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

91–100 of 125 posts

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

#91

Post by mzs »

DanBC wrote: post #59
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/fi…

I like the saying "thumbs-up for thumbs-out!"

There's more to it than the airbag. In an accident the steering wheel can carry a lot of force. Frangible and later collapsible steering columns (and now common power steering) have alleviated by a lot but it is still quite a lot of force. You don't want just pushing or pulling vigorously on on the wheel or a huge pothole to affect it. In the time before airbags when these things were created it was more to prevent breaking too many ribs while impaling the driver.

So anyway, problem to this day is that the wheel can wretch around by many degrees very rapidly in an accident. This can break a thumb or what not. So don't wrap your thumb around the wheel but have them more in a Fonzie thumbs-up jut off to the outside.

In the time before airbags it was also recommended to take your hands off the wheel and have your forearms over your chest and chest and hands over face the moment you no longer had control and could not regain it before the impact. This protected your ribs and face. The advice now is to bring your hands up to your armpits without any crossing or covering in an airbag equipped car.

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

#92

Post by cptskippy »

colomon wrote: post #75
mcv wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure exactly what the grandparent was trying to say, but seat belts became mandatory new car features in the US back in the 1960s. Airbags became mandatory new car features in the early 1990s. On the other hand, I believe seat belt usage was still under 50% in the early 1990s [1], when the airbag legislation was being written. (I was born in 1970, and the first time I remember wearing a seatbelt was the summe…

Light-duty trucks aren't considered cars in many states and so laws like seat belt requirements and emissions standards don't apply to them. I think it was just this past summer that seat belts became mandatory in trucks in Georgia. It wasn't until 2009 that light-duty trucks needed to be emissions tested and there's still all kinds of exclusions.

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

#93

Post by jessaustin »

the-dude wrote: post #57
alkonaut wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are always tradeoffs. In this case, risk compensation might lead a seat-belted driver to drive in more reckless fashion.

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

#94

Post by snowwrestler »

WalterBright wrote: post #36
mootothemax wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same racing drivers who have to wear top-line racing helmets connected to HANS devices, wear fire-resistant overalls, have medical teams on immediate standby, and who are often strapped in by their mechanics before heading off? I think you may be overlooking an awful lot of what makes modern motor racing safer than it was in the past. (and that's ignoring the number of serious injuries and driver deaths that stil…

I'm looking at the kind of accidents where an airbag is supposed to be effective. An airbag will do nothing for you if the car is burning. The first and foremost safety device in a race car is the racing belt. The belt means you slow down with the car, which is much less deceleration than if your body hits the dashboard. (The point of crumple zones in the car is to reduced peak deceleration. In order for that to work…

An airbag allows the driver's head to experience even lower deceleration than the car, because it gives the head an extra 1-2 feet in which to decelerate--the distance between the upright position and smashed into the deployed airbag.

When wearing a 5-point harness without a helmet and head restraint, the deceleration delta between the car and the head will be entirely borne by the structure of the neck, which is how Dale Earnhardt died.

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

#95

Post by ska »

petewailes wrote: post #29
alkonaut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure but I think airbags do detonate on most cars, regardless of the seat belt status. It would be too complicated or unreliable to couple the two systems. However: an airbag isn't very effective (and could even be dangerous) without the seat belt, so manufacturers in Europe aren't really required to worry about the safety without seat belts. Effectively the safety regulations say: those with no seat belts ar…

With regards to your first point, they do detonate. It's a question of how. The main difference is the force with which they go off. In Europe, it's assumed you're wearing a seatbelt, so the force is less, which results in a lower likelihood of injury, compared to a US airbag. Personally, I prefer the European model - wear a seatbelt and you'll be fine, don't and it's on you.

   Personally, I prefer the European model - wear a seatbelt and you'll be fine, don't and it's on you.
The other way around is kind of insane - you increase the risk for everybody who is using their safety equipment properly, for the benefit of those who can't be bothered.

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

#96

Post by ska »

WalterBright wrote: post #25
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!

I'd rather have racing-style belts and no air bag. Racing style go over both shoulders, are wider, and are fixed length. There are some horrific crashes in auto racing and the drivers walk away. That convinces me.

5 point harnesses are completely impractical with many types and styles of clothing.

I don't know if you can legally install one to replace your 3 point by choice, but if you mandated them I suspect seat belt usage would plummet, which seems counterproductive.

For that matter, mandated helmet usage would improve many types of injuries, but I don't see that flying either.

From a public safety point of view, many of these decisions are more about balancing compliance and safety, rather than safety alone.

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

#97

Post by jessaustin »

7952 wrote: post #69
Maarten88 wrote: post #3

So the report was published normally, and this "burying" consists of lobyists not talking about it much? And therefore the press not writing about it much? Press and politics seem to be depending on lobyists to determine the agenda, and even do their work sometimes, which I think is a problem that has gotten out of hand, and not only in the car industry.

It is also a lack of civic society. There are not enough mainstream organisations fighting these issues.

At this address you will find six pages of links to such organizations: https://www.aaafoundation.org/useful-links

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

#98

Post by jessaustin »

pjc50 wrote: post #79
adaml_623 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/faste…

The US fleet tends to be heavier on average, surely? More SUVs/light trucks, larger vehicles in general.

Crash survival depends on the dissipation of kinetic energy into the structures of the vehicle rather than the structures of the human body. Even in well-designed vehicles, more kinetic energy means more danger.

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

#99

Post by yarper »

sokoloff wrote: post #81
forgetsusername wrote: post #77

Earlier 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…

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

Post reply on HN