3 ms·

Sorry, saying mass doesn't matter is a false assertion. A 1000lb trailer will absolutely react differently in this scenario, including getting pushed up and out

Sorry, saying mass doesn't matter is a false assertion. A 1000lb trailer will absolutely react differently in this scenario, including getting pushed up and out or yielding/crushing. NHTSA also has to weigh the cost of compliance. Cars also could have stronger A pillars, that way the burden of compliance is placed on the one at higher risk. The article tries to make it a big conspiracy by Big Truck, that bothered me. Trucks are easy to hate on, but efficient transport over very long distances is a tremendous strength of the American economy.

kelnos 3y ago
> The article tries to make it a big conspiracy by Big Truck, that bothered me. I mean, one of the people who sued uncovered evidence of a literal conspiracy to hide safety-related data, so I'm not sure why the article's framing should bother you. > Cars also could have stronger A pillars, that way the burden of compliance is placed on the one at higher risk. That's not a completely unreasonable take, but my position is that the thing that causes the damage -- the trailer -- should be required to be made less lethal. It's also unclear that A pillars can be made strong enough to survive those situations anyway. And even if they can, the car's crumple zones (which absorb kinetic energy) won't end up getting "used" in this type of crash, so the A pillar will take all the force, stop the car way faster than an impact on crumple zones would, and throw the driver forward much harder than in other types of crashes, possibly still fatally.
8note 3y ago
The US basically ignores transport efficiency though. Otherwise, there's be shipping on boats within the US Why not put the burden of compliance of the operators creating the risk? Otherwise, the trucks will build themselves bigger, such that the improved aframes are no longer sufficient. Somebody walking around with a bomb doesn't make it reasonable for everyone else to have to bomb proof everything

kelnos 3y ago

> The article tries to make it a big conspiracy by Big Truck, that bothered me. I mean, one of the people who sued uncovered evidence of a literal conspiracy to hide safety-related data, so I'm not sure why the article's framing should bother you. > Cars also could have stronger A pillars, that way the burden of compliance is placed on the one at higher risk. That's not a completely unreasonable take, but my position is that the thing that causes the damage -- the trailer -- should be required to be made less lethal. It's also unclear that A pillars can be made strong enough to survive those situations anyway. And even if they can, the car's crumple zones (which absorb kinetic energy) won't end up getting "used" in this type of crash, so the A pillar will take all the force, stop the car way faster than an impact on crumple zones would, and throw the driver forward much harder than in other types of crashes, possibly still fatally.

8note 3y ago

The US basically ignores transport efficiency though. Otherwise, there's be shipping on boats within the US Why not put the burden of compliance of the operators creating the risk? Otherwise, the trucks will build themselves bigger, such that the improved aframes are no longer sufficient. Somebody walking around with a bomb doesn't make it reasonable for everyone else to have to bomb proof everything