How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for? • Hacker News Board

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#171

Post by clifdweller » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

fractionalhare wrote: post #110

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For almost everyone 18-40 year old, driving less is one of the healthiest decisions you can make. A little nitpick: Motorcycling, cycling, and walking are all significantly worse than traveling by car. If this interests you, it's possible to find a lot more interesting research by searching for "microlife" and "micromort".

Is that a typo, or do you teally mean cycling and walking are significantly worse than traveling by car? Are both of those activities actually more dangerous? I would have thought cycling and walking - even in urban settings! - are safer activities than driving, statistically.

This is probably an area where I wouldn't just trust statistics. During pandemic I've tried out many new running routes and one particular stretch of road i have had 4 incidents of me having to move to not be hit by a car that didn't see me wheras on other routes its happened 5 times in 6 years.( The cause is its people coming out of a neighborhood with lots of stop signs then they get to main road that is busy and are impatient and looking for a hole to slip into). It really makes each persons situation different as traffic patterns also changes throughout the day.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#172

Post by mixmastamyk » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #164

For those who find this website's edge to edge text maddening to read on large displays, I highly recommend Sakura ( https://github.com/oxalorg/sakura ) for a one-click fix for badly formatted websites.

Reader mode is another option on most browsers.

However, it can also be said that a full-screen browser on a landscape widescreen monitor is "doing it wrong."

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#173

Post by watertom » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #83

dublinben wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that there aren't meaningfully significant differences between car brands. Driving itself is just very dangerous. Other forms of transportation like buses, trains, and airplanes are orders of magnitude safer.[0] If you want to make yourself safer, avoid driving as much as possible. [0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...

For almost everyone 18-40 year old, driving less is one of the healthiest decisions you can make. A little nitpick: Motorcycling, cycling, and walking are all significantly worse than traveling by car. If this interests you, it's possible to find a lot more interesting research by searching for "microlife" and "micromort".

Motorcycles are 4% less likely to be involved in an accident, however motorcyclists are 27 TIMES more likely to die if they are in an accident.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-motorcyc...

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#174

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

andykellr wrote: post #26

laegooose wrote: post #5

The whole car safety topic is very confusing. Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1]. Probably less in Europe but still one of the leading ones. I was thinking about how I can make myself safer. Which car brand/model is better? Which seat is better for passenger? How much riskier it is to drive during the night? In the rain? How dangerous is it to overtake on road with 1 lane…

This reminds me of the fact that my grandmother who recently passed away at 96 refused to make left turns. She stopped driving years ago, but before she did, my father would always help her find a way to get to the pharmacy, the grocery store, church, and family and friends houses making only right turns. Sometimes she went miles out of her way.

Transgender icon J Edgar Hoover did the same.

If it was for safety or because he hated lefties is not clear.

https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/27/archives/exagent-says-hoo...

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#175

Post by natch » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:34 PM UTC

natch wrote: post #75

This is the most confusing article I've seen from danluu. What data was used? The glaring incongruity for me arose from the details on Tesla. "For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) " Note the words "above poor." But in the bullet points danluu uses a different scale that doesn't match this prose,…

>very first production year for Model 2.

Too late to edit but that should have said "Model S."

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#176

Post by GloriousKoji » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

DavidPeiffer wrote: post #31

Does anyone know of a way to objectively compare safety ratings between different eras of cars? The standards for safety ratings change periodically, and great strides have been made in safety. I'm curious how much risk I'd remove by upgrading from a 2010 to a 2015 or 2018. Driver death data [1] mentioned below may be the best source, just curious if there are any others. Also, [2] is a really interesting crash test…

As much as I like driving a car into the ground, I think getting a new car every 10 years is the sweet spot between safety upgrades, frugality and shiny new toy.

Here's some highlights and keep in mind there's a lag between the first car with a feature and it becoming a widely adopted standard. And of course each new feature is always being improved. 1959 - First car with 3 point seat belt as standard 1971 - First car with anti-skid brakes (ABS precursor) 1978 - First car with electronic 4 wheel ABS 1983 - First car with anti-skid control (ESC precusor) 1995 - First car with ESC 1997 - Curtain air bags 2002 - Knee air bags 2004 - Lane keeping assist 2009 - First car with emergency pedestrian braking 2009 - Rear-seat center airbags 2010 - Seat belt airbags 2016 - Tesla Autopilot 2018 - Reverse cameras become mandatory

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#177

Post by kiliantics » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:35 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

laegooose wrote: post #5

The whole car safety topic is very confusing. Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1]. Probably less in Europe but still one of the leading ones. I was thinking about how I can make myself safer. Which car brand/model is better? Which seat is better for passenger? How much riskier it is to drive during the night? In the rain? How dangerous is it to overtake on road with 1 lane…

Drive the largest vehicle you can. When in a collision the momentum is converted to crushing force, you want to be in the less-crushable vehicle. Hey this may be an unpopular choice, but it is the one with the biggest safety impact! And that was the question.

It's definitely not an unpopular choice, since SUV sales are skyrocketing

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#178

Post by cuu508 » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

occamrazor wrote: post #84

sjwright wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you could also safely drive an F1 car from the driver’s seat by limiting your speed to 40 km/h.

I doubt a normal driver would be able to drive a F1 at any speed. Just keeping it below 40 km/h would be impossible.

The car itself can limit speed like they already do in pit lanes

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#179

Post by csours » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

strict9 wrote: post #58

Whenever metrics are instrumented that measure productivity, safety, quality, or efficiency, the metrics and metrics alone are what matter, not the over arching goal. Whether it's car crashes, fuel efficiency, lines of code, completed tickets, OKRs, or anything else, players in the system adjust to optimize output for the evaluated metric. A tale as old as time.

The more direct control people have of a metric, the more likely it is to be gamed. Some metrics are almost guaranteed to be meaningless and unproductive: bug counts (open/closed), lines of code, closed tickets.

Other metrics are informative, but game-able: fuel efficiency, crash tests.

Other metrics are expensive and potentially confusing: customer satisfaction, number of automotive deaths, CO2 levels, pollution levels.

If you are measuring a game-able metric, you should probably also measure a higher level metric and make sure that they are both heading in the same direction.

Obviously this is expensive and complicated to figure out.

Re: How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

#180

Post by ghaff » Tue, Jun 30, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

jhardy54 wrote: post #169

ghaff wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a time-based rate based on (presumably) lifetime hours. Obviously if a residence is on fire, you're at high risk. But the rate of that happening is quite low.

That would make sense, except the unit is 'Fatalities per million hours'. Maybe they mean "fatalities from residential fire per million hours of living in a residence"?

I assume it means "per million hours of living." (Though I guess it could be "per million hours of living in a residence")