|
evil_bunnY posted:I don't understand why you'd drive with 00 buck aimed at your face for 2 years instead of getting another wheel. No airbag beats one that'll kill you more often than not. Takata airbags are not a shotgun aimed at your face. Basically every takata airbag under 10 years old will be fine in an accident, with some acceleration for high heat and humidity locations. The odds of even a 15 year old Takata removing your face is lower than the odds that the same airbag will save your life. Car companies can disable your airbag pretty easily (in most cases you just need to pull a fuse), but they didn't. They didn't for the simple fact that they'd have more liability from people being killed from no airbag deployments compared to the very rare takata explosion. They have also staggered the airbag deployment schedule to address the cars that need them first. Cars that are old or in high heat and humidity climates get them first. A couple year old takata has about zero percent chance of hurting you, so it will get them eventually. It is all fairly scary in the abstract, but you are far more likely to be killed in a car accident in a takata car when the airbags work properly (or don't work) because of the nature of the accident than being in an accident when a takata airbag kills you. Only 17 people have been killed by takata airbags world wide, 12 in the US. Total. 36,000 people a year die in auto accidents every year. That is about 100 per day. This is a literal drop in the bucket. There are 60 million airbags subject to recall, I'd say most of those airbags must be working fine. nm fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jul 24, 2017 |
# ? Jul 24, 2017 00:57 |
|
|
# ? May 17, 2024 14:31 |
|
schmuckfeatures posted:i'm not seeing any big reason to disagree with this
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 05:02 |
|
SniperWoreConverse posted:What changes would it take to make this Throw in some scooby-doos as well nm posted:It is all fairly scary in the abstract, but you are far more likely to be killed in a car accident in a takata car when the airbags work properly (or don't work) because of the nature of the accident than being in an accident when a takata airbag kills you. Only 17 people have been killed by takata airbags world wide, 12 in the US. Total. 36,000 people a year die in auto accidents every year. That is about 100 per day. This is a literal drop in the bucket. There are 60 million airbags subject to recall, I'd say most of those airbags must be working fine. 18, now.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 09:17 |
|
I think despite those low numbers there's something especially horrifying about a safety device that ends up killing people. It's psychology.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 11:51 |
|
Also, getting them replaced under recall might not actually be doing anything
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 11:53 |
|
If this is true: Mo_Steel posted:Nah, it'll be in the owner's manual for scheduled maintenance. Have them replaced every 'n' years. Then replacing them with new versions of the same device isn't a bad thing. Just bad PR.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 15:15 |
|
Not being disclosed is not good. However, a fair number of companies have done this iirc. Basically a 0 day airbag has no chance of exploding. So if you have a bunch of 15 year old airbags running around, can't get fixed ones and have a horde of new airbags in your spares department, by replacing a 15 year old airbag with a new airbag, you reduce the risk of death. Manufacturers who do this with disclosure will of course replace the airbag with a fixed one when they get it.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 15:31 |
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Judge once you have watched these vids.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 15:55 |
|
~~*It came from Reddit*~~ Blowing glass on a floaty in the pool.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 17:51 |
|
Yawgmoth posted:I will be forever disappointed they did not name it the Carnacle. Carbuncle
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 19:47 |
|
Three-Phase posted:I think despite those low numbers there's something especially horrifying about a safety device that ends up killing people. It's psychology. Probably all safety devices end up killing people, though. Safety is hard, and in almost every example of safety equipment there'll be cases where the safety equipment ended up killing someone. Seat belt? Trapped underwater or in a car on fire, couldn't get out in time. Parachute? Motorcycle helmet? Spine broke because of the extra mass up there on the guy's head. Speed bump? Ambulance got stuck and didn't make it in time. Stop signs on every corner? People get complacent and roll through them. Chicanes are good because they're traffic-calming, but then someone gets distracted and drives right off the road. Then there's risk compensation, where people protected by safety equipment engage in risks they wouldn't otherwise have engaged in. People driving cars with ABS follow closer and brake later, people with seatbelts drive faster, bicycle fatalities are positively associated with bike helmet use. The point of safety equipment is that's it's on the whole safer, not that it never occasionally kills someone. Granted, I can't come up with an example of arc flash PPE killing someone, but it's probably happened.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 20:14 |
|
Phanatic posted:Granted, I can't come up with an example of arc flash PPE killing someone, but it's probably happened. *dies of heat exhaustion wearing it to a fetish ball*
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 20:18 |
|
Phanatic posted:Probably all safety devices end up killing people, though. Safety is hard, and in almost every example of safety equipment there'll be cases where the safety equipment ended up killing someone. Seat belt? Trapped underwater or in a car on fire, couldn't get out in time. Parachute? Motorcycle helmet? Spine broke because of the extra mass up there on the guy's head. Speed bump? Ambulance got stuck and didn't make it in time. Stop signs on every corner? People get complacent and roll through them. Chicanes are good because they're traffic-calming, but then someone gets distracted and drives right off the road. Then there's risk compensation, where people protected by safety equipment engage in risks they wouldn't otherwise have engaged in. People driving cars with ABS follow closer and brake later, people with seatbelts drive faster, bicycle fatalities are positively associated with bike helmet use. Probably made someone walk right up to an arc flash, thinking "i'm wearing a suit, it'll be fine," then having it overwhelm the suit.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 20:19 |
|
cakesmith handyman posted:*dies of heat exhaustion wearing it to a fetish ball* Hey don't kinkshame. But seriously it sucks wearing Level 2, and Level 3 or 4 is much worse, except some of those suits come with little built-in cooling fans and pockets for ice packs. Also things like electrical lineman gloves and the leather gloves that go over them are extremely cumbersome.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 20:36 |
|
Three-Phase posted:Hey don't kinkshame. I was doing exterior electrical distribution walkdowns last week in central missouri. It was about 98 degrees, heat index in the 110s. I was outside 8-9 hours a day wearing Cat 2 clothing and I was miserable. When I put my cat 2 gloves on they kept slipping inside from all the sweat pooling at the fingers. And I usually don't ever sweat. If I had to wear HRC 4 I'd have died, no question. It was worse than the job I did last year this time in the Mojave. It was almost as bad as northern Japan in the winter.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 22:52 |
|
GnarlyCharlie4u posted:~~*It came from Reddit*~~ That is disturbing lol
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 23:05 |
|
Phanatic posted:Then there's risk compensation, where people protected by safety equipment engage in risks they wouldn't otherwise have engaged in. People driving cars with ABS follow closer and brake later, people with seatbelts drive faster, bicycle fatalities are positively associated with bike helmet use.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 23:48 |
|
the next time i get pulled over for speeding ill tell the officer i only did it cause i was wearing a seatbelt. he had to let me off without a ticket then.
|
# ? Jul 24, 2017 23:56 |
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This is libertarian horseshit that can't stand up to serious peer review. you could just remove the text of phantic's post and you would still be correct. Its kind of his gimmick.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:00 |
|
Nerses IV posted:I once had stucco guys that would grind the tips off of broken cables poking out the side of the slab and then stucco over it. It made tracking them down again a whole bunch of fun.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:01 |
|
lol @ that bike helmet opinionhttp://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(16)30366-X/fulltext posted:Statistics from the American Journal of Surgery, 2016
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:05 |
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This is libertarian horseshit that can't stand up to serious peer review. Appeal to popularity fallacy
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:17 |
|
Pander posted:Cat 2 clothing
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:18 |
|
shame on an IGA posted:lol @ that bike helmet opinion Obviously helmets work if you get hit in the head, but I feel like those stats don't tell the full story since anti-helmet stances say that more crashes happen due to riders' overconfidence in their gear's protection and others (like car drivers) being more careful around unhelmeted riders. I'd also want to see stats on reported collisions per distance and TBI per distance, helmeted vs unhelmeted
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:28 |
|
What are the stats on people with bullet proof vests being shot? People with fallout shelters getting nuked?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 00:46 |
|
Is this to make my cat more anxious?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 01:00 |
|
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 01:01 |
|
FogHelmut posted:What are the stats on people with bullet proof vests being shot? People with fallout shelters getting nuked? Nobody with a fallout shelter has been nuked in over 70 years. They just flat out work. Statistically, people wearing a bulletproof vest have an increased chance of getting shot.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 01:01 |
|
See, this is how people drive when they're wearing seat belts.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 01:19 |
|
Azhais posted:Is this to make my cat more anxious? could be
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 01:44 |
|
Powershift posted:Nobody with a fallout shelter has been nuked in over 70 years. They just flat out work. Even Presidents and Popes get shot and yet survived, that means bulletproof vests are useless. Ok, Reagan was hit by a magic bullet that ricocheted off of the door and went into his armpit, but he was wearing the vest!
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 01:55 |
|
Sentient Data posted:Obviously helmets work if you get hit in the head, but I feel like those stats don't tell the full story since anti-helmet stances say that more crashes happen due to riders' overconfidence in their gear's protection and others (like car drivers) being more careful around unhelmeted riders. I mean, the first bit is true (I read it on a study once, and those never lie obviously) but I sincerely doubt the effect of added carelessness on both the bicyclist's and car drivers' part is enough to come even close to offsetting the massive gains in safety you get from wearing a helmet while bicycling. In other words, it's a lovely excuse used only by idiots. Not wearing a helmet while bicycling is just plain loving stupidity. e: For clarity I'm calling myself an idiot here too
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 11:53 |
|
shame on an IGA posted:lol @ that bike helmet opinion Yes but you see that's just confirmation bias at work. There's probably > 3x as many people who ride their bikes without a helmet who have a lower per-capita injury rate due to the fact that they ride extra carefully because they know they're constantly at risk for massive, life-altering injuries. Plus people who feel "safe" from head injuries will ride more aggressively and have a higher incidence of injuries that helmets wouldn't prevent. Ergo bike helmets actually cause injuries!
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:37 |
|
Bike helmets are for countries with lovely bike infrastructure, and lycra fetishists
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:44 |
|
Jeoh posted:Bike helmets are for countries with lovely bike infrastructure, and lycra fetishists hot take: Bicycles cause ISIS attacks
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:45 |
|
We were warned.quote:ISIS Drive, the International Splined Interface Standard, is a non-proprietary splined specification for the interface between a bicycle crankset and the bottom bracket spindle. It was created by King Cycle Group, Truvativ, and Race Face.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:53 |
|
race face
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:55 |
|
Wear helmets when riding a bike people. One saved me from some serious brain injury when I hit a small stone that threw me off the bike on to my head. Because of the helmet I got to walk away with some scratches. Just because some idiots go faster because they feel safer doesn't mean you shouldn't wear one. Same with seatbelts. Not wearing one just because you're "Careful" is just as stupid as accidents happen regardless if you are wearing one or not.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:58 |
|
drat thats good
|
# ? Jul 25, 2017 14:58 |
|
|
# ? May 17, 2024 14:31 |
|
Cugel the Clever posted:This is libertarian horseshit that can't stand up to serious peer review. Here's a literature review that shows you're pretty loving wrong: http://www.steunpuntverkeersveiligheid.be/sites/default/files/RA-2006-95.pdf ABS: http://arsrpe.acrs.org.au/index.cfm?action=main.paper&id=444 quote:This assesses the effect of anti-lock brake systems (ABS) on driver injury risk and injury severity through analysis of real crash outcomes reported by Police in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. Information on the presence or absence of ABS on crashed vehicles was provided by participating vehicle manufacturers and matched to the Police reported crash data. A total of 40,739 records were available for analysis. The statistical analysis examined the effectiveness of ABS in terms of both primary and secondary safety. Primary safety effects have been assessed using induced exposure methods employing crashes where the focus vehicle is impacted in the side by another vehicle as the induced exposure measure. Secondary safety effects were evaluated using Poisson and logistic regression models that examined the effectiveness of ABS on the risk and severity of driver injury in the event of a crash whilst controlling for other factors that may affect the safety outcome such as driver age and sex, vehicle model and speed limit at the crash location. ABS braking systems were generally found to have no statistically significant effects on secondary safety outcomes. In terms of primary safety, changes in the distribution of crash type for ABS equipped vehicles were detected as were changes in absolute risk for certain crash types. Vehicles fitted with ABS had lower risk of crashing with other vehicles. However, a higher risk of run off road type crashes for ABS equipped resulted in a net zero change in risk across all crash types. These results are consistent with those estimated in previous overseas studies. Airbags: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/467331 quote:An increasing number of researchers have hypothesized that regulatory attempts to improve automotive safety through product design would be at least partially offset by driver behavioral changes. This article analyzes two independent data sets to test whether differences in driver behavior exist between cars equipped with air bags and those not so equipped. An analysis of an insurance industry generated data set reveals that relative injury claims increase following adoption of an air bag system. Since there is no indication that the increase diminishes over time, the results appear to be attributable to offsetting behavior as opposed to a sorting of auto buyers. Analyses of 1993 Virginia State Police accident reports indicate that air-bag-equipped cars tend to be driven more aggressively and that aggressiveness appears to offset the effect of the air bag for the driver and increases the risk of death to others. Seatbelts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8198694 quote:The main result was that beginning wearers (group iii) showed signs of continuing behavioral adaptation, in the form of increased speed and increased propensity for close following, as well as several minor effects. The "incentive" group (group i), however, did not change driving behavior in the expected sense, i.e. in the safe direction. The references page is chock full of citations to things that underwent serious peer review. Safety is complicated. shame on an IGA posted:lol @ that bike helmet opinion http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html quote:Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm's way. This isn't a libertarian argument against helmet laws or anything like that. I support helmet laws and seatbelts and airbags. But the actual evidence indicates that there's some level of risk compensation. Hell, the entire idea behind traffic calming is that when you increase the level of *perceived* risk you get people to behave in a safer fashion, it beggars belief that the reverse isn't true. If you put a chicane in a road, you reduce the 85th percentile speed. If you remove the chicane and straighten the road, people will drive faster along it. This is a known and heavily-attested to phenomenon, traffic engineers rely on it all the time. Risk analysis is something that people in general are very bad at, which is why they'll get in a car and drive to the convenience store to buy lottery tickets. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jul 25, 2017 |
# ? Jul 25, 2017 15:15 |