Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

independent.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#51

Post by adaml_623 »

bencoder wrote: post #9
adaml_623 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read the article again: "passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model." Less deaths and injuries if cars meet EU standards

I read that, I saw the difference. Sorry I wasn't clear in my original post. I meant: what causes the difference? Why is there such a big difference?

Sorry. That's a way harder question :-)

I guess it's all a trade off of material/weight vs performance. If you make a more rigid passenger compartment then it might weigh more and your car might be slower. Or maybe you have to spend more on a stronger type of steel that is more expensive. Or you have to make something more complicated to be safer.

So on average maybe the US cars come down on the lighter/cheaper/faster side of the curve. Obviously the trade offs are incredibly complicated.

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#52

Post by mcv »

petewailes wrote: post #13
alkonaut wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> designed to require an airbag to be able to stop an adult male not wearing a seatbelt, What? To me it seems obivous that the right thing to do is have the seatbelt be part of the switch for the airbag -- no seatbelt, no detonation!

It's because the legislation originates from a time when most cars didn't have them as a legal requirement, so the assumption is that someone won't have one or be wearing it, if the car has it. That bit has never been updated. It's exactly as insane as it sounds.

It's kind of amazing that air bags were apparently standard in the US before seat belts were. Seat belts are far older technology as far as I know.

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#53

Post by petewailes »

userbinator wrote: post #34
petewailes wrote: post #6

At the risk of sounding cynical and jaded, is anyone remotely surprised by this? The EU has been pushing car encouraging manufacturers to work harder at car safety for longer, and more effectively than the US has. Seat belts? Volvo. Air bags? First made standard in Mercs and Porsches, at a time when Ford and GM were lobbying against being made to include them. They became optional and then standard between the mid to…

I don't think the EU pushed Volvo though; for the longest time, their slogan was "Drive Safely" and they've always been emphasising safety over other features.

Correct. Volvo (and Saab too) were always and still are nuts about car safety. On a very related note, the Volvo Vision 2020 project:

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/roadsafe/unda/Swede...

TL;DR: no-one should die or be seriously injured in a crash in a new Volvo by 2020 (two vehicle generations away from now).

Mostly that's based on Gilb's first two Laws of Unreliability (computers are unreliable, but humans are far more so, and systems which depend on human reliability are by definition unreliable).

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#54

Post by [deleted] »

MichaelGG wrote: post #41
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think that airliner safety comes from the FAA hammering on Boeing. That's not true at all. It's the attitude of Boeing and Boeing engineers that make it safe. (I used to be a Boeing engineer on flight critical systems.) The worst nightmare of a Boeing engineer is an accident resulting from his design mistake. The worst for me was when the Alaska 717 went down because the stabilizer jackscrew failed. I…

The FAA hammers on pilots and airlines too though, which might otherwise try to cut corners to save costs on safety. I am very impressed with US Aerospace engineering. Having read a book or two containing personal accounts, it makes me feel "proud" of American engineering, even though I'm not American. I've written software for 9-1-1 and the first few months in operation, I barely slept and would often awake terrifie…

[deleted]

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#55

Post by happyscrappy »

rplst8 wrote: post #48
masklinn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it's really fun all around, with EU manufacturers trying to bypass/fudge more stringent US emission regulations and US manufacturers trying to bypass/fudge more stringent EU safety regulations.

I'd take more stringent safety standards over ridiculous emissions standards any day. Though, you could argue stricter safety standards fly in the face of emissions standards. More weight in the car, plus if the occupant survives, their carbon footprint is still there.

The cheating EU cars are emitting 40x the pollution which is why air quality in Europe sucks.

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#56

Post by rplst8 »

bruceboughton wrote: post #38
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think that airliner safety comes from the FAA hammering on Boeing. That's not true at all. It's the attitude of Boeing and Boeing engineers that make it safe. (I used to be a Boeing engineer on flight critical systems.) The worst nightmare of a Boeing engineer is an accident resulting from his design mistake. The worst for me was when the Alaska 717 went down because the stabilizer jackscrew failed. I…

> I also know of instances where Boeing produced safer designs and had to lobby the FAA to get them to accept them. One example is using twin engines on overwater flights, rather than 3 or 4. The twin engines are statistically safer. Interesting. Why do you think it is that twin engines are statistically safer? I thought redundancy was a normal part of the safety toolkit for planes.

I think it's even true for single vs. twin engine planes. A lot of it has to do with - are the systems redundant, or are they both needed to properly fly the plane. Also whether the probability adds up in a serial or parallel fashion. I know a friend that pilots a single engine Cessna. Obviously one engine, but it also has no electronic ignition and four magnetos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignition_magneto The engine operates without the use of a battery because of this. I think the Cessna has a battery for auxiliary systems, but by removing the battery, spark module, and electronic timing/distributor from the critical path of engine operation, the chances of failure are lower. The four magnetos are for the four cylinders in the engine, but any one magneto can run the entire engine. In this case, the four items are redundant.

I think the first twin engine commercial airliner to be certified for over-water flights was the 777. It can take off, fly 6000 miles, and land safely with one engine and a full load.

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#57

Post by the-dude »

alkonaut wrote: post #46
amatix wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think optional seat belt laws as found in some parts of the US can make some sense there (owing a lot to the fact that there is no single payer healthcare...) Wat? So because the taxpayer isn't directly picking up the healthcare bill, it's somehow okay to double serious crash-related injuries and deaths[1]? [1] "Seat belts reduce serious crash-related injuries and deaths by about half." http://www.cdc.gov/motorve…

It's an age-old debate of "is it ok to (risk) hurting yourself?". Obviously car crashes and other injuries/deaths come at high cost to society even in the case of privatized health insurances, but the cost is at least indirect rather than direct. It's probably even true that the majority of the cost is indirect, and not related to healthcare. That said, not having a seat belt/helmet law is... well, stupid.

In the case of seatbelts I think there is more than only thyself. You might be able to control the vehicle better post-crash, preventing injury to bystanders or passengers.

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#58

Post by alkonaut »

Theodores wrote: post #26
alkonaut wrote: post #8

I don't understand the issue here, cars sold in Europe already include many US cars obviously, and cars that sell in Europe are usually safety tested, for example by Euro NCAP. Here is a US car available in Europe, that has an excellent five star safety score in NCAP http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/jeep/cherokee/8871 Now if "research actually established that American models are much less safe when it comes to fro…

What you have to remember is that those European Chrysler efforts like the Jeep are not made in America. They are made by Magna Steyr in Austria alongside plenty of other SUV's - the BMW ones and the Mercedes ones have been made in the same OEM/contract facility over the years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Steyr

Yes. But it's probably not because they are manufactured here that it gets 5 stars in NCAP. Surely it's because they know that if they want to actually sell any Jeeps, they better have 5 stars?

The same would be true for an american 2016 SUV that isn't available in Europe today, if they want to launch it in Europe.

I believe the US manufacturer would either change it to achieve 5 stars, or make an EU model that gets 5 stars, or just not sell it in the EU. And that is regardless of whether the regulations are relaxed so that it could be sold as-is in Europe!

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#59

Post by DanBC »

petewailes wrote: post #6

At the risk of sounding cynical and jaded, is anyone remotely surprised by this? The EU has been pushing car encouraging manufacturers to work harder at car safety for longer, and more effectively than the US has. Seat belts? Volvo. Air bags? First made standard in Mercs and Porsches, at a time when Ford and GM were lobbying against being made to include them. They became optional and then standard between the mid to…

> Also, never put your thumbs near the centre of the steering wheel.

The normal way of holding a steering wheel (thumb and forefinger forming an "O" around the wheel) may increase risk of minor wrist and hand injuries during small accidents. This probably isn't important for the general population, but for people who make a living with their hands it's worth mentioning.

http://www.boneandjoint.org.uk/sites/default/files/FocusOn_S...

> Less commonly, forced dorsiflexion against a steering wheel in a motor vehicle accident or a ball forcing the palm dorsally can cause a scaphoid fracture

http://www.physio-pedia.com/Scaphoid_Fracture

> Less common mechanisms of injury are:

> wrist extension with deceleration such as with the hand on a steering wheel

Although cupping the wheel with your hands may be more dangerous in other ways.

Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'

#60

Post by Already__Taken »

bruceboughton wrote: post #38
WalterBright wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people think that airliner safety comes from the FAA hammering on Boeing. That's not true at all. It's the attitude of Boeing and Boeing engineers that make it safe. (I used to be a Boeing engineer on flight critical systems.) The worst nightmare of a Boeing engineer is an accident resulting from his design mistake. The worst for me was when the Alaska 717 went down because the stabilizer jackscrew failed. I…

> I also know of instances where Boeing produced safer designs and had to lobby the FAA to get them to accept them. One example is using twin engines on overwater flights, rather than 3 or 4. The twin engines are statistically safer. Interesting. Why do you think it is that twin engines are statistically safer? I thought redundancy was a normal part of the safety toolkit for planes.

If you're further trying to wrap your head around it an example would be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232

An engine failure manages to disable all hydraulic links and redundancies in the aircraft.

Post reply on HN