Earlier quoted context omitted.
iirc, Volvo did a lot of testing to find the optimum setup in an ordinary passenger car. The 3-point belts worked best, as they were the easiest to get out of after an accident. Remember that race cars typically have people waiting in the event of an accident to assist in removing the person from the car. In a more typical accident, it can be much longer before help arrives. As a result, seat belt setups must be easy…
The 5 point racing harnesses have a very easy to use quick release on it, as it releases all the straps at once. You don't have to unthread your arm from it, like you do with a typical car 3 point system, and the release on typical auto belts is inferior. The webbing is narrower and thinner, too. I wonder if that was a factor in the Volvo study.
Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
101–110 of 125 posts
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've often wondered how many lives would be saved if people wore helmets during daily driving. I'd bet a lot . Of course, good luck getting people to do it.
I would not be surprised if helmet usage increased serious accidents/injuries and fatalities. The peripheral vision (for crossing roads, rotaries, and spotting pedestrians) is vastly worse wearing a helmet, at least the SA full-face helmets I've worn in amateur motorsports. Race tracks don't have most of those hazards, and control most of the pedestrian hazards, with the limited pedestrians on the hot side of the pit…
Which is why the research into this topic focuses more on headbands, which mostly protect the forehead, than the entire head. See http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-scien... for a summary of Australian research and a sketch of the head gear. They quote:
> But more impressive were the estimates of introducing protective headwear for car occupants. The authors of the report estimated that the annual reduction in harm would be in the order of $380 million. The benefit of padding the head is that the head is protected from strikes with unpadded automotive components, exterior objects and in vehicles that predate any eventual introduction of padded interiors."
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#103http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/11297...
This study examined the hypotheses that vehicles meeting EU safety standards perform similarly to US regulated vehicles in the US driving environment, and vice versa. The analyses used three statistical approaches to “triangulate” evidence regarding differences in crash and injury risk. Separate analyses assessed crash avoidance technologies, including headlamps and mirrors. The results suggest that when controlling for differences in environment and exposure, vehicles meeting EU standards offer reduced risk of serious injury in frontal/side crashes and have driver-side mirrors that reduce risk in lane-change crashes better, while vehicles meeting US standards provide a lower risk of injury in rollovers and have headlamps that make pedestrians more conspicuous.
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#104Where can I read the actual report?
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not be surprised if helmet usage increased serious accidents/injuries and fatalities. The peripheral vision (for crossing roads, rotaries, and spotting pedestrians) is vastly worse wearing a helmet, at least the SA full-face helmets I've worn in amateur motorsports. Race tracks don't have most of those hazards, and control most of the pedestrian hazards, with the limited pedestrians on the hot side of the pit…
Agree massively with this. Most of the problems with drivers these days seem to be caused by inattention, sleepyness etc. The first thing anyone says in a small ish accident (especially as a cyclist/motorcyclist) is SORRY MATE DIDN'T SEE YOU THERE
So imagine that blocking a good section of your forward vision, and a helmet blocking anything to the sides... motorcycles have very small blind spots as the rider can swivel anywhere with no cage blocking them. Helmets are a minor contributor. But cars don't have that luxury.
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#106Earlier 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.
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 human…
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 en…
I'm interested in how these redundancies have accumulated over the life of building aircraft. They're obviously for good reason. However the recent news pieces comparing electric aircraft, I wonder if there's a lot of efficiencies on the table for conventional aircraft if they could just drop in a modern engine like you might find in a race car.
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#109I 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
Re: Car industry 'buried report revealing US car safety flaws over fears for TTIP'
#110At 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…
Regarding the airbags. The US now requires advanced frontal airbags in all passenger cars and light trucks. It started phasing them in back in 2003. Moreover prior in 1997 the NHTSA permitted depowered airbags which rapidly became the norm. Here is a nice FAQ with more details:
http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/Air+Bags/Advanced+F...
Now for the gist and background: In the '70s GM pioneered research into airbags (as an aside the interior of the contemporary Volvo SCC which became the 240 simply looked like a bumper car instead https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12042626... ). In the world as a whole (not just US) seat belt use was dismal. So initially it was hoped that they could be used without seat belts. Since the original systems were so cumbersome (for example one of them used a bottle of compressed gas) and complicated (the original acceptable switches were wighted metal balls with rings of conductors and springs) it took quite a while for them to get developed to the point that they were acceptably reliable, safe, and priced. To give an example, one consideration not immediately obvious is how the head rebounds off the airbag and into what with how much force. It took quite a lot of development that is not appreciated my most people these days, very worthwhile effort which has saved and improved the quality of life for many.
Yet by that point in time seat belt use was still abysmal in US. In some parts of Western Europe it was improving more rapidly. So policy was in US for the airbags to deploy faster and bigger (which might not be expected, but the reason is that the occupant might be not where you expect, for example sliding down into the footwell or about to be ejected from a window). The interesting aspect to this is that there is data that the US style was even better for belted adult occupants (of not small stature - more on that in a bit) in more severe accidents. This is because until the more recent advent of seat belt pretensioners and later knee bolsters it was common for occupants to slide under the steering wheel while braking or have their chest pulled in to closer than 10" from the air bag cover from same braking.
One other thing to keep in mind is that air bags were seen as a supplemental restraint system due to the lack of seat belt use in US and the requirements were initially for there to be such an SRS in place (not necessarily airbags) for certain fleet percentages by certain dates. One unexpected result was that airbag fleet saturation was lower than predicted initially due to a fluke of history. Airbags by that point used explosive charges and there were a number of snafus in their manufacture initially related to that. Ford in particular was very hard hit but a number of European makes faced shortages as well. That shortage and changing US regulation were two more reason why Peugeot pulled-out of US market since they could not surmount in a profitable manner for example. This led to the proliferation of systems that would have the shoulder belt in place at all times. Chrysler in particular benefited greatly from dumb luck in that the suppliers it had picked did not have any factories blow-up essentially and even had marketing in place at the time touting how their cars had airbags while their competitors did not.
Now back to short occupants: It was realized that the airbags were injuring or killing occupants in some cases early on. Again at that time seat belt use was still poor in US. So aftermarket airbag cut-off switches were permitted. There was also a process for having them certified for use. It was not uncommon for people that needed them (smaller drivers, those that needed to transport a child in the front, elderly, and so on) to have them installed at a dealer and shortly after that they became common place in US cars which were most likely to need them (such as pickups) as standard equipment.