|
cowboy beepboop posted:i hate most city sims don't even have the option of building things without the implicit assumption that all your citizens will have a car and drive it everywhere unless you play 'medieval misery simulator' that game has bicycle/pedestrian paths, trains, subways, ferries, buses, trams  you can even limit vehicle traffic in areas and ban semi trucks from using residential streets, you could build a city that had hardly any road traffic in it, it just takes more planning wifh where you place transpo infrastructure and jobs so that they're accessible on foot
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
front and rear disc brakes and a mirrored helmet are probably the biggest safety factors regarding the bicycle itself imo there's a lot of potential for bicycle car-alert system that recognizes them acoustically, you could have transducers between the wheel & tire that pick up ground vibration and tell you if something's approaching from behind/sides and at what speed, it wouldn't be easy to make super accurate but something that tells you if an SUV is ripping towards you from behind wouldn't be hard if someone steals my idea give me money
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
leftist heap posted:am I being whooshed lol no, cars put out a lot of infrasound through the ground as they move and the specifics are idistinctive to that model of vehicle and set of tires and speed, so you can isolate individual sources its how dog can tell when a particular cars pulling up even if its electric with the internal bike vibration all cancelled out, which you just need to know the bike's current speed, you'd just need an algorithm listening for sound increasing in both pitch and amplitude relative to your speed (bc doppler effect), then you can isolate & detect an incoming car thru the ground, and tell how rapidly it's approaching relative to your own speed, and with two wheels making contact you can determine direction, even around a blind corner etc. measuring distance would be a lot harder but general proximity, direction, and if it's approaching or not wouldn't be. like a couple grams of wheel mass & some electronics inside the frame or seat or helmet or your phone even to process the signal the hard part would be integrating the sensors into a tire and programming something accurate enough to not throw false positives but sensitive enough to still be useful if you're going 25-30 on a bike & not break right away if you had a couple mics on the handlebars you could listen for wind, engine, tire sound to cross-reference and could catch stuff really well from quite a ways away - open up a spectrum analyzer app on your phone near traffic, you can see each vehicle in the frequency bands from beyond visible distance if they're hauling rear end its less work than speech to text in terms of audio processing idk why nobody's ever tried it FirstnameLastname has issued a correction as of 05:47 on Sep 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
Sphyre posted:or you could just use radar dude oh that's neat I didn't know those existed lol, i figured radar would be too difficult to package or have issues irradiating nutsacks or something
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Horace posted:hmm tyres have 8mm tread when brand new and 1mm when worn out, weird how that 7mm of rubber just goes away, to nowhere not all, but most of it is just rubbed onto the road surface under regular use, a tire can't adhere a cars weight to the road surface without depositing rubber onto it like an eraser, it's leaving microscopic amounts any time it moves or stops moving but it's not putting much into the air at all under normal use just bc tires stick to themselves, if they flaked regularly or anything like that you'd see the rubber marking in the wheelwell like if its been doing a burnout tire smoke & brake dust are both super bad for you tho brake pad material is v much like asbestos as-is, then braking grinds them into an invisibly fine dust while heating up to like 1500°, making other awful poo poo every single time they're used and it all gets whipped onto the air like a big wake off every wheel i figure it's a massive unrecognized cause of respiratory cancers
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
dont go exactly the speed limit. like dont do stuff to prove a point while driving, it's dangerous - people will do dangerous poo poo because they're dumb and once they get upset they stop thinking of hazards. there's a lot of mentally unwell and armed people on the road just drive a safe speed for your car & drive to be away from other traffic if you have to go slower or faster for a second, it's always safer and all around less stress inducing to stay away from other cars and then equalize your speed to them so they remain distant, if there's no way to keep a distance, then go the same speed so traffic's less likely to hit you u get better gas mileage that way too
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:Just to be clear, when you say "safer" here what you actually mean is "less likely to hurt the feelings of the Boomer in the F-350," and not "actually safer," right? less likely to collide with like the car doesn't care what point you're making or who upset who if they rear end you and gently caress your neck or back up forever, and there's a significant enough amount of people who will snap and pull a gun and shoot you on purpose to where its just not worth it. you have no idea who is in the car behind you
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
FlutieFlake posted:"I'm driving with the flow of traffic" is the excuse every driver uses to drive 5-10 mph over the speed limit all the time. Maybe if people drove the speed limit instead of using that excuse, traffic would be 5-10 mph slower and much safer. if people drove differently things would be different but that's how it is, i didn't make it dumb the ground doesn't move and do unpredictable poo poo like random people in other cars on their phones or drunk/nodding out, if you are by the ground and not near them you are far less likely to die, you do not have to roll the 'will this guy whose mad at me shoot me' dice at all if you are moving at a lower relative speed to other cars by maintaining the same speed you are less likely to die in a car crash than if not by the same virtue
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Second Hand Meat Mouth posted:really though it's dumb to think that speed limits are any different from jaywalking laws when it comes to how they're only used as pretense to punish minorities its true cops see mercedes benz & lexus driven by an old white ppl in slomo they never get pulled over they also never install speeding cameras in their own communities
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
mystes posted:All laws are disproportionately enforced against minorities but I don't personally think the solution is to get rid of all laws the solution isn't to enforce nore unequal laws harder either
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:Look, the only safe thing to do is to put your gas pedal to the max and never, ever let up, because if you don't, the driver behind you will become Hitler and go genocide a bunch of people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
mystes posted:You're missing the point that if you enforced it uniformly, it wouldn't disproportionately affect minorities sorry govts all out of fair only got More
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
jaywalking laws were created to make being on a road unlawful except where marked so that pedestrians could be blamed for being hit by cars bc rich ppl were getting in trouble 2 much
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 03:50
|
|
|
he was coming right for me he was trying to flee
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
Electro-Boogie Jack posted:yeah, it's just a happy accident for the authorities that jaywalking laws can also be used to crush minorities. the original point is to make sure that drivers dont get in trouble for killing people that's what i said
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
if u watch in your rearview with heavy traffic behind you, your every move does slightly affect hundreds to thousands of cars and you can make stuff safer by accelerating and decelerating smoothly or speed up ans alow down a bunch and make ppl more likely to rear end eachorher its like a kotor morality decision thing irl
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Pretty prime example here of how carbrain turns you into a violent coward. what
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Ham Equity posted:You're willing to murder pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers--a thing that is frighteningly common--because you're scared of a road rager shooting you--a thing that is very rare. i have never murdered anyone and didn't say to murder people, i said to avoid other traffic on the road rather than antagonizing strangers by deliberately ignoring the reality of how traffic flow works for ideological reasons, because moving vehicles aren't a place to argue points from. they are dangerous i have had someone chase and try to run me off of the road in their car after they got upset i didn't brake for them to merge, after catching up to me at an offramp, they pitched a baseball,-sized ball of ice at my head with a 35mph speed differential, it missed by about half a foot and exploded against the a-pillar three members of my immediate family members have had guns pointed directly at them over roadrage poo poo. you can think it's unlikely all you want, you don't want it fuckin happening to you, don't open yourself up to the chances of it unnecessarily - it doesn't matter how right you are if the only possible outcomes are A: Nothing or B: people get hurt. that's not the way to be right, which makes it wrong, which makes it bad. its that simple if you are only considering a course of action because you feel your car affords you some protection from potential consequences, then you're being a dick for no good reason. when you are operating a vehicle you should be entirely focused on that, not getting fussy about how fast or slow traffic is moving. not altering your decision making process to focus on pissing off the guy in the truck. - no, im not the guy in the truck, i don't drive a truck, pls stop projecting whatever scenario you've got in your head onto what I'm saying, this is objectively true. it has nothing to do with any ideological stance it is a matter of physics and basic human psychology: it is not appropriate to try to get an emotional reaction out of someone piloting 3-6 thousand pounds of steel moving several dozen feet-per-second. especially with how lax licensing standards are, you already have no idea if the person you are upsetting is capable of safely operating their vehicle under the best of conditions, why would you want to make those conditions any worse and increase the likelihood of anything bad happening? Have you ever been in a car crash? They're terrifying, avoid them lol
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
DR FRASIER KRANG posted:this is the car version of "an armed society is a polite society" lmao no it's not the road is not a social environment. like, period. it's a physical space of physical objects that are already being piloted by people when you're on it, you can't change that from there, that's changed from outside of there, everything on it is changed from outside of there, when you are there, all you can do is increase your safety profile, or lower it. you literally can't do anything else when on the road, anything else that you think you might be doing is only doing one of those two things. don't socialize there, as it will not increase your safety profile
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
Grassy Knowles posted:i think you’re missing the forest for the trees. the argument is that you go the speed limit because it’s safer for the pedestrians, it pissing off another driver is just the frosting of snow on those trees. im not saying to speed though! im saying to prioritize avoiding other traffic over following the exact designated speed, as in f.ex. if everyone's going 10-15 over and going 5 over keeps traffic from approaching you or you from approaching traffic at a 10+mph differential, it's always going to be much safer than going the exact speed and having several cars passing you at 10-15+ per minute like, don't prioritize a designated speed over the actual situation on the road. that's the important part of what im saying the most dangerous part of driving is the other cars and the most dangerous part of the other cars is the difference in speed, so prioritizing reducing the amount of other cars around you and reducing the speed between you and them is going to make you safer than anything that puts you near them at higher speed differential the useful part of a speed limit is that it gives you an idea of how fast other traffic will be going on that road before you encounter it + when they throw the yellow hazard speeds up on corners. as an explicit direction to follow, speed limits are v. inconsistently applied & often don't reflect the actual driving conditions (in both directions), treating it like the default 'safest speed' and not factoring in traffic, your own vehicles capabilities and the condition of the road surface can paradoxically be deceptively dangerous in itself as if you're relying on the speed limit to determine whether or not you're safe, if you're ever going too fast for conditions (fluid spils, rain, ice etc), it will catch you entirely off guard in my experience (and im not saying this to go after anyone its just a thing I've noticed) people who follow the exact speed limit often, not always but often, it's kind-of a stereotype, aren't comfortable with driving in general, for one reason or another, and aren't able to tell what their vehicle can or cannot handle, so end up overly prioritizing speed limit compliance as a kinda "appeal to authority" through the speed limit to mentally make themselves feel safer, since by following the Rules they are in compliance and therefore safe; except that's not how it works, the human-made rules don't decide anything at all on the road, only physics, and physics don't respond to reason, so to keep yourself as safe as possible it's necessary to prioritize that physical reality over anything else incl. emotions or rational "they shouldn't be going that fast/doing that" kind of judgements or decisionmaking in general - even if you're 1000% right! cuz that stuff simply doesn't apply to the vehicles, only the people in them, when what the vehicles are doing is what ultimately dictate the situation, so as long as you're currently driving, it's only ever going to increase your likelihood of a crash or other bad outcome
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 23:06
|
|
|
lol what
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Grassy Knowles posted:as I’m not a driver, I think of this in terms of the pedestrian who also has a strong interest in decreasing their speed differential with the cars on the road the most dangerous thing for a pedestrian is when a car has lost control, and the most likely cause for a car to lose control is colliding with another car the speed is a huge factor for the amount of damage, but unless someone is going excessively above the designated speed, it's very unlikely to factor into whether or not a person loses control of their car that is to say the speed limit isn't the limit the road can be safely driven on, it's the speed that a road can support traffic on across the board from sports cars to u-hauls, from winter to summer and in most vehicles under most conditions on most roads it will not be close to any thresholds of vehicle capabilities and someone exceeding it by 10%-15% or whatever in other to keep a distance from other traffic is going to keep pedestrians (and everyone else) safer than if someone keeps a speed variance between them and other traffic and unnecessarily risks a collision and loss of control with every single passing vehicle like with airplane traffic, the thing they prioritize more than anything else is making sure the airplanes paths don't intersect and that they keep a wide proximity from each other, it works very well, and people should do that with cars for the same reasons like im not saying go faster to be safer, just that it's safer to not be by other cars than to be near them, and that the amount of safety provided for both pedestrians and drivers by added distance, in the vast majority of conditions and circumstances, greatly exceeds any risk added by a slight increase in speed, therefore if going slightly faster keeps you away from other traffic, it's going to be safer than doing anything that places you deeper within traffic and/or at a speed differential to it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Look dude everyone fully comprehends the thesis of your argument we all just think "I should be able to endanger pedestrians because I'm scared" is a lovely argument. what are you talking about lmfao
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
like is it really that controversial or heartless to say "drive your vehicle accord to the road and traffic conditions and don't pretend it's making you or anyone else any safer to mentally prioritize a number on a sign over what's actually happening in front of you while disrupting traffic intentionally to own the Chuds" wgat
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:PROTIP: if you own a gun over a year without negligent discharging at least once, you aren't handling it enough. NDs are a natural part of handling weapons, just like tweaking your back is part of weightlifting and car accidents are part of driving. I ND several times a year because I actually HANDLE and know how to USE my weapons. It makes me a better firearms handler and marksman, and it's a small part of the price you pay in the sheepdog lifestyle Simple fact is, the "safety mentality" will build mental blocks in your head that will get you killed. You need to be comfortable putting your finger on the trigger and pointing the gun wherever you want no matter the time, place, or status of the weapon. Taking time to check whether the gun is loaded whenever you pick one up will serve to make you hesitate in a personal defense scenario. You loving safety idiots are going to get people killed all because of this loving "ND" shaming. Guns are inherently dangerous, you need to accept it. cars are inherently dangerous and infact kill more people every day than guns do treating them like they're safe or that they in any way will respond to logic or a position of moral superiority is insane. it does not matter how right you are, you are arguing with a motor vehicle its a block of metal rolling on big wheels that's already in motion, what you think about it literally does not factor into what happens at all
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Grassy Knowles posted:i do not disbelieve your reasoning behind it, i just disagree about what the outcomes of the behavior look like. faster only equals safer until an accident happens, at which point I believe the speed is the highest determining factor towards outcome. and since no one worth considering in these terms plans on an accident, we should be acting with the safety protocols as if one is going to happen. at the mass societal level yes but at the individual level you cannot control what other people are going to do on the road, you can't get them to follow along, your only options are what will immediately increase or reduce your safety profile for your specific situation. while driving you have no control over anything else and there's no collective actions, so it's best to use the control you do have to avoid collisions over any other priorities and the best way to do that is by staying separate from other traffic because it's where the most collisions come from you can't really use statistics to guide individual decisions while driving because loss of control/collisons are a binary, there's a lot of scenarios where avoiding collisions involves making decisions that statistically would be considered an increase in risk, but are also the way to avoid a greater risk. such as increasing your speed to match traffic and maintain a distance even if it's above the designated speed with most of those situations if everyone drove consistently and rationally they wouldn't be the right move to make, but people don't
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
mystes posted:I think there's probably a fair case that if you're just thinking about your own personal safety while driving on a highway, it's potentially safer to go slightly faster than the speed limit if that's the speed everyone else is going and conditions allow its better for pedestrians when cars don't come flying off a road and the #1 cause for that is the car being hit by another nearby car the #1 prevention for that is not being in a position where another car can collide with you at a high differential of speed this is achieved by maintaining distance to other cars and reducing the differential of speed, not by following an arbitrary speed guideline when nobody else is following it, as that guideline means nothing if other traffic is not following it, so it will not actually do anything with regards to your safety if other traffic is following it then you should go that speed its very simple
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Mr. Sharps posted:driving the speed limit is not unsafe, you cretin i fuckimg love how goons in topic-focused threads will have this entire person they've built in their head that doesn't exist who they want to yell at and once anyone posts anything that lets them tie that headcanon enemy to them they're immediately like "you're loving Sick, you believe this and that and this and its disgusting" when i literally didn't say any of it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
ive spent thousands of hours learning and training the best practices of safely operating vehicles on public roads, studying Grassy Knowles posted:i do not think the existence of a speed limit is arbitrary. i think following it increases safety because it makes the traffic predictable for not cars, it decreases the severity of incidents with or without cars, and i have not seen any data that suggests speeding as a standard is safer at an individual level. i understand this is at a mass-policy level, but https://newsroom.aaa.com/2021/01/is-raising-the-speed-limit-worth-the-risk/ I think this is worth reading and then taking the consideration that we cannot nor should not be relying upon police enforcement so what people can do is model good behavior. you aren’t in traffic, you are traffic. not the existence altogether no, they're good the decision for a given speed in most places is fairly arbitrary tho to a range of about +-15mph and often determined by things like the average weight of traffic on that road compared to the hill grade or amount of nearby homes, road noise etc. as well as those patches where stuff drops by 10mph suddenly for a quarter mile to get the ticket income the point I'm trying to make about that is the speed limit is not the priority to adhere to over the actual speed of other traffic, because that's what determines the safe speed of the road, if they're all speeding, you will be safer speeding too, because then they will not be driving past you equally if they're not speeding you will be safer not speeding as well, marginally because of the reduced total velocity, and mostly because then you will not be driving past them if there's no other traffic then going the speed limit is good & people should slow down around pedestrians and bicyclists and anywhere there's stuff or blindspots roadside where stuff could dart out, i always do a higher speed for everyone doesn't make things any safer at all, but lowering the difference between the fastest and slowest thing on the road does by maintaining distance and not having cars moving past each other next to each other in lanes, every time that happens it's risking a collision unnecessarily & people only need to be looking down at their phone for a second while they go past you to smack into a quarter panel and pitch you into a wall/sidewalk/etc its not like i dont think there should be stuff done to change how dumb poo poo is brw, like us road traffic is a mess for a billion different reasons, but none of those can safely be addressed from within the car, only navigated, hand ur dealt n w/e having no speed limit would be v. bad because drivers have essentially zero training before they're given licenses. ive read it actually can improve safety in some situations because it causes people to evaluate the conditions & surroundings more (iirc really slow, crowded locations, like city centers benefit the most from no posted limit, removing lanes & curbs too weirdly enough. also on bendy rural roads w/o much traffic) but for anything with traffic moving at 20+mph itd be impossible because people biologically just can't judge distance or relative speeds well at all, not having a posted limit def. wouldn't help on faster roads/freeways Bushiz posted:The majority of traffic fatalities are single-vehicle accidents. You're not a brave realist. You're not even a pedant. You're just wrong, and a dipshit, and hallucinating a framework where your stupid, dangerous driving habits are actually smart and safe. They aren't. You aren't. Do not exceed the speed limit.  Although motor-vehicle-related deaths occur more often in collisions between motor vehicles than any other type of incident, crashes of this type represented less than half of the total in 2021 (43%). Collisions between a motor vehicle and a fixed object were the next most common type, with over 26% of deaths, followed by pedestrian incidents and non-collisions (rollovers, etc.). While collisions between motor vehicles accounted for less than half of motor-vehicle fatalities, this crash type represented 63% of injuries, 71% of injury crashes, and 71% of all incidents. Conversely, single-vehicle crashes involving collisions with fixed objects, pedestrians, and non-collisions accounted for a greater proportion of fatalities and fatal crashes compared to less serious crashes. These three crash types made up 54% of fatalities and 56% of fatal crashes, but only 35% or less of injuries, injury crashes, or all crashes. like 80% of fatal single driver accidents involve alcohol and the rest are pretty much all sleep deprivation and 16-24y/o's driving negligently fast i am assuming the people itt do not drink and drive and i don't think there's many 16-24 year olds shut up lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:this kind of phrasing is always sketchy because pedestrians and cyclists don't "dart out" onto the road - you're either not paying attention, or you're traveling too fast to react accordingly if a bicyclist darted out of that post you'd b going too fast <  > im saying right there where you quoted 'it is good to slow down anywhere stuff can come darting out onto the road, thats what i do' ~_~fwiw tho to clarify places things can "dart out", to me at least is when something could move from behind an obstruction and come anywhere close to intersecting my path before I could smoothly stop/change my path to avoid it w/o upsetting the vehicle or anything sketchy. i leave a margin of about +2-3 seconds on top of what id already need to completely stop or steer clear (if there's a safe route to steer) incase something comes out moving fast, i just assume a kid is gonna chase a ball out from behind every parked box van or whatever & drive accordingly im respoinsble Clark Nova posted:are these figures only counting corpses that were inside the car? single driver, single individual fatalities with nobody else involved as far as i know
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:https://v.redd.it/bxiainvo8msb1/DASH_720.mp4 the onboard drivers at fault they're running a red into the intersection & the person turning looks to be staying in their lane and isn't veering into oncoming (it looks like they're turning in tighter than they need right before collision, but that's where they're supposed to be, they enter the turn on the inside lane and that left-hand turn tightens mid intersection as it starts to point uphill, weirdly shaped intersection)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
that's actually a really bad intersection after looking at it for a second the hill crest right before it fucks up visibility and then the dedicated turn lane makes it so approaching traffic can't judge if people are yielding or not while the road snaps inward to align with the intersection immediately beforehand, so you don't really have time to survey it before entering, and then it's a split intersection with traffic feeding through a 90° turn into moving traffic in two opposing direction at once it looks like they didn't bother trying to make it walkable i dont see any crosswalks irs like in cities skylines where poo poo gets forced in after the fact and doesn't have enough space Platystemon posted:The PoV driver must speed through the intersection lest she be summarily executed by a maniac behind her. they might've had a brake/tire/shock failure actually you can see them start slowing down pretty early, well before the other car is visible. and it seems timed to be meant to stop at the intersection, but once they crest the hill and are right about where the asphalt changes, the car wobbles side to side without any steering input to cause it + the nose is staying tipped down consistently so they're still braking but it's not really slowing them at all i can't tell if the dip immediately before impact is from added braking or a sudden steering input, it kinda looks like they're trying to steer onto a deflated tire
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
mystes posted:I think places like that where a highway suddenly turns into a stroad with lights are kind of bad in general, but it doesn't seem like the driver took slightly too long to take that in so much as they somehow never noticed which seems a bit weird unless they were using something like autopilot and not looking at the road at all oh i don't think this was from a line of sight issue this was either someone not paying attention or a mechanical failure, prolly lack of attention i mentioned that part just because it's a v. visually busy intersection to have suddenly pop into view at the crest of that hill & i bet lots of people hit the island curbing and stuff like that because of it
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
lmfao
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2023 09:35
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:nascar style helmets, safety restraints etc should be standard issue on all cars and mandatory to use I've thought about this before it would actually be really effective if implemented you'd have to redesign dashboards and a lot of the interior of cars tho since you can't reach dash, rearview etc. when you're in a harness, nor can you turn your head very much the biggest problem in the way tho is the stuff that works for racing safety gear generally negates the usefulness of roadcar safety equipment & vice versa ( airbag+helmet is really bad, helmet+no hans is really bad, rollcage+no helmet is extremely bad, etc) that's why you don't see racing safety stuff crossing over to road cars even tho a full cage+5pt+helmet+hans device makes you way safer in a crash than a 3pt harness and airbags are capable of doing Truga posted:most car passenger deaths are caused by head injury, yet you're not mandating all car people wearing helmets, curious helmet without head/neck safety device in a car makes it much easier to have a basilar skull fracture bc of the extra weight yanking on your neck during a collison, it basically decapitates you without cutting the external skin FirstnameLastname has issued a correction as of 19:26 on Oct 10, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
Mauser posted:no we need to make driving a car much more obviously dangerous like have sharp bits about eye level where if you brake too hard you get cut. people don't have a sense of the danger so you gotta spice up the vehicle a bit to make it seem more dangerous this was pretty much the mindset for manuf's in the 50s & 60s a lot of manufacturers were resistant to seatbelts in their cars and argued they encouraged reckless driving or made their products appear less safe, "who'd want seatbelts unless they were planning on crashing?" kinda logic
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Still thinking about how easy it would be to implement GPS based speed caps on cars. volvos gonna cap all their cars to 180kmh or so by 2025 i think
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 06:35
|
|
|
bicycles r the best ev conversion cars aren't tho, need to make it that from the start
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 08:18
|
|
|
Greg12 posted:people would drive safer if there was an ai-controlled handgun pointing into their chests from the steering wheel, fired by the AI if it detected they had run over a vulnerable road user or crashed into a building they did that people didn't like it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takata_Corporation#Airbag July 2014, a pregnant Malaysian woman was killed in a collision involving her 2003 Honda City which contained the defective airbag. The woman, aged 42, died when a metal fragment from a ruptured driver's airbag sliced into her neck in the accident in which she was driving at around 30 km/h (18 mph) when another vehicle hit her at a junction, according to a lawsuit filed by her father at a Miami federal court. As of May 19, 2015, Takata is now responsible for the largest auto recall in history. Takata has already recalled 40 million vehicles across 12 vehicle brands for "Airbags that could explode and potentially send shrapnel into the face and body of both the driver and front seat passenger".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:No doubt, but pulling out the airbag beats getting firing-squaded by your own steering wheel. airbags don't become unstable or dangerous from time, the recall was over mechanical flaws. afaik the charges in airbags are stable and don't degrade much. the explosive parts are in an airtight sealed compartment, the only thing that goes with time is the wiring from corrosion/brittle plastic (the airbag warning in cars is for the firing circuit being functional, that's the only thing it's checking) and the airbag fabric itself getting old & brittle the powder they coat it in to not tear your skin apart can get caked but even then it'll still work fine it might just rugburn u bad. there's probably a point where the fabric pops before inflating enough to stop a person like i wouldn't wanna trust 30yr old airbags on a car that's been roasting in the desert but i would still assume they'd function ps don't mess with airbags unless you have the right tools and know what you're doing. as an individual component they're the most dangerous thing in a car - ones without any problems are still really dangerous and can kill/injure you by being triggered with anything in between you and them, screwdrivers etc. & the bag casing can punch in your skull and instakill you no country for old men-style from the force of impact, if it's what ends up moving instead of the bag (if loose, partly in, etc) if it doesn't have something holding it to push off of, it just launches the entire solid end of the casing with the balloon like a cannon you can trigger the airbag in some designs by shorting across two wires with a screwdriver on accident and stuff like that - it's basically a safety grenade
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2023 22:45
|
|