4 ms·
I feel safety standards should not only take into account the damage done to occupants of the vehicle in case of accident, but also the damage done to occupants
by roelschroeven 4y ago
I feel safety standards should not only take into account the damage done to occupants of the vehicle in case of accident, but also the damage done to occupants of the other vehicle (and pedestrians, cyclists, ... ). To a certain extent this is probably already the case, but I think it should be much more important.
- hotpotamus 4y agoMy buddy bought a Miata some years back with an "active bonnet" specifically designed to react to hitting a pedestrian. I believe it was only installed on the American version because it's an EU requirement. https://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=758082 https://forum.miata.net/vb/showthread.php?t=758082 So you are correct that it is already the case to some extent.
- ehnto 4y agoIt is already the case but it's a process full of massive compromises. There's not much you can do to stop an F150 from annihilating anything it hits. I think the best defense for pedestrians, cyclists and even other cars is the design of our roads. Stroads are a great example of the worst possible outcome: deadly, fatal speeds, poor separation of different traffic flows and zero defense for pedestrians. Where there's conflicts of interests between cars and other users of the space we should be deferring to those other users, not letting cars fly through city streets at 30mph with naught but a bump of concrete protecting everyone else.
- GuB-42 4y agoThere are 4 sections in the EuroNCAP tests (European safety standards). One of them is about damage done to pedestrians and cyclists. The others are: adult occupant, child occupant, and safety assist features. The latter includes the annoying seatbelt warning, that's why most (all?) cars sold in Europe have it.