Potential danger presented by loose objects in a vehicle

Aim: To perform a first-hand investigation to analyse the potential danger

presented by loose objects in a vehicle.
Hypothesis: As speed increases, potential danger will increase respectively.
Apparatus and materials:
-Polymer clay
-microwave
-skateboard
-toothpicks
-Wide elastic band
- tape measurer
-ruler
-logbook
-thumbtacks
-sticky tape
Control: Tape (squishy object)is the restraint object.
Independent: Speed at which the vehicle is moving.
Dependent: How much damage the toothpick does to the squishy object and by
measuring how DENT it is, hence the amount of holes.
Controlled: skateboard

Prevention
Handle toothpicks with care
Make sure path at which the
experiment is clear
Be sensible whilst using elastic.

Wait will clay dries

Make sure theres nothing stuck inside
the skateboards wheels

Risk
Toothpick may poke your finger or eye
because of sharpness
It may affect the results of the
experiment or/and someone may fall
over and slip.
It can flick the object into someones
face causing injury or/and broken
equipment.
Clay can burn fingers if touched
directly after it has been microwaved.
Small pieces that are stuck on the
skateboards wheels can affect the
speed whilst travelling to wall,
disturbing the results.

Method:
A) CREATE A BOX AND THE UNRESTRICTED OBJECT
1. Create a box using polymer clay and attach 10 toothpicks to the box internally
with directions facing each other. Note: Leave space to place the unrestricted
object.
2. Microwave clay for 8 minuted for it to harden up.
3. Use the same left over clay that has NOT been microwaved and roll it into a
little round ball. (Do not microwave this). Make 30 balls keeping note theres
enough for the unrestricted and restricted experiments.
4. Once done, place the squishy ball into the box in its assigned area whilst being

careful by NOT making contact with the toothpicks, as it may poke the squishy
ball, disturbing the results.
5. Box and balls complete.
B) UNRESTRAINED EXPERIMENT
1. Gather all required materials.
2. Attach elastic to door frame using thumbtacks.
3. Place box onto skateboard.
4. Using a 30cm ruler, pull the elastic near door frame and measure 5 different
measurements followed by the next. Diagram shown below.
5. Make a marking of this as it will be the reference of the speed once the elastic
has been pulled back to the marking.

6. Once done, hold the skateboard (box on top) with the elastic and pull it back
to the marking and release.
7. Record the observations being made and check inside the box for the dents (if
any), as this will be the potential danger measurement. Do this three times for
each five speeds.
8. Repeat this five times each increasing the speed made by the five markings
earlier and record observations.
9. Continue onto the RESTRAINED method.
C) RESTRAINED
1. Without making any major changes from previous method, only attach a piece
of sticky tape onto the squishy object and stick it down onto the box.
2. This will become the restrained object.
3. Repeat steps 6-8 from previous unrestrained method and record the data and
observations on a separate data sheet or page.
Results:
Average speed for restricted
SPEED 1
(10cm)
61.7cm/s

SPEED 2
(20cm)
142.2cm/s

SPEED 3
(30cm)
167.8cm/s

SPEED 4
(40cm)
172.1cm/s

SPEED 5 (50cm)
183.2cm/s

(By knowing this result, this can be converted into a Potential Danger scale from
0-7 with 0 being no damage and 7 being death).
Potential Danger scale:

7
6
5
4
restricted
Unrestricted

3
2
1
0
Potential Danger

Speed 1

speed 2

speed 3

Speed

speed 4

speed 5

Discussion:
The experiment was to analyse the potential danger presented by loose objects
in a vehicle, whilst giving thought that as the speed increases, potential danger
will increase respectively. This can be worked out using the formula for speed.
Speed is equal to the distance travelled divided by the time. By using so, speed
can then be calculated. The results of this experiment is proved to be valid as it
obeys physical factors and laws including Newtons third law, which is For every
action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in
every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects.
This has been seen in the experiment as the pulling of the elastic to a certain
marking, then releasing it. The skateboard pushes the elastic, whilst the elastic
pushes the skateboard, causing it to take off. Not only did this obey Newtons
third law, but because the skateboard is an object travelling with velocity, this is
called linear momentum and it can be worked out mathematically by using the
equation P=mv where p is momentum, m is the mass and v is the velocity. Once
the skateboard touched the wall, it was seen to bounce back, indicating it went
through a force called Elastic collision. It was seen as the speed at which the
skateboard is travelling at increases; the bouncing back of the skateboard too,
increases. The more it increases, the more it will bounce back. However, during
the experiment there were errors which appeared causing the result of this
experiment to not be perfect. Many of the errors included human error in which
the stopwatch was not stopped exactly once the skateboard touched the wall.
This affects the results of the experiment as calculations involving a specific
number will be changed. Knowing this, the experiment was repeated three times
for each five speeds for reliability. This can be improved by having multiple of
sensor stopwatches as the stopwatches will stop once it sensors the skateboard
touching the wall. Therefore, this was because of lack of equipment. Parallax
error was also present as measuring the dents from the squishy object could
have been different from another angle. This can be improved by having multiple
of people at each angle of the ball to give their approximate answer, as this will
improve accuracy. Again, this has been repeated three times for each of the five
speeds for reliability and accuracy. The other problem whilst conducting this
experiment was that the floor has ridges that are not smooth and entirely flat,
causing the speed of the experiment to not be as accurate as it may have slow
down the skateboard, in which affected the results. An interesting observation
was when a sticky tape was struck on top of the squishy object to act as
restricted body, it appeared that even when all the forces have acted on it, the
ball remained perfect. Perfect meaning with no dents and scratches. This was
because theres the force of gravity acting onto the tape which places the ball
down without it moving or touching the toothpicks. This experiment can be
applied into the physical world, where results are the same, however on a much
larger scale. The restricted object can be represented as a seatbelt in a given
vehicle. Without it, just like the unrestricted results, it has proved to be
devastating. The reason for the invention of seatbelts is to retain people in their
seats during a crash, and so prevent or reduce injuries. They minimise contact
between the occupant and vehicle interior and significantly reduce the risk of

being ejected from the vehicle. On modern vehicles, seat belts are also designed
to work as the key part of wider injury prevention measures and safety systems,
such as airbags and head restraints, which will not be as effective in reducing the
risk of injury if an occupant is not wearing a seat belt. According to Road Works
from British statistics, In 2011, 124,924 people were killed or injured while
travelling in cars, of these 89,787 (67%) were drivers without seatbelts.
Therefore this experiment can be compared to this real life application as the
danger increases as speed increases respectively without a restrained object.
However according to RAC foundation, seatbelts were found to be less effective
at preventing injuries in the rear seats. The best estimate was that seat belts
were 25% effective at preventing fatal injuries, with a 95% chance that the
effectiveness was between 35% and 15%. Seat belts were 25% effective at
preventing serious injuries, with a 95% chance that the true effectiveness was
between 40% and 10%. The best estimate for the effectiveness of seatbelts at
preventing minor injuries was 20%, with a 95% chance that the true result lay
between 35% and 5%. Growing over the years, technology has improved the
world by far in both new strategically profound implements to improve these
works to advance, in which gives passengers and drivers a more safer
environment to be in. A recent work from Green Car Congress use on technology
invented what is called a V2V. V2V works by using wireless signals to send
information back and forth between cars about their location, speed and
direction. The information is then communicated to the cars around it in order to
provide information on how to keep the vehicles safe distances from each other.
At MIT, engineers are working on V2V algorithms that calculate information from
cars to determine what the best evasive measure should be if another car
started coming into its own projected path. A study put out by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2010 says that V2V has the potential to
reduce 79 percent of target vehicle crashes on the road. These technologies
could transform the way we drive and increase automotive safety dramatically.
Good thing car companies and the government are already working to try to
make this a reality.

Bibliography:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/07/fordv2v-20110719.html
http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCSA
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html