"Boxer_4" (Boxer_4)
02/23/2014 at 02:35 • Filed to: None
2
32|
"Boxer_4" (Boxer_4)
02/23/2014 at 02:35 • Filed to: None | 2
| 32 |
Subaru has been studying pedestrian safety since the late 1960's. As a result, they have devloped many ideas on the subject over the years. One of their earlier ideas for improving pedestrian safety was a net that deployed from under the car to catch the pedestrian. Needless to say, it didn't work too well.
See it in action below:
JACU - I've got bonifides.
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 03:42 |
|
"Randy's OCD continued to be an issue right up to his suicide, where in the process of hanging himself, he hurled himself in front of a car, just to make sure.
Bubs
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 09:44 |
|
As a former (and hopefully again, eventually) Subaru 360 owner, I expected to be horrified by that 360 crash test in the video. It held up surprisingly well!
(Unless the plot-twist is that the clip was
NOT
in slow motion! Haha!)
tzx4
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 10:20 |
|
How about this for a pedestrian safety feature?
Don't deliberately put your fragile body on a collision course with a 2000 (plus) pound vehicle and expect it to avoid said collision. Seems t here really are some pedestrians out there with a secret death wish.
SubieNick
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 10:26 |
|
Does anyone know if that scale engine model shown real quick at the start is a real thing? DO WANT!
chriswhotakesphotos
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 11:01 |
|
I think we should abandon front bumpers with full-sized, comfortable sofas. Varying in quality between marques, obviously.
A+ music in that video, by the way.
Have Jeep, will travel.
> JACU - I've got bonifides.
02/23/2014 at 11:01 |
|
Thanks man. That was a good laugh. My wife looks over and asks whats so damn funny since I laughed out loud after reading it.
DougNuts
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 11:51 |
|
Subaru should concern themselves with the people walking, walking away from the brand due to lack of a proper sport wagon.
Maxaxle
> chriswhotakesphotos
02/23/2014 at 12:29 |
|
Simpler idea: Make bumpers AND hoods from something flexible that springs back into its original shape very easily.
More complex idea: Add auto-deploying seatbelts to the sofas so nobody falls off while being hit, and auto-deploying rollcages so they're not harmed by other objects. Wait a minute, am I actually designing a vehicle-mounted person-catching system?
Mike D F
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 13:21 |
|
I continually fail to understand why automakers turn pedestrian safety into their responsibility. Why is the owness on the car buying and using public?
Of course as drivers we're responsible for X amount of pedestrian safety, but unless you plan on going Grand Theft Auto I fail to see the need.
They should put numbers on the grill indicating how mangled you'll be if you get hit trying to run across the road.
|
ChrisCicc
> tzx4
02/23/2014 at 18:45 |
|
I've said for years, anytime a pedestrian is hit by a car in the street, it is
always
the pedestrians fault, regardless of the legal liability.
In car vs. pedestrian, the car wins
every time
. When the odds are 100% against you, that means you are only allowed 0% risk. Only cross the street when you can be sure if the car doesn't stop as expected, you'll still be able to get out of the way.
vc-10
> tzx4
02/23/2014 at 18:53 |
|
I've been hit by a car. It wasn't my fault. Don't automatically blame the pedestrian. In my case it was the fuckwit behind the wheel who turned onto a side street without looking or indicating, while I was crossing the road.
|
vc-10
> Mike D F
02/23/2014 at 18:54 |
|
Because some drivers are morons. I've been hit by a car, because the driver turned down a side street while I was crossing the road, without looking or indicating.
|
chriswhotakesphotos
> Maxaxle
02/23/2014 at 19:05 |
|
Let's not forget the significant strides that Top Gear made in this technology, however.
Widget_Master
> Boxer_4
02/23/2014 at 19:36 |
|
A few years back a girl crossing in a crosswalk near my apartment was hit and killed, tragically. It just so happened to be a Subaru Impreza hatchback. Nothing against Subaru, of course. No car is safe for pedestrians.
Sean Hodgins
> Mike D F
02/23/2014 at 22:16 |
|
Automakers didn't, laws and societal pressures(the gov.) made them. Do you think any of them wanted to do narrow offset crash tests? No way. IIHS can decide to do any test they want, and automakers will comply in order to continue to sell their vehicles.
Some companies just caught on early and thought it would be good marketing. But its all just a sales game.
|
FelixScout
> vc-10
02/23/2014 at 23:02 |
|
Exactly this. Once again any attempt to make it look like the onus is on one side or the other and not both is limiting.
|
FelixScout
> ChrisCicc
02/23/2014 at 23:06 |
|
So in every case where a driver deliberately or accidentally targets pedestrians it's our fault? In every case where a driver is not paying attention and turns a safe street into a hazardous place is the pedestrians fault? In everycase where a driver decided the light has gone on too long a just goes or fails to notices a change and doesn't stop when the signals indicate they should it's the pedestrian's fault?
|
ChrisCicc
> FelixScout
02/23/2014 at 23:33 |
|
Head on a swivel, my friend :) If a car doesn't see you, for whatever reason, either YOU get out of the way, or you get hit and injured/killed. "Fault" here is a term used not in the legal definition.
DIRTEE30
> Boxer_4
02/24/2014 at 00:44 |
|
One question: Why does pedestrian safety matter? If you're dumb enough to walk out in front of a 3000+ lbs object, made of metal, plastic, and glass, traveling at probably faster rate than you, you deserve to be maimed, or die. Consider it as sanitizing the gene pool.
Some may argue "what about kids who don't know any better?" It's your job, as a parent or guardian to let them know how dangerous cars can be, and you keep them in your sight AT ALL TIMES! This means putting down your phone, stop tweeting, texting, or checking Facebook. I know, now I'm just being an unreasonable prick.
|
FelixScout
> ChrisCicc
02/24/2014 at 00:57 |
|
No it's used in the sense of personal responsibility, which is limiting since it lifts responsibility for one group and places it on the other. The sense here is slanted with the idea that the driver is never "at fault" because streets are for cars only, or are for pedestrians at the pleasure of drivers. However, in that context the driver is actually equally, or more or less, at fault depending on the circumstances. If this is not your stance this is how you present it.
And even with ahead on a swivel can be meaningless if circumstances are out of your control, or even if your control is limited. This is how reality works, everything is fine until the moment it isn't. This is why there are rules protecting pedestrians, and traffic controls allowing them to cross streets and not be pinned at home if they do not want to drive.
Are there complete idiots who walk out in the street without looking? Fuzzy little kittens yes! I encounter them driving, biking, running, and walking. But we shouldn't let that shape our overall perception of entire group, especially to the point of saying another group is not "at fault" because they are not armored against impact. The driver needs to have their head on a swivel as well, as I do, because things will go wrong at some point. AND the pedestrian should pay attention to the road and respond accordingly since legal rights are not the same as a force field.
It's a two way street.
TheBobmanNH
> Mike D F
02/24/2014 at 10:03 |
|
It's kind of ironic, automakers are "responsible" for pedestrian safety, but really the best way to increase pedestrian safety (from a driver perspective, at least) is to have drivesr who are more engaged. And yet nearly everything automakers have done in the past 20 years has been about SEPARATING the driver from teh driving experience, and making them feel LESS engaged and thus less aware.
|
TinPin
> FelixScout
02/24/2014 at 12:50 |
|
How would one 'accidentally' target a pedestrian? You make it sound like an intentional act, but one cannot do something intentionally by accident..
|
Maxaxle
> chriswhotakesphotos
02/24/2014 at 13:45 |
|
Unfortunately I haven't seen Top Gear in over a year or so; what is that thing?
|
tzx4
> vc-10
02/24/2014 at 17:31 |
|
Precisely because "some drivers are morons" do I NEVER count on them to not hit me. When I am a pedestrian, vehicles absolutely have the right of way.
It is illogical to be legally right, and dead right . . . . as in deceased.
I also do not want to inconvenience a vehicle by causing them to have to slow down for me, it takes them far less time to cross out paths than it does for me on foot.
I drive on the job, and every day there are pedestrians who do literally put themselves on a collision course with my vehicle. Not an insignificant number of them don't even look before stepping into the traffic lane. Trusting vehicle drivers is a gamble and a death wish, and it seriously looks to me like some pedestrians to have that wish.
|
chriswhotakesphotos
> Maxaxle
02/24/2014 at 17:56 |
|
That's a car built for old people. I'd say it's one of the funniest things they've done. Or at least that I've seen.
|
vc-10
> tzx4
02/24/2014 at 18:35 |
|
I know what you mean- there are plenty of idiots out there who are pefectly happy to just step out into traffic.
What happened to me was that I was crossing a side street off a fairly busy main road. There wasn't a proper crossing, just a dropped kerb, like most side streets in the UK. It's not really feasible to wait until there are no cars anywhere near you, so I crossed as there weren't any cars indicating or slowing down to turn, and there wasn't a car waiting to turn onto the main road. The traffic on the main road was quite slow, and a blue Lexus just turned off the main road and accelerated towards me. Hit me doing about 20mph or so.
porchswinghero
> FelixScout
02/24/2014 at 19:04 |
|
Right of weight. Or have you heard of that?
|
FelixScout
> TinPin
02/27/2014 at 02:08 |
|
You can. Killing someone due to mistaken identity is the best example of this. In a driving sense, see many cases where someone is run down by an elderly driver who are under the impression that something else is occurring.
|
TinPin
> FelixScout
02/27/2014 at 10:49 |
|
To 'target' someone is to make the conscious decision to select a person out of a group, then to go after them. That is a very conscious act. You cannot do something consciously AND accidentally. It's one of the other...
You also state 'killing someone by mistaken identity'. This would mean someone made the conscious decision (see above) to target and run over a person with their car, only to realize they targeted the wrong person by mistake. Please cite an example of this actually happening, because I have never heard of it in real life.
|
FelixScout
> TinPin
02/27/2014 at 23:44 |
|
You can do something consciously and accidentally at them same time: think of taking an action and ending up with an unintended result. This is why I stated killing someone due to mistaken identity, since it's a great example of this. Variable mental states also fall under this in many ways since the motivations that someone was acting under during a episode can produce unintended real world results.
As for examples...
People killed due to mistaken identity:
Two teens shot due to mistaken identity
Man knifed due to mistaken identity
Woman shoots her daughter due to mistaken identity
Now none of these involve driving over someone but it does cover the idea of killing/attempted killing an individual deliberately but accidentally killing the wrong person. And this is three out of the first dozen links under a Google search for "killed due to mistaken identity".
Now for cars:
While more folks are shot or physically attacked due to mistaken identity, with similar car based attacks being less common, it does happen with a car as the weapon. I hope this helps illuminate my point.
|
solk512
> ChrisCicc
03/02/2014 at 11:59 |
|
Best of luck to you in court.
|
ChrisCicc
> solk512
03/02/2014 at 17:50 |
|
Congratulations on missing the entire point.