4 ms·

Did we really need a study for this? What's next? A study to find out whether a hammer to the head or torso is more lethal than a hammer to the legs? What a tot

Did we really need a study for this? What's next? A study to find out whether a hammer to the head or torso is more lethal than a hammer to the legs? What a total racket to spend money on something like this.

anotherhue 3y ago
You may enjoy "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
SECProto 3y ago
If one wanted to make a regulation regarding hood height, having a study like this as evidence would be critically important. Gut instinct alone wouldn't suffice
tempestn 3y ago
First, things that are obvious aren't always correct. It's better to rely on actual data than intuition alone. Second, the study not only gives the qualitative result that higher hoods are more dangerous, but also begins to quantify the effect, and can give an idea of the specific height at which the pedestrian danger begins to spike.
tasty_freeze 3y ago
I'll take your question seriously. Why do people do studies like this when the answer seems obvious? (1) It quantifies the seriousness of the problem. Does it increase the chance of death or significant injury by 1%, 10%, 50%? Without reading the article, what is the "obvious" answer to that question? (2) People believe many "obvious" things that aren't true. They are trivial to find simply by finding two groups with opposite beliefs on a subject and both think their conclusions are obvious. Eg, did the COVID-19 vaccines reduce or increase death rates? It seems obvious to me that it was a great benefit, but there are people going on TV claiming the vaccines killed millions of people. (3) Even in areas that aren't contentious, there are many widely believed but untested assumptions. If someone didn't spend the time and effort to validate those things, we might never find what is really true. 50 years ago it was unquestioned that stress is what causes ulcers. Almost nobody questioned that except for the one guy who did the experiment that proved it was bacterial in origin. Had his result been negative, you'd be here to mock him.
newaccount74 3y ago
You need a study because otherwise people keep posting links to youtube videos claiming that hood heights aren't that dangerous and it's actually less lethal because pedestrians are less likely to hit the windshield with their head.
chowells 3y ago
Hood heights that are too low are also shown to cause more injuries. In fact, there would seem to be an optimal range. Studies seem like a great way to find out what that range is in practice.
- jewayne 3y ago
  But remember, injuries and fatalities are not the same thing. It could be the building shin-busting bumpers is the best way to save lives. Who knows?

anotherhue 3y ago

You may enjoy "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial" https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

SECProto 3y ago

If one wanted to make a regulation regarding hood height, having a study like this as evidence would be critically important. Gut instinct alone wouldn't suffice

tempestn 3y ago

First, things that are obvious aren't always correct. It's better to rely on actual data than intuition alone. Second, the study not only gives the qualitative result that higher hoods are more dangerous, but also begins to quantify the effect, and can give an idea of the specific height at which the pedestrian danger begins to spike.

tasty_freeze 3y ago

I'll take your question seriously. Why do people do studies like this when the answer seems obvious? (1) It quantifies the seriousness of the problem. Does it increase the chance of death or significant injury by 1%, 10%, 50%? Without reading the article, what is the "obvious" answer to that question? (2) People believe many "obvious" things that aren't true. They are trivial to find simply by finding two groups with opposite beliefs on a subject and both think their conclusions are obvious. Eg, did the COVID-19 vaccines reduce or increase death rates? It seems obvious to me that it was a great benefit, but there are people going on TV claiming the vaccines killed millions of people. (3) Even in areas that aren't contentious, there are many widely believed but untested assumptions. If someone didn't spend the time and effort to validate those things, we might never find what is really true. 50 years ago it was unquestioned that stress is what causes ulcers. Almost nobody questioned that except for the one guy who did the experiment that proved it was bacterial in origin. Had his result been negative, you'd be here to mock him.

newaccount74 3y ago

You need a study because otherwise people keep posting links to youtube videos claiming that hood heights aren't that dangerous and it's actually less lethal because pedestrians are less likely to hit the windshield with their head.

chowells 3y ago

Hood heights that are too low are also shown to cause more injuries. In fact, there would seem to be an optimal range. Studies seem like a great way to find out what that range is in practice.

jewayne 3y ago
But remember, injuries and fatalities are not the same thing. It could be the building shin-busting bumpers is the best way to save lives. Who knows?