[Ndptbudd]

The auto industry is trying to make their cars "safer," but what are they actually doing? They say that if the car gets damaged more easily then it is absorbing the force of the accident. But what does this really do? It makes it harder to recover the car. It forces you to buy a new car, and put more money in the hands of the scare mongering auto corporations. Airbags? This is an expensive part to replace, and can go off when the force of impact isn't even enough to hurt you. Why? You guessed it, to make money.

The auto corporations are trying to make you think you are safer and safer. Not only does this mean that their cars are more expensive and easier to break, but it also makes the drivers more careless. If it is easier to survive, you aren't going to be trying to avoid accidents. Also, by making the cars break easier, it also reduces productions costs as the materials don't have to hold up. Don't get the idea that they are passing the savings onto the consumer.

Remember the heavier and harder the car, the more likely you are to survive the accident. It means your car has more momentum and isn't going to stop quickly on impact. This is the reason why trucks always beat motorcycles in collisions.

[imictiorume]

[rofl]
sarcasm at its best.....right?

[OShellszz]

[rofl]
sarcasm at its best.....right?

No no, he's on to something.

[Dokescoonse]

reminds me a the time i took a dump in my front seat of my volvo it was a werid looking turd

[Sukadrukanga]

Not sure if you're joking or not, but I'd have to agree with you either way that cars these days are tin cans.

I feel much safer knowing that I'm in a vehicle that won't bust in half after hitting a post doing 40MPH or something... Don't make 'em like the use to. Blame it on the ricers.

[Dokescoonse]

it is simple energy cant be created or destoyed only converted .so i rather the car absorb the energy then my body

[Sukadrukanga]

it is simple energy cant be created or destoyed only converted .so i rather the car absorb the energy then my body

There's a pretty big difference between adding things here and there to absorb impacts and having cars be ripped right through.

[AdvertisingPo]

The purspose of a seatbelt it to keep you restrained inside the kill zone instead of being safely ejected through the windshield in the case of a head on collision.

Without seatbelts, we could all happily engage in deliberate head on collisions without the rash judgements propogated by road safety gestapo propaganda.

Thesh has opened Pandora's Box here.

Well that's what Pandora said anyway.
.

[vqIo7X2U]

Without seatbelts, we could all happily engage in deliberate head on collisions without the rash judgements propogated by road safety gestapo propaganda.

Just like in the game Flat Out? That'd be banana's! brb, gonna try it out.

[maonnjtip]

The auto industry is trying to make their cars "safer," but what are they actually doing? They say that if the car gets damaged more easily then it is absorbing the force of the accident. But what does this really do? It makes it harder to recover the car. It forces you to buy a new car, and put more money in the hands of the scare mongering auto corporations. Airbags? This is an expensive part to replace, and can go off when the force of impact isn't even enough to hurt you. Why? You guessed it, to make money.

The auto corporations are trying to make you think you are safer and safer. Not only does this mean that their cars are more expensive and easier to break, but it also makes the drivers more careless.If it is easier to survive, you aren't going to be trying to avoid accidents. Also, by making the cars break easier, it also reduces productions costs as the materials don't have to hold up. Don't get the idea that they are passing the savings onto the consumer.

Remember the heavier and harder the car, the more likely you are to survive the accident. It means your car has more momentum and isn't going to stop quickly on impact. This is the reason why trucks always beat motorcycles in collisions.

You have a point on the money-making part, but the rest I'm going to disagree with you.

"If it is easier to survive, you aren't going to be trying to avoid accidents"
- I'm guessing a lot of people try to avoid accidents to avoid the hassle with insurance, car replacement/repair etc and general annoyance. I sure as hell don't want to let down my guard just because I'm more likely to survive an accident in a safer vehicle.

"Remember the heavier and harder the car, the more likely you are to survive the accident. It means your car has more momentum and isn't going to stop quickly on impact. This is the reason why trucks always beat motorcycles in collisions"
- If most people drove super heavy, super hard vehicles, then what? During a collision, it would be a bigger problem transferring the impact energy away from the passengers than if the vehicles were lighter ones with crumple zones.

[Immonnaornach]

People get injured in car accidents because of the massive force they feel when they're car comes to almost immediate stop. Think about it. Your car hits a wall, you go from 60-0 mph in less than a fraction of a second. That's a massive negative acceration you're feeling. Force is proportional to acceleration. Have a big acceleration? You've got yourself a huge force.

Say you're moving 30 meters per second. You hit another car and in this case lets say your car is rigid and does not crumple much. You come to a stop in .01 seconds. Do the math. You've just accelerated 3000 m/s^2 in the other direction. Lets say you weigh 60kg. You've just experienced the force of 180000 newtons. That's equivalent the force of an 18000kg mass resting on the ground. You die. Lets say it takes closer to a second to stop in a different car that crumples. The acceleration is simply 30 m/s^2 and you only experience a force of 1800 newtons (the weight of maybe one or two people.) That's a big difference. And that's what saves lives.

The whole point of a car having crumple zones and getting crushed in an accident is to help increase the amount of time it takes for your body to come to a stop. If it takes longer to stop, the acceleration is less, and you feel lesser a force and you're body does not get ripped apart.

Also, by making the cars break easier, it also reduces productions costs as the materials don't have to hold up. Don't get the idea that they are passing the savings onto the consumer.

Even if the materials held up, it doesn't do you much good if you're dead.

[EmpokemyMok]

If they really wanted to make cars safe all they have to do is incorporate a roll cage into the car. It doesnt even have to be visible because it would go right where the pillar supports are already located. It would add about 100 extra pounds to the car but the strength of the cage is well worth that IMO. Side impacts, front impacts, rear impacts roll over it doesnt matter. It would protect you to the fullest and as long as you had a good seat belt you would walk out of the accident just fine. Maybe sore and bruised but you would live to see another day.



I should know I only rolled 6 times doing 130mph in this car. I walked out of it like nothing happened. The 5 point harness kept me firmly in my seat. It left bad bruises on my shoulders and waist but I was perfectly fine. Very sore but fine.

[Immonnaornach]

If they really wanted to make cars safe all they have to do is incorporate a roll cage into the car. It doesnt even have to be visible because it would go right where the pillar supports are already located. It would add about 100 extra pounds to the car but the strength of the cage is well worth that IMO. Side impacts, front impacts, rear impacts roll over it doesnt matter. It would protect you to the fullest and as long as you had a good seat belt you would walk out of the accident just fine. Maybe sore and bruised but you would live to see another day.



I should know I only rolled 6 times doing 130mph in this car. I walked out of it like nothing happened. The 5 point harness kept me firmly in my seat. It left bad bruises on my shoulders and waist but I was perfectly fine. Very sore but fine.

Rolling won't give you the same forces you get when you come to an almost immediate stop traveling at a high speed. In this case, the roll cage protects you from a roll. Exactly what it's supposed to do.

Glad you made it out though.

[qCGfQR9T]

A rollcage only works with a harness and if all other cars on the road are fitted with rollcages, much like how it is in racing pretty much.

I really hope the thread maker is taking the piss.

[NewYorkDoctorD]

Rolling won't give you the same forces you get when you come to an almost immediate stop traveling at a high speed. In this case, the roll cage protects you from a roll. Exactly what it's supposed to do.

Glad you made it out though.

The best benefit I can think of for a roll cage is one he mentioned: one can safely use a racing harness while mitigating the risk of it becoming a deathtrap if the roof were to cave in.
The 4 or 5 point safety harness is more effective than a 3 point seat belt with a pretensioner in a frontal collision since it keeps the body safely away from the rest of the interior of the car and also cradles the body better.

[Ndptbudd]

You have a point on the money-making part, but the rest I'm going to disagree with you.

"If it is easier to survive, you aren't going to be trying to avoid accidents"
- I'm guessing a lot of people try to avoid accidents to avoid the hassle with insurance, car replacement/repair etc and general annoyance. I sure as hell don't want to let down my guard just because I'm more likely to survive an accident in a safer vehicle.

"Remember the heavier and harder the car, the more likely you are to survive the accident. It means your car has more momentum and isn't going to stop quickly on impact. This is the reason why trucks always beat motorcycles in collisions"
- If most people drove super heavy, super hard vehicles, then what? During a collision, it would be a bigger problem transferring the impact energy away from the passengers than if the vehicles were lighter ones with crumple zones.

There is only one problem with all of this. Since 1992, fatal traffic accidents have been steadily increasing. Who are we to blame for this? The drivers? I think not. Most likely the car corporations, whose cars are designed to be easily destroyed, without offering any real safety improvements.

[maonnjtip]

There is only one problem with all of this. Since 1992, fatal traffic accidents have been steadily increasing. Who are we to blame for this? The drivers? I think not. Most likely the car corporations, whose cars are designed to be easily destroyed, without offering any real safety improvements.

I don't have (and have not researched it) the statistics, but you're assuming a direct correlation with the increasing number of fatal traffic accidents in the last decade. How about the number of cars on the road? Have they not increased as well? Perhaps a fatal accident to number of vehicles on the road ratio may be a better metric.

[Ndptbudd]

I don't have (and have not researched it) the statistics, but you're assuming a direct correlation with the increasing number of fatal traffic accidents in the last decade. How about the number of cars on the road? Have they not increased as well? Perhaps a fatal accident to number of vehicles on the road ratio may be a better metric.

I don't really have those statistics, although I can say that most of the increase has come from motorcycle accidents which proves my point about both momentum and carelessness.

[maonnjtip]

I don't really have those statistics, although I can say that most of the increase has come from motorcycle accidents which proves my point about both momentum and carelessness.

Surely you're not suggesting that cars and motorcycles be made as heavy and huge as trucks? Because only then will every common vehicle be about the same mass class.

[Ndptbudd]

Surely you're not suggesting that cars and motorcycles be made as heavy and huge as trucks? Because only then will every common vehicle be about the same mass class.

As long as mine is bigger, that's all that matters