3 ms·

What exactly are you proposing gets tested? The windows are supposed to be hard to break so people don’t fly out of them…

_aavaa_ 11mo ago
Hard enough to not fly out accidentally but weak enough that people can break them on purpose so they're not trapped inside.
- Johnny555 11mo ago
  I think there's an impossibly thin line between making glass that's easy to break through on purpose, but hard for a high speed head to break through in an accident.
  - stavros 11mo ago
    I'm fairly sure that the two lines are way past each other, on the wrong side. The force with which you'll be flung against the glass is much higher than what you can punch.
    - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
      This isn’t about punching, it’s about using one of those handheld devices with a pointed metal tip.
  - AngryData 11mo ago
    Most tempered glass does it just fine and has for decades.
  - potato3732842 11mo ago
    It's worse than impossibly thin. It's a massive gray area of acceptable solutions where no matter where in the area you choose some bike shedding jerk will be able to construe it as though you chose wrong.
- esseph 11mo ago
  We have airbags, what if there was a low cost manual way to trigger a window break, potentially even without vehicle power?
torstenvl 11mo ago
That's what seat belts are for. Making unbreakable glass is morally repugnant.
- dpark 11mo ago
  This law is intended to protect belted occupants as well. The target here is rollover crashes where belted occupants may still be jostled partially free from the belt and be partially ejected.
  - torstenvl 11mo ago
    Not relevant. Safety designs that kill people are indefensible.
    - dpark 11mo ago
      This is literally the logic anti-seatbelt folks use. “I don’t wear a seatbelt because if I’m in a crash, the seatbelt could end up trapping me in a fire.” Safety design very often involves trade offs. The chances you get partially ejected and killed during a rollover are meaningfully higher than the chances you die because you can’t break the glass to get out. Do you even keep a glass breaker in your car or do you imagine after surviving a wreck that’s trapped you inside your car that you will have the strength to just punch through a glass window?
    - walletdrainer 11mo ago
      > Safety designs that kill people are indefensible. Then it logically follows that either the only defensible approach is to not have any safety solutions, or that there simply isn’t a defensible approach. The tradeoffs are unavoidable, a seatbelt or airbag might very well kill someone despite saving countless lives. Even tech like lane departure warnings will almost inevitably distract and kill someone.
    - tekla 11mo ago
      I'm going to guess that you don't work on safety engineering. All safety designs have tradeoffs. Airbags can kill you but we still use them because the probable benefits outweigh the risks.

_aavaa_ 11mo ago

Hard enough to not fly out accidentally but weak enough that people can break them on purpose so they're not trapped inside.

Johnny555 11mo ago
I think there's an impossibly thin line between making glass that's easy to break through on purpose, but hard for a high speed head to break through in an accident.
- stavros 11mo ago
  I'm fairly sure that the two lines are way past each other, on the wrong side. The force with which you'll be flung against the glass is much higher than what you can punch.
  - _aavaa_ 11mo ago
    This isn’t about punching, it’s about using one of those handheld devices with a pointed metal tip.
- AngryData 11mo ago
  Most tempered glass does it just fine and has for decades.
- potato3732842 11mo ago
  It's worse than impossibly thin. It's a massive gray area of acceptable solutions where no matter where in the area you choose some bike shedding jerk will be able to construe it as though you chose wrong.
esseph 11mo ago
We have airbags, what if there was a low cost manual way to trigger a window break, potentially even without vehicle power?

torstenvl 11mo ago

That's what seat belts are for. Making unbreakable glass is morally repugnant.

dpark 11mo ago
This law is intended to protect belted occupants as well. The target here is rollover crashes where belted occupants may still be jostled partially free from the belt and be partially ejected.
- torstenvl 11mo ago
  Not relevant. Safety designs that kill people are indefensible.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    This is literally the logic anti-seatbelt folks use. “I don’t wear a seatbelt because if I’m in a crash, the seatbelt could end up trapping me in a fire.” Safety design very often involves trade offs. The chances you get partially ejected and killed during a rollover are meaningfully higher than the chances you die because you can’t break the glass to get out. Do you even keep a glass breaker in your car or do you imagine after surviving a wreck that’s trapped you inside your car that you will have the strength to just punch through a glass window?
  - walletdrainer 11mo ago
    > Safety designs that kill people are indefensible. Then it logically follows that either the only defensible approach is to not have any safety solutions, or that there simply isn’t a defensible approach. The tradeoffs are unavoidable, a seatbelt or airbag might very well kill someone despite saving countless lives. Even tech like lane departure warnings will almost inevitably distract and kill someone.
  - tekla 11mo ago
    I'm going to guess that you don't work on safety engineering. All safety designs have tradeoffs. Airbags can kill you but we still use them because the probable benefits outweigh the risks.