5 ms·

Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed

Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you, though, and carry along a vast amount of stored energy. Buildings are designed to stand still and generally not be flammable. The expected value calculations are seemingly quite a bit different.

kube-system 5y ago
> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you And buildings in North America are often framed out of the same material that they burn in their fireplaces. Both present inherent dangers. Both have widespread safety regulations for this reason. Vehicle accidents are the 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US and fires are 6th. And this is the result of many decades of both being highly regulated.
- baybal2 5y ago
  And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. People still die in scary numbers there no matter the regulations. Cars can't be made safer anymore. 60Mphs frontal collisions have single digit percentage survivability chance because physics. Homes can be made much safer by building them differently.
  - Turing_Machine 5y ago
    > And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. A lot of those people live in seismically active areas. While modern masonry construction is certainly safer than traditional masonry, in general wood is far less dangerous than stone or brick in an earthquake.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      And steel, or reinforced concrete are safer than both.
      - Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Where in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete? Note: not apartments. Houses.
        baybal2 5y ago
        Quite a lot in Russia, China, and Middle East from my personal experience.
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Those aren't exactly the locations that come to mind when you think of "luxury housing". I mean, I don't think people are living in those houses by choice, do you? Steel and concrete are ugly and cold. Wood is warm. Even brick and stone are more humane.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Wood tends to get a lot of criticism on the internet as a building material, but it has advantages as well. Cars can absolutely be made safer. They certainly haven’t stopped getting safer yet.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      No amount of safety system will save you in a 60mph crash.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        1. People survive crashes at highway speeds in the US literally every day, at 60mph and above. 2. 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle. The way with which a vehicle’s momentum at 60mph is dissipated makes a critical difference to the crash energy imparted on the occupants. Road design has greatly improved this in recent decades. 3. Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents from happening or improve their outcomes.
        baybal2 5y ago
        > Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents from happening or improve their outcomes. Yes, but that doesn't count as surviving the crash > 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle. The force imparted on you in a 60mph crash by the seatbelt will be lethal no matter how much deceleration space you have. You got at 27 meters per second, and you only have at a maximum 1 meter to decelerate. And if you crash into a heavier, faster vehicle, it's even worse.
        kube-system 5y ago
        > Yes, but that doesn't count as surviving the crash It counts as making cars safer which was the above claim I am supporting. > you only have at a maximum 1 meter to decelerate. And if you crash into a heavier, faster vehicle, it's even worse. Most vehicle crashes are not head-on incidents. Improvements in road design have affected the proportion of crashes that are head-on. Recent improvements in active safety features may decrease this further: eg. lane departure mitigation. In many real-world accidents, vehicles have dozens or hundreds of meters to decelerate.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Wood is one of the better materials if there is a fire. While it burns (a negative), it burns slow and gives plenty of warning before it fails. Most other building materials fail suddenly in a fire. Engineered wood has the same issues)
pessimizer 5y ago
> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you It's not the speed that kills you, it's the impact. Multifloor buildings are designed to help you live and work at a height that can kill you, and to prevent air entering and escaping which can kill you. If you can assume that the risk of fire or collapse isn't worth mitigating against, why not assume that a car will never hit anything?
- sgtnoodle 5y ago
  The risk of fire and collapse is mitigated to a large degree already. People are arguing about the relative utility of further mitigations. At least in the US, folk mostly build interior walls with sheetrock and their exterior walls with cement based composites. Bedrooms are legally required to have smoke detectors. Electrical and gas runs are supposed to be installed "to code". Tall buildings require engineering to make appropriately strong structures. Buildings don't completely burn down or collapse very often, especially compared to the frequency of serious car crashes.

kube-system 5y ago

> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you And buildings in North America are often framed out of the same material that they burn in their fireplaces. Both present inherent dangers. Both have widespread safety regulations for this reason. Vehicle accidents are the 2nd leading cause of accidental death in the US and fires are 6th. And this is the result of many decades of both being highly regulated.

baybal2 5y ago
And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. People still die in scary numbers there no matter the regulations. Cars can't be made safer anymore. 60Mphs frontal collisions have single digit percentage survivability chance because physics. Homes can be made much safer by building them differently.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  > And I still find it surreal that people in world's richest country live in wooden houses. A lot of those people live in seismically active areas. While modern masonry construction is certainly safer than traditional masonry, in general wood is far less dangerous than stone or brick in an earthquake.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    And steel, or reinforced concrete are safer than both.
    - Turing_Machine 5y ago
      Where in the world are single-family homes typically made of steel or reinforced concrete? Note: not apartments. Houses.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        Quite a lot in Russia, China, and Middle East from my personal experience.
        Turing_Machine 5y ago
        Those aren't exactly the locations that come to mind when you think of "luxury housing". I mean, I don't think people are living in those houses by choice, do you? Steel and concrete are ugly and cold. Wood is warm. Even brick and stone are more humane.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Wood tends to get a lot of criticism on the internet as a building material, but it has advantages as well. Cars can absolutely be made safer. They certainly haven’t stopped getting safer yet.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    No amount of safety system will save you in a 60mph crash.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      1. People survive crashes at highway speeds in the US literally every day, at 60mph and above. 2. 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle. The way with which a vehicle’s momentum at 60mph is dissipated makes a critical difference to the crash energy imparted on the occupants. Road design has greatly improved this in recent decades. 3. Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents from happening or improve their outcomes.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        > Active crash prevention/mitigation systems can prevent 60mph accidents from happening or improve their outcomes. Yes, but that doesn't count as surviving the crash > 60mph is a speed not a force imparted on a vehicle. The force imparted on you in a 60mph crash by the seatbelt will be lethal no matter how much deceleration space you have. You got at 27 meters per second, and you only have at a maximum 1 meter to decelerate. And if you crash into a heavier, faster vehicle, it's even worse.
        kube-system 5y ago
        > Yes, but that doesn't count as surviving the crash It counts as making cars safer which was the above claim I am supporting. > you only have at a maximum 1 meter to decelerate. And if you crash into a heavier, faster vehicle, it's even worse. Most vehicle crashes are not head-on incidents. Improvements in road design have affected the proportion of crashes that are head-on. Recent improvements in active safety features may decrease this further: eg. lane departure mitigation. In many real-world accidents, vehicles have dozens or hundreds of meters to decelerate.
bluGill 5y ago
Wood is one of the better materials if there is a fire. While it burns (a negative), it burns slow and gives plenty of warning before it fails. Most other building materials fail suddenly in a fire. Engineered wood has the same issues)

pessimizer 5y ago

> Cars are designed to intentionally accelerate you to speeds that easily kill you It's not the speed that kills you, it's the impact. Multifloor buildings are designed to help you live and work at a height that can kill you, and to prevent air entering and escaping which can kill you. If you can assume that the risk of fire or collapse isn't worth mitigating against, why not assume that a car will never hit anything?

sgtnoodle 5y ago
The risk of fire and collapse is mitigated to a large degree already. People are arguing about the relative utility of further mitigations. At least in the US, folk mostly build interior walls with sheetrock and their exterior walls with cement based composites. Bedrooms are legally required to have smoke detectors. Electrical and gas runs are supposed to be installed "to code". Tall buildings require engineering to make appropriately strong structures. Buildings don't completely burn down or collapse very often, especially compared to the frequency of serious car crashes.