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

Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

collectorsweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 192 posts

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#21

Post by AnimalMuppet »

abstractbill wrote: post #8
TylerE wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you WANT it to deform. A stiff structure would increase deceleration on the occupants - in addition to being more likely to get in accident in the first place - additional weight will cause the vehicle to brake less rapidly, be more likely to roll over, etc, in addition to reducing efficiency.

I've often wondered about this. Instead of just having a single thin metal skin that deforms, wouldn't it be even better to have multiple skins sandwiching a kind of honeycomb structure? That way you have even more stuff to deform and absorb the impact.

You know how the original Volkswagen Bugs had that empty front hood, because the engine was in the rear? My dad advocated filling the front hood with bags full of empty aluminum cans.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#22

Post by anigbrowl »

downplay wrote: post #11
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #6

"Murder Machines"? Come on. Not all deaths are murder. We Americans have this idea that nothing bad should ever happen, that we should find a way to prevent it. It's a goal to shoot for, certainly. But calling it murder if you don't reach that goal? No. Can we climb down from the overheated rhetoric? It smells like propaganda.

In 1885 Karl Benz construct the first automobile. It had three wheels, like an invalid car, And ran on alcohol, like many drivers. Since then about seventeen million people have been killed by them In an undeclared war; And the whole of the rest of the world is in danger of being run over Due to squabbles about their oil. -Heathcote Williams (Autogeddon extract).

I don't care for cars and have never owned one, but horse-powered transport wasn't free of social cost either.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#23

Post by ChuckMcM »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #6

"Murder Machines"? Come on. Not all deaths are murder. We Americans have this idea that nothing bad should ever happen, that we should find a way to prevent it. It's a goal to shoot for, certainly. But calling it murder if you don't reach that goal? No. Can we climb down from the overheated rhetoric? It smells like propaganda.

I came here looking for this comment, I was not disappointed :-)

The headline is hyperbole, but it is common hyperbole. Factories pumping out pollutants are "murdering" our people, Cigarette manufacturers are "murdering" their customers, Etc.

The interesting point in the story is how we went from 'cars need to look out for people' to 'people need to look out for cars' in a relatively short time frame. The discussion of the various articles and points of view and how they gained favor over time is similar to things like Nuclear power which went from 'power to cheap to measure' to 'tool of the devil', or gun ownership, or Television ownership, or any number of things that have impacted the community at large.

The thing to remember for this community is that these are emotional arguments presented as rational arguments. Hence the term 'murder' which evokes the desired emotion (outrage) rather than 'dangerous' which evokes a statistical mindset of potential harm.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#24

Post by Retric »

abstractbill wrote: post #8
TylerE wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you WANT it to deform. A stiff structure would increase deceleration on the occupants - in addition to being more likely to get in accident in the first place - additional weight will cause the vehicle to brake less rapidly, be more likely to roll over, etc, in addition to reducing efficiency.

I've often wondered about this. Instead of just having a single thin metal skin that deforms, wouldn't it be even better to have multiple skins sandwiching a kind of honeycomb structure? That way you have even more stuff to deform and absorb the impact.

The only stuff that actually matters is keeping people from being squashed and the occupant's deceleration profile which you can already customize by changing how the car deforms. To really make a difference vs a high end car we could mandate 3 point seat-belts and helmets like you have in racing world.

Still a 70MPH a head on collision is already fairly safe assuming people are belted the real killers are unbelted passengers, collision debris, and rolling. Edit: Head on collisions still kill a lot of people but they tend to be higher speeds accidents and often involve unbelted individuals. Also we are slightly below 1 death per 2 million hours in a car we just spend a lot of time in our cars.

PS: Worldwide it was estimated that 1.2 million people were killed and 50 million more were injured in motor vehicle collisions in 2004. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_c...

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#25

Post by tokenadult »

The death rate per miles driven in the United States has fallen dramatically in my lifetime, and I can remember when the annual number of deaths was much higher.[1] That said, the article makes a very interesting claim about attitudes that we should all follow to the end of the article for further discussion here: "There’s an open secret in America: If you want to kill someone, do it with a car. As long as you’re sober, chances are you’ll never be charged with any crime, much less manslaughter." My wife bike-commutes year-round (yes, even in Minnesota), and as I mention this among Facebook friends, other friends who are also bike commuters point out that car drivers can basically kill bicyclists in the United States with no legal penalty at all. That's not a good social environment for getting more people out for exercise and energy conservation by substituting bicycling for driving cars.

The history reported in this article is very interesting. There are a lot of contemporary photographs of changing American cities. The quotations from experts provide perspective on the visuals: "'If a kid is hit in a street in 2014, I think our first reaction would be to ask, "What parent is so neglectful that they let their child play in the street?,"' says Norton.

"'In 1914, it was pretty much the opposite. It was more like, "What evil bastard would drive their speeding car where a kid might be playing?" That tells us how much our outlook on the public street has changed."

Indeed. Are we really thinking carefully about how to spread the risk around, when so much of our living space is dominated by cars?

AFTER EDIT: The video link shared by pugz[2] in a reply comment elsewhere in this thread is not to be missed. Car safety standards have improved enormously in my lifetime, but those protect the occupants of cars better than they protect pedestrians and bicyclists who are hit by cars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPF4fBGNK0U

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#26

Post by briantakita »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #6

"Murder Machines"? Come on. Not all deaths are murder. We Americans have this idea that nothing bad should ever happen, that we should find a way to prevent it. It's a goal to shoot for, certainly. But calling it murder if you don't reach that goal? No. Can we climb down from the overheated rhetoric? It smells like propaganda.

It's clever marketing. It seems Americans really listen to re-branding of terms.

We have been playing this game where Americans live in burbs and spend time commuting. That has a huge psychological, familial, physical, environmental, financial, economic, & diplomatic toll.

Our landscape is dominated by asphalt & concrete to support the norm.

I think we can do better. If it takes some stigma to turn the discussion and to show more attention on the alternatives, then bring on the stigma.

In reality, not enough attention is paid. America seems to be more afraid of flying in an airplane or terrorists than the ubiquity of automobiles.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#27

Post by InclinedPlane »

TylerE wrote: post #3
ansimionescu wrote: post #2

In Romanian 'car crash' is called literally 'accident' [0]. Something that's always baffled me is how friggin' thin the metal plates that make up the car are. Why the fuck does a whole industry consider this normal?! [1] Edit: thanks for the info (and for the downvotes 0: http://translate.google.com/#en/ro/car%20crash 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCXFsQ6kKQ

Because you WANT it to deform. A stiff structure would increase deceleration on the occupants - in addition to being more likely to get in accident in the first place - additional weight will cause the vehicle to brake less rapidly, be more likely to roll over, etc, in addition to reducing efficiency.

Indeed. You can drive some older cars right into a brick wall at 50mph and only need to replace the bumper. But that's less good for the occupants who would be killed during a crash like that. Modern car design sacrifices the vehicle for the sake of protecting the occupants.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#28

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

wyager wrote: post #4
ansimionescu wrote: post #2

In Romanian 'car crash' is called literally 'accident' [0]. Something that's always baffled me is how friggin' thin the metal plates that make up the car are. Why the fuck does a whole industry consider this normal?! [1] Edit: thanks for the info (and for the downvotes 0: http://translate.google.com/#en/ro/car%20crash 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhCXFsQ6kKQ

Modern lightweight cars are significantly safer than old, heavy cars. Thick steel is good for protecting you from explosions, not collisions.

Equivalent car classes are much heavier now than they were 20+ years ago. It's because of the weight of airbags and safety features.

Re: Why Cars Will Kill 30,000 Americans This Year

#30

Post by lutorm »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #20
lutorm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until the same attention is placed on traffic deaths as on deaths by other causes, it's hardly "overheated".

I agree that we should pay the attention to traffic deaths that the death toll warrants. But don't call accidental deaths murder. That's the "overheated" part. Murder has a definition, and traffic deaths aren't it. Even if you are a fervent advocate of traffic safety, this kind of manipulative rhetoric does you no favors. It makes people tune you out as a demagogue. (Why do I call this "manipulative"? Because it trie…

Of course it's not technically murder. I interpreted the headline as pointing to the fact that, like murder, traffic deaths are "premeditated" in the sense that we know full well that they will occur but do little to prevent them.
Post reply on HN