This from Junk Science, January 17, 2002
"Does CAFE Kill?: Leading Traffic Safety Researcher to Discuss Federal Fuel Economy Standards Program at CEI" - "Washington, D.C., January 15, 2002-As the debate over fuel economy standards heats up, one of the world's leading traffic safety researchers addresses the question-Does CAFE Kill? Dr. Leonard Evans will discuss the corporate average fuel economy program (CAFE) this Thursday, January 17 at 10 a.m. at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Last summer the National Academy of Sciences reported that CAFE may contribute to as many as 2,600 deaths each year because the program has forced the downsizing of cars, making them less crashworthy. Despite those findings, there is a widespread push for more stringent CAFE standards. Advocates of higher standards dispute the existence of any trade-off between fuel economy and safety, and argue that new technologies make it possible to have higher standards without any safety trade-off.
What are CAFE's safety risks? Can higher fuel economy standards avoid these risks, or will it make them worse?
Dr. Leonard Evans is president of the International Traffic Medicine Association, former president of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, the recipient of numerous traffic safety awards, and author of the widely acclaimed book, Traffic Safety and the Driver.
|
You have only got to look at that Ford Tonka pick-up truck (details and picture link posted elsewhere). Imagine being hit by some drunk driver in one of those whilst you're out in your Smart.
I don't think your airbag and "side-impact bars" are going to protect you from that chance meeting are they?
You can't have a "safer" situation unless EVERYONE is driving a small car. You then have the issue of what if a van/lorry hits the car etc?
Crumple zones also take up space as do most solid safety measures so it starts to be a trade-off. Many cars in the US are still exceptionally large and heavy, at least by our standards, you can never have the same level of safety in something much smaller when involved in an accident with one!
So therefore my answer is that downsizing of cars, especially during the period of transition where they form the majority of cars on the road, does cause an increased safety risk...
Dan
|
|
So do we agree that, by taxing bigger cars more heavily, Gordon Brown is actually putting a tax on safety?
|
|
|
|
It seems logical that the shorter the distance between the ends of the car and the occupants then the greater chance of an impact reaching those occupants.
Taking it to the extreme, surely the higher injury rates to pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists is because in their case there is a zero crumple zone.
I would also put forward the hypothesis that the shorter the wheelbase the less stable the vehicle is.
|
|
|
"I would also put forward the hypothesis that the shorter the wheelbase the less stable the vehicle is."
Yep its all to do with a lower moment of inertia.
waits to be shot down in flames, crash and burn Maverick
|
|
So why did Audi produce a SWB coupe for its rallying?
|
|
|
Stuart,
You been watching that again? DVD, Dolby Surround and all that?
David
|
|
|
|
"So why did Audi produce a SWB coupe for its rallying?"
RW,
Because the original quattro's roblem was that it was *too* stable. 4wd was not as sophisticated as today, if I recall correctly the power split was 50/50 and it was an absolute b*gger to get the car to turn in, needed much application of lock and a good hard stamp on the brakes with the bias set well to the rear. The shorter wheelbase was to reduce the polar moment of inertia and thus try and increase the ability to respond to the twisty stuff. The result was better but it was still difficult, resolved by better 4wd systems.
The Stratos likewise had an extremely low polar moment of inertia and had reactions like lightning, but it needed a rare talent behind the wheel to keep it in a straight line on the real fast stuff and also was an absolute pig to hold sideways in the bend itself.
Hope thats clear?
|
FIF
Thanks
About as Clear as Steve G's post below.
:-)
|
|
|
FIF
Absolutely spot on explanation.
I believe that the latest fighter planes are actually made unstable to ensure fast response. The only thing keeping them flying straight is a computer - apparently no human could achieve it.
Regards
John
|
TV prog said the limits to fighter planes nowadays is the human.
Engineers can make them turn much more quickly but the poor pilot would red-out. Driverlesss fighters soon?
|
Surely, already ?
I cannot believe that no-one has put a gun on these recon drones they use.
Does anybody remember a science fiction story, I read years ago - it was a short story where the plot was that two planets were having a war and using computerised, unmanned, ships/missiles/whatever.
Eventually someone came up with the idea of replacing the computers with Humanr Beings since theyw ere expendable.
Sadly prophetic, perhaps.
|
ARe they not too diddy. A gun's recoil might wreck them.
But then I am only used to shotguns. :-0
|
|
|
|
|
Have a look at this too:
www.vehiclechoice.org/cafe/usa1.html
Especially the side notes if you are in a hurry.
|
Does this mean that the tree huggers and accident fetishists will now insist that we all have to drive bigger cars to be safer.
May be a subsidy to compensate for the increased fuel consumption you incur.
It could be based on the ammount of CO2 the car emits as we already have a system in place in UK to identify thjis and we would not neeed a whole new bureaucracy to devise and administer it????
WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK OR HOW COULD WE POST THIS THREAD TO TWO JAGS PRESCOTT THE MOST DANGEROUS PIECE OF HOT AIR AROUND
|
|
Nah, they don't care about road deaths as long as "Gaia" is safe.
|
|
|
|
Acording to one of the motoring associations, you're a third more likely to be killed in small car than a large one, simply because of the larger crumple zones. Four-wheel drive vehicles are th safest in terms of impact resistance, but are more likely to kill the occupants of normal cars in the event of a crash.
Andy
|
|
|
David,
Sad but true, I recall a long long time ago watching some in car footage on a projector screen whilst wearing headphones. You know the one.
Vatanen on the Manx where you think something like,
Ari there's a cattle grid.......,
Ari there's a cattle grid!!!!!.........,
ARI YOU TWONK THERE'S A @&£$#%^ CATTLE GRID!!!!!!!!!,
flick of wrists, foot kept well planted on the loud pedal, car slides through gate with nary a scratch.
That guy is mad, and his baby brother is even worse!!!!
|
I read an article a few years ago which stated that passenger aircraft were reachig the stage where it would be safer to have no flight crew as the majority of crashes are pilot/crew error and the computers simply wouldn't make them.
However it did go on to say that it could never be imagined that the public would accept it.
That would include myself and most of us I should think.
Strange folk us humans when even if statistics told us it was safer we would still rather have a fallible human in charge than a chip.
And of course we also need someone to blame afterwards. (Unless we were one of those on the plane).
Alvin
|
|
|
|
Alwyn
You are correct.
Informed opinion is that the present generation of fighter aircraft will be the last to be manned.
Regards
Brian
|
Brian,
That could be right.
However do you remember there was a period in the late 50s and early 60s when our leaders and boffins shut down loads of exciting MOD fast jet projects because there would be no use for aircraft. Missiles would do it all they said.
Either they got it very wrong then, or perhaps they were way ahead.
Pilotless fighter = Missile.
David
|
|
|
I spoke to a/an RAF Jaguar pilot a few years ago. Great chap. He won't be too chuffed at losign hei pilots job, but then Jaguar is a fighter/bomber.
He told me he sank an Iraqi ship during the Gulf war. I asked him how he coped with all that lead coming up at him. He said there was so much to concentrate on, he didn't think about it...........Until afterwards.
He said "Adrenalin is brown, isn't it?"
|
|
|
|
I think that the cut-back on research in the 50's/early 60's was more to do with our leaders saving money.
Remember the TSR2. Also the P1154 supersonic Harrier. The Harrier (P1126) was put into production to save the cost of developing the supersonic version.
(product numbers from memory, doesn't affect the argument if they're wrong)
|
Brian,
I'm sure cash was a huge part of it but it is also true that a mistaken direction was also a big issue.
It was cash however with the magnificent TSR2.
David
|
|
|
|
|
Americans and Canadians have been banging on this theme since I lived there in the mid-Sixties. But then they can afford to - their fuel costs very little, they have more to spend, and they have a lot more space to play dodgems in. Our cars already fill the space available.
|
|
|
|
Remember talking to a 747 pilot who claimed that about the only manual intervention, ie hands on, was the taxiing at take off and landing. Everything else was dialled in and the computers sorted it. Don't know if that is true, maybe someone could confirm. Mind you a 747 could carry a damn big cannon.
|
errmm.. yes, you can do autoland all the time if you want. Departure is usually manual, but you can engage autopilot at wheels up and virtually watch Sky Sport all the way to Bangkok.
But most aviators are professionals and want to keep their "stick and rudder" skills sharp. A certain number of manual landings also required to keep the company and CAA happy.
The barmy fact is that landing in low visability is fine for autoland aircraft. It's finding the terminal and taxiways that is difficult (or (being able to see the "follow me" truck - (4 x 4 with "follow me" sign on the roof))
Technical log on aircraft - captain's entry: "to engineer - autoland works but landing heavy"
Engineer's response "This aircraft not equipped with autoland"
....
rg
|
aviator's definition of a good landing:
"any landing that you can walk away from"
Exceptionally heavy landings can cause the cabin oxygen masks to deploy (drop out the overhead panel). This seems to get the passenger's attention...
rg
|
|
|
|
Rob,
Was once on a flight which had *the* heaviest landing I have ever known, overhead lockers bust open and the passengers went distinctly quiet.
over the PA came the skipper, "sorry about that, we *do* have to try the autoland from time to time you know"
Come to think of it that might have been the flight commanded by Captain Kirk, never found out if that was a joke.
regds,
Stuart
|
|
|
on a "MILK RUN" Flight with several stops:
each langing was worse tha the last...
at the final destination the landing was perfict...
as the pasangers deplaned one of them complimented the capt.
he got this growl back.... *)()* Dam copilot did this one...
Very old joke in the flying trade sorry if you have heard it before
~R
|
|
|
