RE: More EU Directives
Tuesday 23rd September 2003
More EU Directives
Manufacturers must start building cars capable of running people down without serious injury
Discussion
EU Directive said:
Manufacturers must start building cars capable of running people down without serious injury.
Can we start testing that theory by lining up the entire Labour cabinet.
Run test with largest/heaviest 4x4's
Oh dear. That car doesn't pass the test. Next car please, oh and next Minister too.
...and why only vehicles below 2.5Tons.
Surely Chris Eubanks slab-fronted monster-granny-thwacker is gonna cull more Darwin-awarded-numpty fodder than, say a Tuscan.
Anyway, I would argue that a TVR Tuscan, with its scoop nose already acts in a snow-plough kind of way to rid the road ahead of the plebian knuckle draggers.
Surely Chris Eubanks slab-fronted monster-granny-thwacker is gonna cull more Darwin-awarded-numpty fodder than, say a Tuscan.
Anyway, I would argue that a TVR Tuscan, with its scoop nose already acts in a snow-plough kind of way to rid the road ahead of the plebian knuckle draggers.
This just highlights the deterioration of trust in both the motorist and pedestrian. They don't trust motorists not to hit pedestrians, and they don't trust pedestrians to walk in the road, but they choose to clobber motorists at the end of the day. Surely education and jaywalking laws would be much, much cheaper.
And where does this leave aerodynamics? Surely building a car with a front end like a bouncy castle will have the aerodynamic efficiency of Brian Blessed on a skateboard.
In the '70s, they found that shovel-nosed cars with wedged profiles drove 'under' pedestrians, rather than crushing them, hence all the wedgy cars back then.
But at the end of the day, it's a victory for bureaucratic guilt insurance over common sense.
And where does this leave aerodynamics? Surely building a car with a front end like a bouncy castle will have the aerodynamic efficiency of Brian Blessed on a skateboard.
In the '70s, they found that shovel-nosed cars with wedged profiles drove 'under' pedestrians, rather than crushing them, hence all the wedgy cars back then.
But at the end of the day, it's a victory for bureaucratic guilt insurance over common sense.
Most cars have noses that hit pedestrians below their centre of gravity so the pedestrian has his (or her) legs knocked out from under them and rotates so that the head hits the bonnet quite near the base of the windscreen. In faster impacts, the head can hit the windscreen or, indeed, even further up than that. Larger goods vehicle and some big 4x4s with bull bars hit above the centre of gravity and these are the ones that tend to run "over" the unlucky victim. I guess that's why it only applies to cars - things with higher bonnets are probably a lost cause.
The problem is that these tests cost about £20k a go and they will cost Ford the same as they will cost TVR - it's just that Ford will be better able to afford them. I get a bit wound up about the legislators not looking at the "bigger picture" too. I was told that most serious head injuries sustained by pedestrians were as a result of them hitting the tarmac with their head as they land. If this is the case, it would be more effective to pass laws making all pedestrians wear cycle helmets - but I guess there would be a very vociferous minority against that...
The problem is that these tests cost about £20k a go and they will cost Ford the same as they will cost TVR - it's just that Ford will be better able to afford them. I get a bit wound up about the legislators not looking at the "bigger picture" too. I was told that most serious head injuries sustained by pedestrians were as a result of them hitting the tarmac with their head as they land. If this is the case, it would be more effective to pass laws making all pedestrians wear cycle helmets - but I guess there would be a very vociferous minority against that...
Once again we are being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, ‘I AM NOT STUPID, I WILL NOT JUMP OUT IN FRONT OF A CAR’ if anyone does then they are stupid and should not breed or are small and should have been educated. I sometimes wish that someone would visit the interfering idiots in Brussels and help them see the error of their ways Columbine stylee.
If this post in anyway offends then I seriously could care less
If this post in anyway offends then I seriously could care less
Oh dear.
Tiv owner parks car, crosses road to pub using zebra crossing - car thief/numpty/tory voter/drug addict/Tiv-owner-out-for-a-burn/ comes round corner, hits Tiv pedestrian.
Head/bonnet/cam-cover/brain damage/game over/please insert money........................
Still think you're cute ?
Try openning that tiny jar of "thought" you've been saving for a special occasion.
Tiv owner parks car, crosses road to pub using zebra crossing - car thief/numpty/tory voter/drug addict/Tiv-owner-out-for-a-burn/ comes round corner, hits Tiv pedestrian.
Head/bonnet/cam-cover/brain damage/game over/please insert money........................
Still think you're cute ?
Try openning that tiny jar of "thought" you've been saving for a special occasion.
In other news, the government is to install 20ft high fences topped with razor wire along the edges of all roads in the UK.
Pedestrians will have to apply for written permission 14 days before crossing a road. Said road will be closed to all traffic for a duration not less than 10 minutes on sucessful application...
Pedestrians will have to apply for written permission 14 days before crossing a road. Said road will be closed to all traffic for a duration not less than 10 minutes on sucessful application...
bor said:
Oh dear.
Tiv owner parks car, crosses road to pub using zebra crossing - car thief/numpty/tory voter/drug addict/Tiv-owner-out-for-a-burn/ comes round corner, hits Tiv pedestrian.
Head/bonnet/cam-cover/brain damage/game over/please insert money........................
Still think you're cute ?
Try openning that tiny jar of "thought" you've been saving for a special occasion.
So you want to address a tiny proportion of actual accidents, in a reasonably ineffective way, and you're not at all bothered about the effect on the remainder of the population?
Most accidents are caused by people not being aware of the risks - more safety legeslation is likely to make this worse!
Sean
bor said:
Oh dear.
Tiv owner parks car, crosses road to pub using zebra crossing - car thief/numpty/tory voter/drug addict/Tiv-owner-out-for-a-burn/ comes round corner, hits Tiv pedestrian.
Head/bonnet/cam-cover/brain damage/game over/please insert money........................
Still think you're cute ?
Try openning that tiny jar of "thought" you've been saving for a special occasion.
Nope, I give up, WTF are you trying to say?
If you hit someone using a zebra crossing you have f**ked up
Solution to this would seem to be not to hit someone using a zebra crossing
This could be achieved by driving with due care and attention, we have laws for this
I can only assume you mean that we should design cars not to hurt people who throw themselves in front of them or to cater for people who drive with undue care and attention. Maybe you are the sort of person who will sue the maker of your microwave oven because it didn't say 'do not dry your dog in this microwave oven'
The point is that YOU might eventually(perish the thought) need to walk across a road and if an approaching car is being driven by a drunk etc, you may through no fault of your own, be hit.
What if the driver isn't drunk ? What if he/she skids on black ice/diesel ?
What if the driver is doing everything correctly and the pedestrian makes a mistake/mis-judgement ? Nobody deliberately flings themselves in front of an oncoming vehicle.
If it's possible to reduce the effects of the impact then what's the problem ?
IIRC, the legislation would have limited impact on low nose cars like Tivs, Porsches etc.
What if the driver isn't drunk ? What if he/she skids on black ice/diesel ?
What if the driver is doing everything correctly and the pedestrian makes a mistake/mis-judgement ? Nobody deliberately flings themselves in front of an oncoming vehicle.
If it's possible to reduce the effects of the impact then what's the problem ?
IIRC, the legislation would have limited impact on low nose cars like Tivs, Porsches etc.
The problem is, once this numpty aid is added to new cars 'some' drivers will feel they can hit things/people with impunity. Try a bit of lateral thinking here, rather than protect pedestrians from being hurt when hit by a car why not prevent them from being hit by a car in the first place. We continue to make allowances for bad driving, uneducated pedestrians etc and look where it has got us. I do walk by the way and all of us are pedestrians in one way or another (some more than most)
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff