Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Image

External Airbag Designed to Protect Pedestrians 253

Thanks to researchers at Cranfield University, you don't have to feel bad when you plow into a group of pedestrians who are crossing the street too slowly. They have designed an external airbag that mounts to your hood at the base of the windshield. Research shows that this is the area where a pedestrian's head is most likely to hit in an accident. "Test results indicate that the system works extremely well. When fitted to a demonstrator vehicle not originally designed with pedestrian protection in mind, the results were well inside all current legal criteria for pedestrian protection currently in force in Europe," Roger Hardy of the university's Cranfield Impact Centre said.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

External Airbag Designed to Protect Pedestrians

Comments Filter:
  • by wjousts ( 1529427 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @04:51PM (#27851139)

    I mean, if I got hit by a car, I might appreciate that they'd paid extra for it, but since I'm not likely to hit myself with my car (unless my wife tries to run me down), why would I pay extra?

    Unless this is mandated, it won't catch on.

  • by powerlord ( 28156 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:09PM (#27851441) Journal

    Actually, it pales in comparison to the #1 advance for "pedestrian protection", DON'T F-ING HIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

    Sorry, but the idea that ricocheting a pedestrian from my hood into something else (presumably something without an airbag) seems absurd.

    At BEST its attempting to move liability from one person (the one driving the vehicle), to another (the driver that caused the life altering injury when some hapless pedestrian got thrown like a billiard ball against his car).

    If these come out, I'm just going to wait until the lawsuits start piling in, although since they'll most likely be filed by living people instead of on their behalf, it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs (cue Monty-Python's "You got turned into a newt? ... I got better" routine)

  • Re:Ohhh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by flaming error ( 1041742 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:09PM (#27851445) Journal

    > to be modded redundant in the first post is of the utmost Mod stupidity.
    Once upon a time Slashdot had a system where we could moderate the moderations - "metamod" they called it. It'd be nice if that came back.

  • Nanny State (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:11PM (#27851501)

    If we are going to rely on the government to protect us, then wouldn't it be much cheaper to make all pedestrians wear helmets than try and fit this on every car made?

    Not to mention the cost of replacement is so much cheaper. If you kill a pedestrian you still have to replace your airbag, but if the pedestrian wearing a helmet dies then no new helmet need be purchased.

  • by Pinckney ( 1098477 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:19PM (#27851617)

    This is seriously awesome. I applaud the good work these researchers are doing. However, this line caught my eye:

    The system uses radar and infrared technology to "pre-detect" a collision and inflates quickly enough to cushion the impact, said Roger Hardy of the university's Cranfield Impact Centre.

    It seems possible that such a sensor could be duped with false input on the proper frequencies, causing the bag to deploy. This would likely be a malicious and expensive prank, as well as obstructing the drivers view. Of course, it would require technical expertise, putting it out of reach of most pranksters.

  • Iron Spike (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bigbutt ( 65939 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:20PM (#27851629) Homepage Journal

    What I really want is an iron spike in the center of the steering wheel. Then the people who should be driving instead of [pick the distraction] would actually pay attention to the task at hand.

    [John]

  • by wjousts ( 1529427 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @05:38PM (#27851907)

    And I don't doubt that most people would agree with you, right up to the point where you ask them to take their check book out. Or until you ask them to choose this over heated leather seats.

  • Re:Ohhh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davester666 ( 731373 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @06:03PM (#27852215) Journal

    If it uses sensors so the airbags can start being deployed prior to impact, why not add some bags to the front bumper. This may not eliminate crippling leg injures, but it might lessen them...

  • Re:Farmers Markets (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SlappyMcInty ( 688145 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @06:10PM (#27852285)
    Well that seems like a pile of crap. Of course the pedestrians (like anyone else) are responsible for their own well being - to protect themselves. This is one of the major problems with everyone today - the "it's not my responsibility to use common sense" mentality.
  • Fuel Efficiency? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sudotron ( 1459285 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @06:16PM (#27852351)
    It seems like we're fighting this never ending battle to shove more worthless equipment into cars while at the same time attempting to increase fuel efficiency. We'll never be able to have both. Every ill-conceived and improperly tested safety feature that's put in a vehicle will either increase its weight, sap power from the engine, or both. Call me nostalgic if you want, but I miss the cars of 20 to 30 years ago: Light, fuel efficient, and simple. I highly doubt that any of the cars coming out today will be running a few decades from now, what with all the cheaply made electronics that are essential to their function.

    If you want my two cents, I'd say that all cars should be made with five-point safety harnesses and a roll cage integrated into the frame. This would be light, not require constant electronic monitoring of status, and sufficiently protect the vehicle's occupants. After all, race drivers have had these for years with mostly positive outcomes.
  • Re:Iron Spike (Score:2, Insightful)

    by excelblue ( 739986 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @06:29PM (#27852473) Homepage

    The problem with the iron spike idea is that most people don't know that the iron spike is going to do them any harm in a crash.

    Don't assume that most people have an understanding of physics. Those that do probably wouldn't be driving dangerously in the first place.

  • by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @07:00PM (#27852837)
    Why is this informative? Putting the onus on pedestrians. Law stipulates that pedestrians pretty much always get right of way. Parent also assumes there are no bad or drunk drivers. I've personally been hit by 5cars, 3 of those times I was on a sidewalk.

    And he pulls #s out of his ass. From the article a hit at 40km/h gives an 18% chance of death (rated at 1000pts). And that with this hood that drops to ~450/1000 (8% chance of death assuming the numbers correlate well).

    Oblig... A car is deadlier than a gun. What gives you the right to drive one without minor precautions? A car has airbags inside to protect YOU when you run into things. If you were a good driver why would you need them? Total waste of money right? Just ... pathetic.
  • by pla ( 258480 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2009 @09:23PM (#27854275) Journal
    it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs

    You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???

    Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light, taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.

    I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept standing there chatting!

    I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat the shit out of him.

    And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my car.


    So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.
  • by andy jenkins ( 874421 ) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @12:24AM (#27855589)

    why would I pay extra?

    Lower insurance premiums.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 07, 2009 @04:20AM (#27856783)

    Dude! Do you see all children running after their balls or whatever as Darwin-award candidates as well?

  • by madcow_bg ( 969477 ) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @07:58AM (#27857899)

    it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs

    You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???

    Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light,
    taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments
    about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.

    I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross
    four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the
    roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to
    his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had
    perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three
    brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept
    standing there chatting!

    I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid
    hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat
    the shit out of him.

    And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my
    car.

    So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.

    Dude, it is failure to control your car, after all. Also, I cannot seem to recall the exact passage in the traffic regulations that says you can run over pedestrians.

  • Re:Uh, yeah. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ginger Unicorn ( 952287 ) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @08:24AM (#27858055)
    What is the point of your post? He clearly knows he has a duty to avoid obstacles, and never said otherwise. He was talking about a situation where it was sheer good fortune that he was CAPABLE of avoiding someone actively thwarting his attempts to avoid a collision.
  • by plague3106 ( 71849 ) on Thursday May 07, 2009 @09:17AM (#27858611)

    Dude, the streets AREN'T A PLACE TO STAND WHILE TALKING. They are for motor vehicle NOT SOCIAL GATHERINGS.

    There needs to be a balance, and peds are ALSO responsible for their own safety. And that means NOT standing in the road.

It is not best to swap horses while crossing the river. -- Abraham Lincoln

Working...