A Clue To the Reason for Women's Pervasive Car-Safety Problem (citylab.com) 301
Women are far more likely to suffer serious injuries in a car crash. From a report: The danger divide was first quantified in a 2011 study out of the University of Virginia, which found that for men and women who wore seatbelts, women were nearly 50 percent more likely to be seriously or fatally injured in a crash. And now it's been confirmed by another paper from another University of Virginia research team, published this month, which found that the odds of serious injury or death for female car-crash victims is 73 percent higher than for males. The latest study, which analyzed crashes involving more than 31,000 individuals between 1998 and 2015, reveals some good news, too: All riders are now more than half as likely to sustain serious injuries in newer models (those manufactured in 2009 and later) than in older cars.
[...] It's partly because of this lack of information -- and lack of dedicated research into the question -- that the same safety science that's been making cars less dangerous for all riders hasn't been able to shrink the gap between male and female auto safety. "Historically, we have used male-type crash test dummies," said Becky Mueller, a senior research engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). "Those dummies, despite being an average male, have done a good job at providing improvements for all different kinds of people." Since the early 2000s, "female" crash test dummies have been deployed, but they tend to simulate smaller women, says Forman, with heights of 5 feet and weights of 110 pounds. "There is some logic behind the use of those: It is necessary to evaluate and protect for the extreme ends of the population," he said. It's also a big limitation of the model.
[...] It's partly because of this lack of information -- and lack of dedicated research into the question -- that the same safety science that's been making cars less dangerous for all riders hasn't been able to shrink the gap between male and female auto safety. "Historically, we have used male-type crash test dummies," said Becky Mueller, a senior research engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). "Those dummies, despite being an average male, have done a good job at providing improvements for all different kinds of people." Since the early 2000s, "female" crash test dummies have been deployed, but they tend to simulate smaller women, says Forman, with heights of 5 feet and weights of 110 pounds. "There is some logic behind the use of those: It is necessary to evaluate and protect for the extreme ends of the population," he said. It's also a big limitation of the model.
I see... patriarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's nothing to do with the fact that women are a lot more fragile than men.
Right.
I forgot. It's all social conditioning.
Re: (Score:3)
Women still tend to live longer than men, though the gap in the developed world is closing. But it might have something to do with biological differences; i.e. shape of the pelvis, that sort of thing. If seatbelts are designed more for men, then it stands to reason that women would have poorer outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
But it might have something to do with biological differences; i.e. shape of the pelvis, that sort of thing
Also men have more job related accidents and suicides.
Re: (Score:2)
> Women still tend to live longer than men,
We must immediately correct the gender lifespan gap.
Re: (Score:3)
Women still tend to live longer than men
That's because they don't have wives.
Also, women get extra time in lieu for the time they spend parallel-parking.
Re:I see... patriarchy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I see... patriarchy (Score:4, Funny)
First let me say that it's good to see the researchers striving for a more inclusive test model.
However, as far as i recall, most of these crash test dummies (is that still okay to say in our current society as of 2019?) are white. Really we need POC test apparatuses for a fully inclusive and equitable test.
Also how do we know these test apparatuses are hetero-normal CIS? What if they would prefer to identify as 'other'?
Re:I see... patriarchy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First let me say that it's good to see the researchers striving for a more inclusive test model.
However, as far as i recall, most of these crash test dummies (is that still okay to say in our current society as of 2019?) are white. Really we need POC test apparatuses for a fully inclusive and equitable test.
You are being funny, but different races do have different body types. Even within the same race some people have longer or shorter trunks than their peers.
Also how do we know these test apparatuses are hetero-normal CIS? What if they would prefer to identify as 'other'?
Since we are talking physical safety, I don't believe a person's gender identity (as opposed to physical sex) makes a difference in the dummies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> You are being funny, but different races do have different body types.
In the current year, it is well known that race is a social construct, and that there are no differences between them whatsoever.
Re:I see... patriarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
In the current year, it is well known that race is a social construct, and that there are no differences between them whatsoever.
Gender too, in fact I pretend this article does not exist.
Re: (Score:3)
You are being funny, but different races do have different body types. Even within the same race some people have longer or shorter trunks than their peers.
Yeah, I expect I (6'1") would fare better in a crash than my brother (5'6").
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: I see... patriarchy (Score:2)
Japanese car manufacturers found that they needed to make adjustments for westerners, for example.
Turns out westerners don't like the steering column doubling as a hara-kiri device.
Re:I see... patriarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
I have also seen many women sit very close to the steering wheel.
Not sure if this is due to stature, arm length or making them feel more in control...
However, air-bags can deal a fatal blow if the driver/passenger are less than a foot from where the bag releases [consumeraffairs.com]
distance to steering wheel (Score:2)
That's a good point. In the days before power assist steering, it was difficult for women to turn the wheel when parking, unless they were close to the wheel and able to apply their weight as well as just scissoring their arms. This isn't some crazed patriarchal plot, it's because they don't have the same arm and shoulder strength as men.
There is also the difference in height. typically women are shorter, so to see over the dash they have to sit higher, and closer to the pedals. In the old days this was acc
Re:I see... patriarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The study says it includes "Only occupants restrained by a 3-point belt." You could argue that their sample is contaminated with mislabeled data, but I think it's easily possible that the difference in upper-body anatomy is enough to cause shoulder belts to work better for men even when they are worn correctly.
However, some of the biggest differences between men and women are in leg and ankle injuries. The paper mentions that there may be genuine differences in injury tolerance due to other biomechanica
Re: (Score:2)
I can see a way to jury-rig a four-point harness to bypass breast area and instead focus on contact points on shoulders and lower torso. I don't see median woman using such a contraption because it would both make her look worse and take quite a while to actually strap in.
Essentially something like this, but with wider spread attachment points for shoulder straps to bypass breast bulges:
https://www.demon-tweeks.com/e... [demon-tweeks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[citation needed]
I've seen plenty of guys text while driving. Is there real evidence for a sex specific difference?
Will accept, if there is statistical evidence, but not blindly on random-internet-poster's word.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They're also much more likely to have one or both hands on the phone texting.
You better have a citation otherwise you're post could be translated to: "I'm a sexist twat".
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
By using the term "sexist twat" in your reply, you have indeed confirmed that you are, in fact, a "sexist twat". Please stop being a "sexist" or a "twatist" or any other "-ist" your feeble mind may conceive.
Re: (Score:2)
I would suggest it be tied straight to muscle mass. Simply more muscle bulk to absorb impact. Tense up prior to crash, muscles in a tough taught state, protecting bone and body core from damage, effective becoming shock and impact absorbers and there can be a huge difference add in body fat and women tend to be skinnier and men have a lot of body mass that can absorb damage protecting the core.
Women *are* more fragile on average (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's nothing to do with the fact that women are a lot more fragile than men.
You've been modded down troll and flamebait but this is absolutely true. I seem to recall some studies on full contact sports (I don't recall which) that indicated significantly worse outcomes than men re: head injuries. Given the role of neck muscles in stabilizing the head and absorbing impacts, this really isn't so surprising. There are a lot of other differences, for example bone density is usually higher in men. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to accept. Do you honestly believe a female linebacker taking a hit (let's say she's the same height and weight as an average male linebacker) would have an equal risk of injury as male linebackers?
If it's true that the dummies are closer to average males and none are being used that are nearer to average females well, yeah, let's fix that. But I'd be shocked if that were the *main* factor driving these statistics. The interior ergonomics of the car aren't likely to make nearly as much of a difference to injury rates as biology-driven average differences between the genders, possibly also combined with some behavioral differences as well regarding wearing shoulder belts (others here are commenting about how some females apparently don't wear shoulder belts? That's news to me, but plausible I guess), leg positioning, etc.
As for the kneejerk anti-SJW ranting, well, as tiresome as it may be (and I do find much of it tiresome), there's a reason why it happens. I'll bet dollars to donuts that in many not so dark corners of the internet, this article is being cited as yet another shining example of male privilege harming women. By all means, let's get some better crash test dummies, but TFS strikes me as insanely misleading. Behavioral differences may or may not be a big factor here, but the basic biological differences absolutely *are* there and need to be controlled for before we start making the astonishing implication that male crash test dummies may have resulted in car designs that seriously injure women at a rate 73% higher than men.
On average, male bodies can take significantly more punishment than female bodies. If you think these sorts of statements are flamebait or trolling, you are a) fantastically ignorant and b) part of the problem.
Re:Women *are* more fragile on average (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not going to try to drag out the references, but bone density is not directly hormonally related. It is, however, related. Bone density differences start in childhood. Boys tend to be more competitive and participate in physically demanding activities. They are also more apt to have ADHD issues. Girls tend to be more cooperative and sedentary. How many girls normally ride skateboards, bicycles, and are seen running around in their everyday goings-on? Bone density is directly related to skeletal stress.
IMHO, these are issues that no amount of social engineering is going to change. Accept it. Girls and women have skeletons that are more lightweight as a result.
There were times before household conveniences such as washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. where women had to hand wash the family clothes, drag out the rugs and beat them with a stick. Those were the days when it was likely that most women involved in such drudgery didn't face a future of osteoporosis. They died early because they were physically worn out and had lower resistance to diseases and infections, and were slower in healing.
Regarding the cell phone distraction issue, women tend to be more socially involved (husband, kids, parents, friends) and feel the need to stay in communication at times when men don't tend to do so as strongly.
Those designing safer vehicles would do well to try to design in features such as air bags that don't kill at distances closer than 12 inches, telescoping adjustable steering wheels, foot pedals that aren't mounted at a fixed point, seat belt harnesses that are more considerate of feminine anatomy (maybe a system that senses the weight of the driver and passengers, and sets the mount points of the harnesses accordingly). Large-breasted women will always be at a disadvantage in the auto safety situation if they choose not to wear the chest-crossing belt (but if the chest belt top mount point can be adjusted, that may help).
But progress will move forward and things will be safer, if the past compared to the present is any predictor.
Re: (Score:2)
Men will be forced (Score:4, Funny)
Men will be forced to wear fake boobs to increase their chance of dying in an accident. In the name of equality!!!
Re: Men will be forced (Score:3, Funny)
Drink enough soy milk lattes and you won't need simulated breasts.
Done! (Score:5, Funny)
Breasts (Score:2)
This must have something to do with breasts.
This is exactly why I haven't got breast implants- too dangerous to drive while under the influence of having breasts.
Bollocks! (Score:3, Funny)
Are the authors of these studies stupid or what? Women are less likely to put on seatbelts because they compress or otherwise emphasize their breasts making them targets of jokes. If you don't believe me just ask around.
Re:Bollocks! (Score:5, Informative)
You intended this as a joke, but as a firefighter, I've cut injured women out of cars who have the lap belt on, but put the shoulder belt behind them. When they're conscious (and still have teeth in their head and their jaw isn't broken), I get a combination of uncomfortable/wrinkles clothing/messes up hair as an excuse for wearing the belt that way. My wife totaled my pickup last year wearing the belt as described, and only the airbag kept her from eating the steering wheel.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't mean it as a joke. My girlfriend actually refuses to put the seatbelt on for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine usually wore her seat belt, but she kept fiddling with it to try to get it more comfortable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is what I was going to say. Women don't sit and wear the belts as per the manufacturer's instructions. Nearly 70% of my female friends try to put their legs on the dashboard, push their seat too far back, lean the back more than 5% from vertical, reverse the direction of the headrest so it doesn't push the head forward, adjust the seatbelt pillar mount to the highest possible position so the belt is much closer to the neck than to the shoulder, slouch so that the hip portion of the belt isn't on their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are the authors of these studies stupid or what? Women are less likely to put on seatbelts because they compress or otherwise emphasize their breasts making them targets of jokes. If you don't believe me just ask around.
No, the authors are not stupid. From TFA (emphasis mine):
But controlling for the car’s model year, and the passenger or driver’s age, height, weight, BMI, and proximity to the steering wheel, females continue to be in more vulnerable positions when involved in frontal impact collisions—even when they wear a seatbelt.
Wait, good news? (Score:2)
reveals some good news, too: All riders are now more than half as likely to sustain serious injuries in newer models (those manufactured in 2009 and later) than in older cars. ..... that the same safety science that's been making cars less dangerous for all riders hasn't been able to shrink the gap between male and female auto safety
Is the author really saying that not all riders were more than half as likely to sustain serious injuries, And now they ARE more than half as likely in newer cars, and
how is
What about men who identify as women? (Score:2, Funny)
Sexist study (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Sexist study (Score:2, Funny)
Solution: the women identify as men when they get in the car. That should solve the problem.
Did they make sure seat belt usage was correct? (Score:2, Insightful)
I know women tend to put the over strap under their arm as it is uncomfortable. If it is size and weight there should be similar results with children. I browsed the paper but TLDR as I am at work.
This is America. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's been YEARS since I last saw a woman under 110 pounds.
Problem in methodology? (Score:3)
"." Since the early 2000s, "female" crash test dummies have been deployed, but they tend to simulate smaller women, says Forman, with heights of 5 feet and weights of 110 pounds. "
This doesn't seem take into account women over the age of 13 or so. Do you know many women that weigh 110 lbs?
What happens to the risk factor if the woman weighs 200 or 300 lbs? Or is an average height?
Re:Problem in methodology? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know many women that weigh 110 lbs?
No, but if a car is safe for both the small dummy and the bigger male dummy, it is likely that it is also safe for sizes between those two.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the point of the story is that we don't know what's missing. The crash test dummies are likely not the answer. The dummies behind the wheel likely are.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the point of the story is that we don't know what's missing. The crash test dummies are likely not the answer. The dummies behind the wheel likely are.
So you're arguing that male and female drivers have different kinds of accidents, and that women tend to have accidents that are more dangerous? And how is it that female passengers tend to get into more dangerous accidents than male passengers?
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming a specific cause. I just assume that people are idiots. For example, women may be more likely not to wear the shoulder belt. Who knows? But I do know that however well you idiot proof heavy machinery, they'll always invent a better idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obese women are less likely to suffer injury in any case. Anyway, it seems more important to preserve and boost the population of our healthier women don't you think?
The standard for for what is "obese" is absurd. That chubby girl you didn't look at the other day, is obese according to the medical definition. Having a few extra kilos does not automatically make you unhealthy.
Also you are a jackass.
Obligatory (Score:2)
640 lb women dummies ought to be large enough for any crash test.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't seem take into account women over the age of 13 or so. Do you know many women that weigh 110 lbs?
Not all of us live in the South or Midwest or, for that matter, Scotland.
And no; being unhealthy is never beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
What happens to the risk factor if the woman weighs 200 or 300 lbs?
They bounce and then walk away.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know many women that weigh 110 lbs?
No, but I'd like to!
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't seem take into account women over the age of 13 or so. Do you know many women that weigh 110 lbs?
Yes, I do know a few! And no, they're 30, not 13, I'm not Trump!
Could it be that because they are smaller? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see..... (Score:2)
The article indicates that women are more prone to lower limb injuries. They controlled for a number of things like size, etc. They didn't control for high heals, flip flops, and open toed shoes. They also didn't control for the fact women are much more likely to put their feet on the dash board.
I have to wonder if they controlled for the fact many women don't wear seat belts if they are wearing fancy clothes or dresses. I have also seen women who place the shoulder strap behind there back to prevent wrinkl
different team...same center...mostly same data (Score:3)
While the authors are a different team, the research comes from the same center at UVa (Center for Applied Biomechanics) and the same database. The first study evaluated a dataset from 1998 and 2008. The second study evaluated the same dataset from 1998 to 2015.
What would be news is if they had different result.
Rag Doll vs Tensing Up (Score:2)
These studies tend to neglect a lot of what people do during an actual vehicle accident.
This is all anecdotal, but when I drive and have to brake suddenly I've noticed that most women tense up and "brace" for impact. Whereas, male passengers and myself are more loose and flexible.
During an accident, you want to be as rag doll like as possible to avoid injury. It's why drunk drivers seem to always survive more accidents while their passengers die.
This might be one of the reasons why women seem to get more in
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Women have breasts.. (Score:5, Funny)
News at 11. I had to buy a "tiddy bear" for my wife to get her to wear a belt because her large breasts would get bruising and friction burns from the shoulder belt cutting across her breasts, the bear added enough padding and is soft enough to keep the belt from hurting her.
I think you only posted to brag about your wifes big breasts. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Women have breasts.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So this does not surprise me, if a woman has anything bigger than a B cup the average shoulder belt is gonna cause them serious discomfort and when you get to D serious pain so they take the risk rather than get their breasts smashed every time they get in the car.
And this doesn't make them stupid, or bad drivers. If seatbelts were designed in a way that they pinched my balls all the time I probably wouldn't wear them either. That's the point of this study: Why are women getting hurt more often? If the answer is that they don't wear seatbelts because they're too uncomfortable, then manufacturers need to rethink the design to accommodate breasts.
That was SecureFoam John Spartan (Score:2)
and it probably saved your life.
Feet on Dash (Score:2)
Weight Distribution (Score:3)
This is my first instinct. We all know that typical men have more weight at the shoulders, and all women have more weight at the mid-rift.
We've all seen side-view crash tests, where the person winds up leaning forward, into the airbag. The seat belt allows for a little lean, let's call it 5 degrees forward.
My instinct is that those 5 degrees, and the few inches of travel at the shoulder, are incredibly significant compared to the zero travel at the mid-rift.
Inches of travel means rapid-but-smooth deceleration; zero travel means sudden-impact.
I don't know how much it takes to crush vital organs, but again my instinct is simply that inches matter.
I don't think that any of the other "identified variables", as the article mentions, are significant when juxtaposed with simple mass/travel -- aka f=ma.
Re: (Score:2)
To a first approximation, the best choice is to decelerate uniformly over the largest possible distance. High deceleration risks brain damage.
To be clear, the frame of reference is zero velocity with respect to the ground. During a crash in a moving car, you can't "be restrained from moving at all" even in the car's frame of reference, nor should you be. The inches between the passenger and the nearest solid obstruction provide room for lower and smoother deceleration.
What? (Score:2)
I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that women are typically 40% weaker than men, and smaller than men.
I RTFA and didn't see a mention that they corrected for women and men of the same size, or for children (even smaller). Seems like that would be a rather obvious thing to determine if women ACTUALLY were getting more harmed due to something about their physiology, or if they just were on the curve of injuries vs size/weight as everyone else.
Crashes are more dangerous (Score:2)
..if you have fake breasts, fake teeth, fake noses, and other non-original parts.
Also, some women don't use safety belts, because they might crumple their dresses, no shit.
And I don't want to mention their shoes either, driving with heels or removing them and driving barefoot is not for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't want to mention their shoes either, driving with heels or removing them and driving barefoot is not for everyone.
I don't even know how they can walk in some of those shoes, let alone drive.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, there are those Bulgarian air bags.
When worn properly ... (Score:2)
Seatbelts should be worn tight, the tighter the restraint the better. This results in far less movement and far less injury.
Need to simulate the startle response (Score:2)
One can argue that women have a more pronounced startle response i.e. they tense up very quickly whereas men are less likely to tense up in a collision. Ergo, the male body is more relaxed on impact thus resulting in less injury. Female crash test dummies would need to be redesign to simulate this. Conclusion: lighten up, ladies. #sarcasm
Seat belt position (Score:4, Informative)
I'm 5'3" with boobs and the problem is that my seat belt is not in the intended position. My anatomy ensures that. So what should be a solid strap going from one hip over my torso to the frame of the car is angled up over my collar bone and shoulder, cutting into my neck.
This doesn't stop me from wearing my seat belt and snugging it down so it's as tight as it should be but it probably does reduce the effectiveness of it based on how it will hold me into the seat.
Just making a smaller crash test dummy isn't enough. Female bodies are different than male. It's basic anatomy. Those squishy bits need to be taken into consideration when designing safety equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Move the adjuster there to the *lowest* position
Many cars don't have a mechanism for adjusting the seat belt height.
Obesity might be a factor (Score:3)
Obesity is a major factor in mortality [forbes.com] and while men are more likely to be "overweight", women are more likely to be "obese" or "extremely obese" according to these statistics I pulled up. [nih.gov].
We can't discount the different ways that weight is distributed based on gender, but how much you weigh has to play a factor. More weight coming to a sudden stop means more force pounding on bones and internal organs.
Re:5 point harness (Score:5, Informative)
This would be awesome actually. We could then stop requiring airbags. 5-point harnesses even without helmets are great. They are also less weight, less expensive, less complex, and less volatile than airbags.
Re: (Score:2)
"This would be awesome actually."
Unless you wear a skirt or dress with any frequency; or have passengers that do.
A 4 point might be reasonable, but even that requires adding a secure point between the passengers to attach the extra shoulder strap to and I'm not sure it buys you that much. Plus the roll-cage or whatever you do to get a stable point between the passengers is likely going to result in compromises in the back seats.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the compliance of people actually wearing them would go waaay down, due to the laziness factor.
Re: (Score:3)
But then you'd also need some sort of head restraint to prevent the noggin from just flying through the windshield during rapid unplanned deceleration.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing to put to scrutiny, it's a scientific test. The only thing to put to scrutiny is how to fix it which is a completely baseless claim that somehow test dummies are to blame for death in crashing cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Please refute. Feel free to refute the laws of physics.
Re: (Score:2)
To refute what, a baseless claim? Well, it is baseless, because it does not provide anything in the way of evidence to support it. QED.
Re:Light weight POS (Score:4, Insightful)
Because to get to the stupid government C.A.F.E. fuel standards, they've taken all the steel out of the vehicles, and replaced it with "crush zones"... I'd rather go back to having those big steel I-beams in the doors, REAL steel bumpers, but, that would add weight, and reduce fuel efficiency, which would be a problem.
Crumple zones and lighter weight are unrelated. Crumple zones absolutely make accidents more survivable than in older designs.
You clearly don't like fuel economy standards, but you're going to need to find a better argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Crumple zones and lighter weight are unrelated. Crumple zones absolutely make accidents more survivable than in older designs.
Demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Demonstration? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
, they've taken all the steel out of the vehicles, and replaced it with "crush zones".
This is more about safety than fuel efficiency.
Deforming a car frame transfers a lot less kinetic energy to the driver than a solid frame that transfers nearly all of it.
Re: (Score:2)
For vehicles of similar weight, yes. That said, pedantically, it also depends on what you're hitting and on how much lighter the vehicle is as a result of adding the crumple zone.
When two vehicles collide, assuming similar velocity, the end velocity is in the direction of the heavier vehicle's travel, i.e. the bigger vehicle wins. That's why when a train (which, apart from a small amo
Re: (Score:2)
That said, pedantically, it also depends on what you're hitting and on how much lighter the vehicle is as a result of adding the crumple zone.
In generally, this has been done to vehicles across the board - so the relative differences are much smaller.
Re: (Score:3)
So to make a car safer, you just need to make it really big and massive. But... what if you hit another car designed to the same principle?
I actually argued with someone who thought like that, years ago. I still think of him as a truly horrible, immoral person. Not because he explained that he drove an SUV because he knew it would be safer for him and less safe for others, but because he was proud of it: He explained very clearly that it was his moral duty as a man to protect his family, and if he could sav
Re: (Score:2)
So to make a car safer, you just need to make it really big and massive. But... what if you hit another car designed to the same principle?
I actually argued with someone who thought like that, years ago. I still think of him as a truly horrible, immoral person. Not because he explained that he drove an SUV because he knew it would be safer for him and less safe for others, but because he was proud of it: He explained very clearly that it was his moral duty as a man to protect his family, and if he could save his family by killing someone else, then it was his obligation to do so.
This basically reduces to the prisoner's dilemma. If only one of you makes your car bigger, that person gets hurt less and the other person dies horribly. If everyone makes their cars bigger, everyone dies horribly. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
If you're talking about passenger cars though, the larger car/SUV also has crumple zones and those will deform as designed in the crash.
It's not like being heaver means all the damage occurs to the smaller vehicle.
Also, in a head-on car-vs-train, the crumple zones would absorb the energy they could, even though that will not be all the energy in the accident.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm speaking purely theoretically. In pretty much every real-world situation, crumple zones are a clear win. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Deforming a car frame transfers a lot less kinetic energy to the driver than a solid frame that transfers nearly all of it.
The biggest dangers for the driver are getting body parts crushed by the car, or hitting their head on the steering wheel or other solid objects.
Kinetic energy is less of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
current biggest dangers. Kinetic energy is less of a problem specifically because of Crumple zones [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. Modern vehicles are massively stronger than old ones.
An old vehicle may look less crumpled up after an accident, but that just means it's transferred all of the collision energy to the occupants which are now smeared over the dash and windshield.
A modern car combines huge torsional stiffness (giving much better handling than an old car) with a structure carefully calculated to sacrifice itself while saving the passengers. The resulting nosedive in fatality statistics speaks for itself.
The only stupid
Re:Light weight POS (Score:5, Insightful)
You are almost afraid to sit on a vehicle, for fear of bending it. I'd rather go back to having those big steel I-beams in the doors, REAL steel bumpers, but, that would add weight, and reduce fuel efficiency, which would be a problem.
Until recently I worked performing car accident rescues. New cars are significantly stronger than the old REAL steel models.
An illustration of this is that rescue crews have transitioned to unbolting car doors rather than using hydraulics (jaws of life) to tear them off. The strength of newer cars makes it considerably harder to pop the doors, it also means that when the hinge does give way there is significantly more shock traveling through the car into the patient. Current best practice is to expose the hinge and unbolt if possible, better for the patient and faster.
The current advanced high strength steels are six times stronger than classic mild steel, and getting stronger. The new structures are thinner, lighter but stronger and still very much made of steel. Manufacturers are also much better at forming well engineered precisely designed shapes.
You are far more likely to bend an old Ford by sitting on it than a new lightweight compact car.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you be really happy, if you had an accident & belt & airbag saved you, but you realized your gas started a fire & you are stuck???
How many people died by burning alive in their car???
That's why I keep a folding knife with a built-in belt cutter and glass breaker in my truck. You never know when you might need to cut someone, or yourself, out of a car. Specifically I have a S&W Border Guard 2, less than $25 on Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
Fires in car accidents are actually pretty rare. Fuel cutoff switches prevent gas from going to the engine, shutting the engine off. So the gas is stuck in the tank where it can't ignite.
If you're in an accident where you somehow breach the tank and dump all the gas on the ground (rare since the Pinto), you still need an ignition source to start a fire. 12V has a hard time making sparks and the engine got killed from the fuel cutoff switch.