see
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3022362.stm
Kia claim they got 5 stars in other tests.
|
Pity about the universally and appallingly poor attention to pedestrian safety though !
It seems very odd that manufacturers go to such great lengths to protect people when they're the occupants of cars but aren't as concerned about the safety of those same people when they're on two feet. It's ironical that the same car which was designed to save your life during a crash may actually be responsible for killing you if you're hit by it as a pedestrian.
|
|
Do you think people would pay extra for pedestrian safety though? No market demand.
|
|
Exactly Gen and that's why the law should be changed to make the external design of cars more conducive to pedestrian safety. Sadly, the manufacturers won't do it unless they're forced to.
|
I'm not sure what car makers can actually do to improve pedestrian safety. A suggestion on Radio 5 today was that they should be including "softer" bonnets and bumpers. I can't see what difference its going to make unless they make these of bouncy foam or something! A car hitting someone at 40mph is going to make a mess whatever.
Splodgeface
|
One of the main problems when you hit a pedestrian is the point of impact on the top of the bonnet by the victims head. Most cars dont have a large gap between the bonnet and the engine so you will only get so much give and then your head hits the top of the engine which is not going to be too soft. A lot of manufacturers are trying to get the engine to sit lower so the car is more stable and you also have a gap above the block that can act as a crumple zone which apparently would make a huge difference to head injuries.
When you read about the efforts car manufacturers got to for pedestrian safety it is quite amazing, but as splodgeface pointed out "a car hitting someone at 40mph is going to make a mess whatever"
|
|
The good thing about drivers and passengers is you can keep them harnessed up and tied to a seat in a cage. Pedestrians have an unfortunate habit of being thrown around, under moving wheels, thro windscreen, into hard stationary objects. Unless you can capture them at point of impact, its gonna be a tough job to keep them safe.
|
|
|
|
Where exactly are these pedestrians?
Did you drive along the footpath, or were they Jaywalking in the road?
Why do peds think they now have some right to step out in front of you?
Put whoopee cushions on your car and tell me there's no incentive for them to become Kamikazes?
In my day you looked before you crossed.
Cue Green X codes Camp actors et seq
|
I was wandering around the ENCAP display in Trafalgar Square last night. Some of those cars looked like they'd been hit very hard.
If you happen to be in that area it is worth a walk.
|
|
|
A bit simplistic Sean - I take it that in your day nobody ever got knocked down then and it's only in more recent times that pedestrians (many of whom are also motorists at other times) have become suicidal maniacs hell bent on jumping in front of cars at every opportunity.
This shouldn't need saying but there are many reasons why cars need to be driven an designed better to protect both the occupants and any pedestrians around. Not the least of these is that cars can/do mount pavements and kill people on a regular basis and some people (especially young children and the elderly) are prone to make mistakes. Are you saying these people don't matter? As regards road safety training, I take it you've been trained to drive and passed your test yet you still make the odd mistake don't you? Yet you seem to argue that kids should be trained to cross roads and never be expected to make a mistake thereafter. You speed sometimes don't you and that's OK is it ? But it's not OK for a kid to cross a road in a silly place just in case he happens to get in your way and damage your car. Well if you do make a mistake or speed when driving and that happens to affect a pedestrian, the chances are that you will survive unharmed and they will probably not. Equally, I take it none of your family ever cross the road in anything other than the prescribed manner, always observing all the rules and using designated crossing points even when they're not very convenient and require an extra few minutes walk in the pouring rain.
Let's not get bogged down in an 'us & them' argument. We all drive and walk from time to time. We all make mistakes whether walking or driving and I really don't see how anyone can argue that car design or driving standards shouldn't come under scruitiny to improve safety for EVERYONE and simply try pass the buck onto pedestrians.
|
I hate to say this but I was walking along the other day looking at a rather nice young lady on the other side of the road and I walked straight into a lampost and split my head open.
We all make mistakes Sean, even me!
|
|
I guess this distraction that Marcos encountered whilst walking, is the cause of many pedestrian injuries through lack of driver concentration, and no amount of technical innovation in car design can compensate for this sort of driver error. !! This situation will undoubtedly not improve, after recent press reports that men can actually extend their lifespan by several years, (by increasing their pulse rates), after ogling female breasts !!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Sean I agree with you, this is a nanny step too far.
I am responsible for my actions whilst conducting my motor vehicle. I cannot take ownership of responsibility for the actions of others where this may put them in harm's way. Whilst I will make every effort to avoid that, pedestrians have to take responsibility for their own safety as well.
|
|
|
|
Any number of examples where the car can strike a pedestrian, who is not always at fault. Just a couple: attempting to cross at a junction, most cars indicate they intend to turn right. There is also a possibility that the cars could go straight on. Assuming no signal means the car intends to travel straight, the ped. is at risk when the driver regards signalling as uncool. Crossing the road on a light controlled crossing, and the driver "errs" and strikes the ped. Crossing the road and the approach speed of the car is misjudged, e.g the elderly, the young. In all these and others the outcome can be reduced by careful design, As Honda and others can do it, why not the others? It is not nannying to protect life through legislation, from the negligence of some mfrs.
|
It's not black and white, you know.
We all need to exercise some common sense.
When Volvo introduced a plethora of safety features to their cars they were amazed at the accident rate increasing.
Umpteen studies showed this to drivers feeling safer, and taking extra risks.
Put airbags on bonnets and peds will use them, to impress the lads. Not many, but what were you like as a teenager?
The comment about Honda is amazing. I have never seen such contrasts in the products from one maker. What next, a piperack and slipper holder on my Fireblade. Took donkeys years before they put Vtec on the bikes.
Just cos they can do it.....
No, I don't want a Victor Meldrew car, thanks.
|
|
|
Agreed Nortones - and I don't think designing cars to be safer inside and out is nannying either. Drivers and pedestrians taking responsibility for their actions is fine but whilst a drunken driver might have to pay a fine or go to jail for injury/ killing a pedestrian that doesn't bring the dead person back to life does it! Even if the accident is the fault of the pedestrian is it better for the innocent driver to have to live with the knowledge that they killed someone ?
As has been pointed out above, there are many ways in which cars can be designed to be less dangerous to anyone unfortunate enough to be hit by one. Why anyone should object to that or call it nannying is quite beyond me.
|
|
|
|
|
