4 ms·
It's selfish safety. It is safer for the occupants but it is not safer for the other car in the collision.
by tomglynch 7y ago
It's selfish safety. It is safer for the occupants but it is not safer for the other car in the collision.
- alvah 7y ago"I'm going to buy a car that's safer for pedestrians / other cars in a collision, but less safe for my family" said one person ever.
- megablast 7y agoAnd that is why we need laws banning these. Someone should care about the non-drivers of cars. Or will we slowly move to tanks.
- dvdbloc 7y agoAaaand bring in the Tesla Cybertruck
- hinkley 7y agoSome day, there will be a Back To The Future remake, with a Cybertruck. “You made a time machine... out of a Tesla?”
- saiya-jin 7y ago> And that is why we need laws banning these You need those laws, because current situation doesn't fit you. I've heard the tank argument for last 20 years over and over. There are tons of use cases when bigger is required, say bigger family, lots of goods being transported etc. I don't have a big car myself, but such statements are pretty ignorant of reality. and what about all the cargo vehicles, trucks etc? If you want to punish those evil rich capitalists in good ol' communist class envy way, then I have few ideas - we should ban people changing phones in less than 7 years, have only 1 computer per family, every 10 years, only 2 pairs of trousers, no meat for anybody ever, in fact no car and of course only 1 kid max. Its for the greater good, right? What Switzerland does is, with its car tax is, at least in some cantons, the tax is calculated in equation which considers HP of the car and its weight.
- amiga_500 7y agoI made this choice. Also not just for pedestrians but for all future people as emissions are lower. How is maximizing personal gain on the individual level working out? Not well.
- jimmux 7y agoI made that choice, too. Crash tests don't give the full picture. Since "downgrading" to a smaller vehicle I've found it much easier to avoid incidents completely. It seems like the right trade off for the kind of driving I do, which is mostly on urban streets.
- sundvor 7y agoDitto. If I crash my bicycle into any car, I'm guaranteed to be the worst off. And a pedestrian would likely be far better off than if I was in a car. (Ps peds get off your bloody phones when crossing the road, especially when emerging from behind a SUV).
- hcknwscommenter 7y agoNot necessarily. Much of the extra size is to increase the crumple volume. Those crumple volumes absorb energy in a crash, which benefits all involved in the crash. Raw weight on the other hand is an entirely different matter.
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoIs it physically possible for the energy absorbed by crumple-bits to be greater than the additional energy required to decelerate all the extra mass which the crumple-bits provide?
- remcob 7y agoYes, the energy required to make permanent deformations in a material is unrelated to it's kinetic energy.
- humbledrone 7y agoI'd rather get hit in the head by a ten pound blob of clay than a five pound iron ball. (Preferably neither, though.)
- jacobwilliamroy 7y agoI think I'd pick the iron ball? I'd have to feel the clay first.
- cma 7y agoWould you rather be hit by a moving concrete wall or a moving concrete wall at the same speed but with 5 layers of cardboard boxes taped to it.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- yboris 7y agoThis reminds me of one of my favorite philosophy papers: Vehicles and Crashes: Why is this Moral Issue Overlooked? by Douglas Husak https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23562447?seq=1 Rough summary: there is a high crash incompatibility between SUVs and other cars, imposing unreasonable levels of risks upon the smaller cars. Simple example (not form the paper): a tank crashes into a car: everyone in the car dies. Had the tank been a regular car, no one would die.