Vics

[hwoods]

OK.............

As NJ pointed out, I made a post on the other "Crown Vic" thread dealing with the different tactics that place one IN harm's way. As I see it, the problem is that Police Officers,those on Highway Patrol duties in particular, place a vehicle IN the traffic lane, on purpose, AND MOST OFTEN, REMAIN SITTING IN THE CAR! When this vehicle is struck from behind, the results are predictible. While certain Police activity requires placing a vehicle in a traffic lane, (such as protecting my butt while working a crash) Most Fire/Rescue duties do not require a chief's vehicle to be placed in traffic. We use pumpers, heavy rescues, etc. for this type of activity because they provide more protection for members who are out on foot working. I had a unmarked police package Crown Vic for a Chief's car for 5 years and 100,000 miles of driving. I never had a problem, and the fact that I rarely used it as a barricade vehicle was the main reason I avoided any problems. Over the same time frame, several Maryland State Police Crown vics were hit by motorists at accident scenes where I was working. Stay Safe....

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

So, it's "blame the victim" time.

Do you work for Ford?

[hwoods]

George!

If that was pointed at me, No, I don't work for Ford. I do own one, a Lincoln Town Car, though. And, if my post was viewed as slamming the victim, it was not intended as such. My point, however dull, was that Police and Fire/Rescue people use different tactics when working highway incidents. The very nature of our respective jobs requires this, at least as far as "conventional wisdom" goes. Is it time to seek new tactics for patrol officers so that they may have a safer position when making traffic stops and other similar duties that put them in harm's way? I can't help but think there has to be a better way, but I'm not bright enough to engineer one at this time. Also, I can't avoid the thought that it's not just Crown Vics that are involved in the high speed, rear end, type of crashes that are the center of this discussion. There are other makes and styles of police vehicles out there as well, such as the Chevy Impala that my County just bought (220 of them). Each individual officer, God Bless them, goes to work each day and does the best job possible, despite the circumstances, but I think upper level management should be pushing research programs to help make life safer out on the highway. Stay Safe....

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
So, it's "blame the victim" time.

Do you work for Ford?

George... it's not a "blame the victim" thing.

Any vehicle rammed from behind at high speed has the potential for a fuel tank rupture and fire, unless the vehicle is an M1A1 Abrams tank. The fact that Crown Vics have a lot of these incidents is based on the number of Crown Vics on the road, coupled with the fact that Ford is the only domestic manufacturer still building a body on frame, rear wheel drive, full size sedan suitable for police work.

We in public safety have to "rethink" our objetives when it comes to vehicle placement on limited access, high speed roadways.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

woods, it was not aimed at you.

Gonzo, with all due respect, this line indicates that the officers, not the vehicle, were at fault.

truth to the matter is that the position of the car in a traffic stop is what puts the car at danger. The solution is not to sue ford,Because if you take any car and park it on the side or the median of a road, have another car hit it from behind at 70+mph the tank will rupture, possibly causing a fire. Dont Sue. Change you traffic stop procedures. Change how you pull off and position you car.

Your logic about "the number of crown vics on the road" is faulty. Prior to Vics, the Chevy Caprice was the predominant patrol vehicle. Before that it was the Plymouth or Dodge vehicle (can't remember the model). There were just as many traffic stops, using the same tactics. There was nowhere near the number of fatal explosions and fires.

The Crown Vic is poorly designed from a vehicle safety standpoint. If it wasn't, why are there changes made in the design?

Don't sue? Yeah, right. Go tell that to the widows and their children.

[EastKyFF]

A few points:

1. "Change how you pull off and position the car." Where the hell else is a cop going to park for a traffic stop? In front of the other vehicle? We are trained to protect personnel with equipment, and I'm sure law enforcement is as well.

2. With regard to that point, I'm sure there probably are fewer fire command vehicles hit, but there are several reasons why I think this is. First, fire vehicles are usually in groups with ambulances, fire apparatus, tow trucks, police cars, and so on. That means more lights flashing and a greater awareness by approaching drivers that they should pay attention. In contrast, PD vehicles are frequently alone--one officer on a traffic stop. Second, we have alternatives to using a measly 2-ton car as a barricade; specifically, we have 15-ton fire apparatus. It's probably a common scenario to have a command car pull past a roadside fire incident and the responding apparatus stop behind it.

3. Dateline or somebody did a show on the Crown Vic that showed it has some bolt or rivet that is inclined to puncturing the fuel tank during a rear-end collision. Independent consultants have concluded that a change in this aspect would drastically reduce incidence of fire and explosions. You can't get Ford to change it, though, because that would be admitting it's faulty, thereby acknowledging their liability.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

The patrol vehicle is positioned in that manner in order for the officer to use it as cover in the event of an armed encounter. It is also positioned in that manner in order to use the takedown lights and high beams as cover as the officer approaches the vehicle.

There is no other place to put the car.

[Steamer]

posted by expvol: The truth to the matter is that the position of the car in a traffic stop is what puts the car at danger. The solution is not to sue ford,Because if you take any car and park it on the side or the median of a road, have another car hit it from behind at 70+mph the tank will rupture, possibly causing a fire.

Nobody has said anything else. Any vehicle stopped along the highway is "in danger" of being struck. But that's all the more reason that Ford should have designed around that apparent (by your observation) inevitability. That's their responsibility. If this was a recognized danger as it should have been, why was the vehicle designed with the tank in the crumple zone? Why was this bolt in a position to cause it's unintended use as a can opener on the gas tank?

As for the implication by your statement that "any car" will have the tank rupture when struck from behind when struck at 70 mph, all I'll say is nonsense. With that statement, you try to convince the reader that nothing can be done to prevent these incidents, and it's just something to live with, and that it's the cop's fault that they park in line with traffic rather than some other way to get the tank out of the "line of fire", no pun intended.

Since these vehicles are at a greater degree of danger from being hit, why not utilize fuel cell technology? Or get the damned tank out of the crumple zone. It all seems to work pretty well for NASCAR. Not many devastating tank failures there as I recall. And often at substantially higher speeds

posted by expvol: The solution is not to sue ford

Oh, really? How long did it take them to resolve the obvious design flaw in the Pinto? It seems they did nothing until they got hammered in court.

There may be some things that can be done as far as positioning the vehicle differently. Most officer are already parking the vehicle on an angle to better protect them from potential weapons fire by using the mass of the motor for cover.

You would think that the people that brought us that molotov cocktail of the automobile world, the Pinto, would have known better. After all, they're pretty experienced in these issues.

[Duffman]

I will stay out of this argument, except to add that Ford has had this problem before. Anyone remember the Pinto?

By the way

Before that it was the Plymouth or Dodge vehicle (can't remember the model).

It was the Dodge Diplomat.

[hwoods]

Ah Ha!...............

Dodge Diplomat....... YUP! them suckers were a hot item for Fire chiefs as well as law enforcement. Been There, Drove That,...... George, Your points are well taken. Thanks. Stay Safe....