5 ms·
That's a good point and might have been their rationale, but I would argue it wasn't a very good risk mitigation because while they reduced the risk in one area
by bumby 5y ago
That's a good point and might have been their rationale, but I would argue it wasn't a very good risk mitigation because while they reduced the risk in one area (being rear ended) they increased their risk elsewhere. Worse yet, it increased the risk in an area more prone to higher severity incidents (e.g., hitting pedestrians - I assume - carries a higher severity than being rear-ended)
- ricardobeat 5y agoThere’s a big risk of spine injuries, and a rear end collision might not activate the airbag. Not a simple trade off.
- bumby 5y agoI’m not saying there’s no risk. I’m saying the risk is lower. The same hazards you mentioned are also present to the pedestrian, plus the risk of TBI or death. The way this analysis is done is that a hazard gets assigned a risk score based severity x probability. I’m saying the severity of hitting a pedestrian is higher. Put another way, if you had to choose between being struck as a pedestrian or rear ended as a driver, which would you choose?