3 ms·
That bit about "designed to absorb impacts and avoid collisions" sounds like an excuse. Of course we all design for that. The "better safety records" bit, if t
by burfog 8y ago
That bit about "designed to absorb impacts and avoid collisions" sounds like an excuse. Of course we all design for that.
The "better safety records" bit, if true, is a great argument that American trains need to be more able to withstand crashes. We might need to make them more impact-resistant, not less impact-resistant.
- scarejunba 8y agoMaking them more crumpleable is intended to do that.
- ubernostrum 8y agoYou probably want to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U
- ComputerGuru 8y ago> That bit about "designed to absorb impacts and avoid collisions" sounds like an excuse. Of course we all design for that. No, we don't. Industrial design has only recently begun to take that approach. The old way is "bigger is better," and is the approach taken by, for example, school buses in the USA which have an insane safety record. I believe this year was the first time in over a decade that there was even a single on-board casualty in a US school bus.