Pedestrian Safety
Discussion
martin84 said:
I don't understand this whole idea of 'pedestrian friendly.' The fact is if a car hits you at any sort of speed - it's gonna hurt.
The (rather obvious) point is that a pedestrian friendly car will reduce the chances of serious injury or death.struttob said:
I was looking at a new Golf the other day and could not help but notice that the front spoiler area has a large protuberance in front of the bonnet front, surely an ankle breaker if ever I saw one for a pedestrian.
It's probably not a very solid bit of bodywork and is likely to deform fairly easily.Mr2Mike said:
The (rather obvious) point is that a pedestrian friendly car will reduce the chances of serious injury or death.
But there's no such thing as a pedestrian friendly car. Even a Prius can flatten people you know. Surely the best action to take is to keep out of the way of the tonne+ mechanically propelled pile of metal?Willy Nilly said:
Isn't pedestrian safety part of the NCAP (or whatever it is called this week) safety testing? My guess would be that it is either very soft or designed to knock the legs from under them and put them on the bonnet to reduce injury.
Yes it is part of the safety tests and surprise surprise practically every car scores low. I wonder why?martin84 said:
I don't understand this whole idea of 'pedestrian friendly.' The fact is if a car hits you at any sort of speed - it's gonna hurt.
yes but it's possible to make it hurt more or less. you seem to be saying that you would have no preference between being hit by a lorry, a land rover or a milk float. martin84 said:
Yes it is part of the safety tests and surprise surprise practically every car scores low. I wonder why?
Complete rubbish, plenty of modern cars get good pedestrian impact ratings. If a car hit you would you rather suffer a broken leg or have your head mashed to a pulp on a solid bit of bodywork?martin84 said:
I'd rather be hit by none of them if I can help it!
Your preferences won't make any difference in an accident scenario. What if a car mounts a kerb and hits you because a driver has blacked out?Mr2Mike said:
Complete rubbish, plenty of modern cars get good pedestrian impact ratings. If a car hit you would you rather suffer a broken leg or have your head mashed to a pulp on a solid bit of bodywork?
Define what a 'good pedestrian impact' rating means? To me there is no such thing as a good pedestrian impact when said pedestrian has collided with a motor vehicle. So what is good? Is it a bit like 'the operation was successful but the patient died' or something? Cars are not cuddly things, there's no way getting run over ends well.A 'good rating' within the realm of being run over is still pretty bad none the less.
Mr2Mike said:
Your preferences won't make any difference in an accident scenario. What if a car mounts a kerb and hits you because a driver has blacked out?
Then I think NCAP ratings will count for very little. Give me an example of a car which supposedly cuddles pedestrians because I reckon whatever it is still won't be particularly nice when rammed up your arse at 40mph.martin84 said:
Then I think NCAP ratings will count for very little. Give me an example of a car which supposedly cuddles pedestrians because I reckon whatever it is still won't be particularly nice when rammed up your arse at 40mph.
The Honda EP2 Civic was meant to be very good for pedestrian safety compared to its competitors. Do you remember the fad for fitting bull bars to 4x4's in the late 80's and early 90's? It's never going to be great when you get hit by a car, but it can be made less bad by having softer bonnets and positioning hard stuff under the bonnet in a place where it is less likely to get hit by a head. Maybe if the car actively scoops the pedestrian up it would have a degree of control where it lands and could direct them some where that does less damage.
martin84 said:
Define what a 'good pedestrian impact' rating means? To me there is no such thing as a good pedestrian impact when said pedestrian has collided with a motor vehicle. So what is good? Is it a bit like 'the operation was successful but the patient died' or something? Cars are not cuddly things, there's no way getting run over ends well.
A 'good rating' within the realm of being run over is still pretty bad none the less.
One in which a pedestrian is likely to survive without serious injuries. Why do you find this extremely simple concept so difficult to grasp?A 'good rating' within the realm of being run over is still pretty bad none the less.
Of course it's far better not to have a pedestrian impact at all, but how would you prevent this from ever happening? Do you also believe that seat belts should be removed from all cars, since it's preferable not to crash?
martin84 said:
Then I think NCAP ratings will count for very little. Give me an example of a car which supposedly cuddles pedestrians because I reckon whatever it is still won't be particularly nice when rammed up your arse at 40mph.
"cuddles pedestrians"? That doesn't make you sound very clever at all. Cars do not cuddle pedestrians, they hurt them. The pedestrian stands a better chance of surviving if they are hit by a car designed to minimise injuries. BTW, in a built up area where you are far more likely to hit a pedestrian the speed limit is 30mph.The newest BMW 3 series has a good pedestrian impact rating if you are really interested.
The reason is, as safety initiatives in any particular environment, saying "be more careful" is particularly ineffective. Telling pedestrians not to step in front of cars doesn't work. Despite popular opinion, the vast majority of people with enough mental capacity to walk unaided actually do understand that cars are bigger than them and are bad things to be hit by. And yet a huge proportion of RTA injuries are pedestrians. So telling them something they already know will make no difference.
An effective safety programme must recognise that even with the best of intentions and even when lives are at stake, humans are prone to make silly mistakes. Training can only go so far, after that you have to work on reducing the severity of the consequences when someone does make a mistake.
Airbags work by making you hit soft bits instead of hard bits, the same works on the outside. Bonnets are softer than cylinder heads, so make sure there's enough crumple space for a soft bonnet to work. Big plastic bumpers with gaping holes behind them are better than chrome ones on hard pointy brackets. Being on top of a car is better than a car being on top of you, so you want a car that scoops you up. If you get scooped up but then stay on the bonnet instead of being tossed over the top to land on your head after a two meter drop, even better.
Design can affect all of these things and many more, and thus improve survivability for pedestrians. This is not the same as saying that it makes being hit by a car comfortable, in eventful or even not life threatening. It just means it is now a bit better than it was, and it is more effective than just telling everyone to not get hit by cars.
An effective safety programme must recognise that even with the best of intentions and even when lives are at stake, humans are prone to make silly mistakes. Training can only go so far, after that you have to work on reducing the severity of the consequences when someone does make a mistake.
Airbags work by making you hit soft bits instead of hard bits, the same works on the outside. Bonnets are softer than cylinder heads, so make sure there's enough crumple space for a soft bonnet to work. Big plastic bumpers with gaping holes behind them are better than chrome ones on hard pointy brackets. Being on top of a car is better than a car being on top of you, so you want a car that scoops you up. If you get scooped up but then stay on the bonnet instead of being tossed over the top to land on your head after a two meter drop, even better.
Design can affect all of these things and many more, and thus improve survivability for pedestrians. This is not the same as saying that it makes being hit by a car comfortable, in eventful or even not life threatening. It just means it is now a bit better than it was, and it is more effective than just telling everyone to not get hit by cars.
My point was that the first part of the car to come into contact would be the leading edge of the spoiler like part of these particular vehicles, just at sort of shin level, I am sure that this part is not soft enough to deform by pressure against a leg and I reckon would cause considerable damage. IMHO
struttob said:
My point was that the first part of the car to come into contact would be the leading edge of the spoiler like part of these particular vehicles, just at sort of shin level, I am sure that this part is not soft enough to deform by pressure against a leg and I reckon would cause considerable damage. IMHO
Looking at the VW website the spoiler doesn't protrude any further than the bumper, and it's clearly part of the same plastic moulding. It will undoubtedly cause some bruising but I doubt it's going to chop your feet off.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff