Both crumpled zones, cancels out. In fact the deflected car uses the crumple zone to better effect. The point is to make the sudden stop slower, which rolling undeniably did.
Both push the other car, cancels out.
Same car at same speed comparison, cancels out.
See what I mean about arguing. You're complaining I omitted things that have zero bearing in an honest comparison.

Have you been in 5 rollovers and over 20 dead stops? I have.

Fuck! Yes, you might get injured...in either. One you get 50 gs, one you get 1.2gs. No brainer to those not brain dead. Come on.

Yes, but they measured impact and g forces non the less. See the results? Notice they're all green "g"s? Notice it wasn't a fail on injuries, or g forces, but on their baseless notion that any roll, no matter how slow and safe, is unacceptable.

Now I'm done here. Your obstinance and silly best case vs worst case with zero evidence, then decrying my lack of rollover test data, is maddening and not at all worth this effort to prove something you believe is wrong, especially since you discount a 50-1 g force impact. Bye bye

You're massively oversimplifying things again. Where is your crumple zone math? Where is your math showing how much force is imparted into pushing the car in front forward based on whether it has it's brakes on, is still moving, etc, etc, etc.

Your personal experience is not extraordinary. I have been in accidents, I didn't bother to bring it up because it doesn't mean anything.

I'm not arguing that higher G forces don't correlate with more severe injuries, that's not the point . The point is that CSI injury is very complex, complexities that can cause severe injury with minor force in situations like.. a rollover.

from the report you mentioned,

"The partial rollover presents an additional injury risk beyond what the standard crash test criteria are intended to measure"

Nope. Watched them closely.
Hitting a car flat at 60 km or mph is going to stop you in <1/10 of a second. I counted >4 seconds to stop with a flop in the video. Same kinetic energy absorbed. Δv = 30mph (around 50'/sec) Δt= .1 vs 4. Do the math. 500ft/sec/sec vs 12.5'/sec/sec...that's 50g vs 1.2g. Case closed.

Fine. God forbid you listen to someone with extraordinary personal experience in this matter and a grasp of physics.
You go for the dead stop next time you're in a wreck, I'll turn my wheel.

There are variables in car wrecks. You want to compare best case scenario sudden stops with absolute worst case rolls. Feel free to think that way. It's not reasonable. I'm done.

Then look at the dummy data if immutable physics laws aren't enough for you, but no citation is needed to conclude that exponentially higher G forces cause higher level injuries, even if the angle isn't the worst possible for a specific spinal injury.

I've given you my personal vast experience, physics, and common sense. You give me apple to oranges, and exaggerate the juiciness of the apples while only mentioning dehydrated oranges. I'm done. Believe what you want, but I hope you don't have to test your theory.

You might want to watch all those videos again.

Hitting a parked car at 60km/h and not rolling would be a clearly better outcome. The parked car is not a solid wall, it cannot bring you to a "dead stop".

Hitting a barrier and rolling is clearly worse than hitting the same barrier and sliding along it, "bouncing" off it, spinning etc even if you're clipped by another car. Again even with the sharp swerve into the barrier it would never have been a "dead stop"

Hitting the car in front which has suddenly braked would be far better than a high speed roll even if the car behind proceeds to rear end you. The closest to your "dead stop" scenario and still far better than a high speed roll.

I'm arguing with you because you often backup what you're saying with demonstrable facts, in this case you're not. You're ignoring variables, using differing experience to draw conclusions and dismissing the severity of something based on your controlled personal experience of it.

"Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces."

Has nothing to do with studies in vehicular CSI. I asked for a citation relating to maximum force/time being a primary factor in vehicular CSI not a physics equation and a stunningly simplified opinion. Again this is the shit I'm arguing with you about.

Funny, I watched, and each one proves my point. At those speeds, had the energy been completely absorbed by a dead stop, the damage and injuries would be far worse. Notice the lack of damage to the parked car that almost became a vehicular centipede.

I'm thinking you just want to argue.

Citation? Physics. acceleration = Δv/Δt. Larger injuries come from higher g forces.

I explained how there's lower maximum energy involved when some crash energy is absorbed rolling the car.
Now you argue you might roll into another direct impact...true in either case but in one you've already had one, in another you had a glancing blow and flop.
Nowhere did I say it's safe, only safer than hitting a wall and stopping cold.
All other things being equal, a partial roll like shown here is safer than the trucks hard stop...according to the IIHS recorded data (see @blackoreb 's post above)

Why bring it up? Because the flop was far less violent than the other crashes. The energy it took to flip the jeep used up kinetic energy the other trucks put into stopping hard and fast. Having experience with rolling, I know they aren't as scary or violent as people expect.
My speed at the start of a couple of my rolls was up to 80mph, not controlled and slow. They were faster than this test. Like this test, the act of rolling slowed the vehicle considerably. My seat was not much deeper than many seats I see in cars, but slightly. My interior, however, was bare metal everywhere, not padded pleather. Because there are zero crumple zones, the impact was absorbed by the frame, so transferred throughout the seat to me.
As for whiplash, I think the heavy helmet I was wearing would multiply that, not protect from it. I had no hans device, no helmet straps.

Edit: rollovers like this are less likely to cause whiplash or spinal injury than coming to a dead stop like the trucks did.

Is it exactly the same? No. Is it significantly similar? Yes. Do I have a decent idea of what a violent rollover is like. Yes. Better than around 99.999% of people.

"Flopping" onto your side often leads to spinal injury. I'd rather a mangled foot...

I doubt it was simunition. I've never heard of it being used outside of training (not saying it isn't thought). Simunition only works in special modified guns because it doesn't produce enough blowback to cycle in a normal gun, and guns modified for sumunition can't load regular ammunition.

From the sound it made, it was more likely some sort of 40mm less-than lethal round fired from a launcher.

Either way, these should never be fired at anyone that is non threatening because although they are called less-than-lethal, they can still cause serious injuries.

For these to be called even less lethal, the entire system must be used, including MANDITORY safety gear including at a minimum Kevlar helmets, face shields, groin shields, and a neck protector. If the victim doesn't have each piece of the mandatory gear, these rounds can cause permanent injury and death.

Directly from the manufacturer of simunition.

In order to reduce the risk of injury during these highly dynamic scenarios, Simunition® has developed a full line of protective equipment for both men and women. This equipment is an integral part of the FX® training system.
The FX® line of protective equipment consists of three MANDATORY protective items: the helmet or the facemask for use with Kevlar helmets, the neck protector and the groin protector. The arm protectors, vest, gloves, pants and sleeves are optional. FX® protective equipment, which is Simunition® tested and approved, is comfortable, breathable and lightweight, allowing the user to move freely and naturally.

Another *doublepromote to keep it front and center, police in gangs fully armored with military backing are using live rounds (yes, they are) on unarmed unshielded citizens who are committing no crime peacefully stationary on their own porches. Might as well have been bullets, at that range with no protection these rounds can kill easily. Attempted murder charges for every cop there.
I can't wait until someone shoots a cop in the eye with one and it dies. Suddenly they won't be calling them non lethal ammunition that's safe.

Yep, all that evil media's fault for reporting facts and exposing murderers, not the racist murdering cops, not the racist hyper divisive president that makes every single thing that happens a divisive issue. God Damn you get dumber every day, you ignorant welfare queen.

You mean IS it justifiable? Absolutely.

What happened was wrong, and the norm. Usually it only ends in hospitalization, permanent injury, and unjustified incarceration with zero consequences for the criminal cops thanks to their gang culture they call the blue wall of silence.

Cop(s) should be punished by law, but without looting and additional unrest, they never are. Without the media exposing them, they never are.

Trump told them to do this, "don't be so nice", he said, "don't protect their head, smash them on the car", he said. I'm on your side, go forth and conquer, he said (not in those exact words). I think you've forgotten you are on the criminal murdering cop gang side. Trump calls these protesters "THUGS", not "good people" like he says about NAZIS who riot and murder citizens. Trump sent in the national guard not to keep the peace, but to shoot the thugs.

Umbrella man, who single handedly turned the peaceful protests into rioting, is white, and sure appears to be a police officer.

Congratulations! Your video, Gymnastic's Coach Prevents an Injury, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 435 Badge!

Your video, Gymnastic's Coach Prevents an Injury, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 441 Badge!

That's phenomenal. Seriously.

It does seem clear it was the feline's intent to protect the kid from self-injury... kind of shockingly amazing to my eyes.

Wow.

*quality

No, he's a liar plain and simple and we know it.

That means anything he claims is quite suspect and not to be believed, just like this "attack" he staged.

He may have been attacked, that's what he was looking for, but no one cares because 1) he went there looking for it and 2) his injuries are self reported so quite suspect and 3)he's a known liar who just as likely hurt himself (if he was hurt at all) in order to blame the milkshake throwers.

I watched the video, I saw no "combat clubs". I saw plenty of totally liquid milk shakes with no powder or clumps, so no cement, and the close-up thumbnail that confirms that.

I also saw a known liar and rabble rouser intentionally picking a fight with a known violent gang who hoped to get attacked on camera so he could condemn them, and you bought it hook line and sinker. I think you know it.

Odd, you aren't as upset by the lack of coverage of all the innocent people violently attacked by Patriot Prayer gangs, and there are plenty of them.