On pedestrian safety

"Bluecold" (Bluecold) 05/31/2014 at 06:07 • Filed to: Pedestrian Impact, SRS BSNS

2

16

I know this is a subject frequently derided and joked about here for 'making cars all look the same' by raising the height of the hood, as also stated in the linked article.

This is a gross simplification of the rules. The only rule is that there needs to be space between the hood and engine. There are a myriad of options mfg's can take instead of just raising the hood. You can also lower the highest point of the engine. A slacker V angle, more tilt, shove the engine back a bit, dry sump, put the engine not in the front.... Either are perfectly valid options. It's just another packaging constraint on top of all the other packaging constraints and claiming 'omg the EU forces our cars to be ugly' is lazy and unfounded. 'The EU places extra constraints on engine bay packaging' would be a better way to put it. 'The EU forces mfgs to lower the center of gravity and polar inertia of our cars' would be an awesome way to put it.

It's not like car manufacturers give two shits about engine bay accessibility as it stands. And there are still front-engined cars that have nice low fronts while still conforming to regulations. The much-beloved C7 'vette fits in that category.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

In any case, keep this in mind: Despite any morbid jokes you might make, if the day comes that you hit a pedestrian, you'd rather have him in the hospital with a fighting chance, than dead on your hood. Nobody expects it to happen to themselves. Me neither. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy a car that has better pedestrian impact ratings. Which makes it a perfect place for the government to step in to force mfg's to at least make something that scores 'acceptably well'.

The Transporter > Bluecold 05/31/2014 at 07:16

0

Or, conversely, pedestrians could be made to take more responsibility for their own actions and we wouldn't need these stupid laws.

duurtlang > The Transporter 05/31/2014 at 07:32

1

That's assuming every time a car hits a pedestrian it's the pedestrian who's at fault.

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > The Transporter 05/31/2014 at 07:44

0

that's a pretty dumb and generalizing statement.

How do you propose to make pedestrians take more responsibility for their actions?

deekster_caddy > The Transporter 05/31/2014 at 07:55

1

This has nothing to do with who is at fault. Cars and pedestrians share the same roads and pathways. Sooner or later those things will meet. Sometimes accidents happen. Sometimes cars have bad drivers who hit the gas instead of the brake. Sometimes pedestrians are morons who look the wrong way. This is not about fault. It's about making the inevitable meeting one with a greater chance of survival.

It's part of evolutionary design. Sometimes cars go off the road and crash. As a result highway engineers have learned more about guardrails, barriers, embankments, bridge supports to make them safer to the cars that will inevitably crash into them. You don't hear people complaining that bridge abutments are fatter and more expensive to design and implement, because most people aren't even aware that these giant round concrete posts are much safer than the steel I-beams that used to stand there. But there they stand, saving the occasional life, at the cost of more expensive bridges.

Clown Shoe Pilot > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 05/31/2014 at 08:05

1

Make the penalty for getting hit steep. Put spikes and whatnot on the front of the cars. They'll either learn to be responsible or get hit. If they get hit before they reproduce, over time the problem solves itself.

(I'm not being serious)

The Transporter > SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman 05/31/2014 at 08:34

1

The way it's being done where I live: If you get run over and a) survive and b) were not in a crosswalk when you got hit, guess what? It's your fault.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Bluecold 05/31/2014 at 09:12

1

This kind of highlights the problem with people and politicians in general...people don't understand what they are talking about. Unless you have a degree in engineering (or any scientific degree) you probably shouldn't be arguing about things like emissions regulation, safety standards, and things of that nature. The implications when enacting a law often go far beyond what many people and politicians realize and more often than not is the reason we have laws which create scenarios of unintended consequences. Granted most agencies (like the EPA) have engineers on staff to help guide and craft regulation, but even then things get overlooked or politicians ignore recommendations to push a bill that will score easy political points through. Kind of went off subject there, but thought it was kind of the what was behind the motivation for this post

Bluecold > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 05/31/2014 at 09:27

0

Actually, I was describing why pedestrian safety standards are a Good Thing and that the criticism on it is unfounded and short-sighted. This isn't about political points, this is about good policy. A government should exactly do stuff like this. Everybody wants their neighbors cars to have good pedestrian impact ratings. But for themselves, the amount of cupholders and airconditioning settings is more important. Then the government steps in and forces everybody to play along.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Bluecold 05/31/2014 at 09:41

0

I guess I wasn't very clear. I was agreeing with you...the last part was just a personal comment on politicians trying to score political points with dumb laws where they didn't think of the consequences. I had a different article in mind with that statement, can't find it now, but basically was California's law about "green" cars getting HOV rights encourages the use of gasoline basically

Bluecold > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 05/31/2014 at 11:10

0

Ah ok, thanks :) I think you meant this article:

http://jalopnik.com/a-friendly-rem…

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > The Transporter 05/31/2014 at 12:07

0

you're not answering the question. What you're saying here is how pedestrians pay for being hit.... Not how to prevent them being hit

SnapUndersteer, Italian Spiderman > Clown Shoe Pilot 05/31/2014 at 12:34

0

oh my!

bobkustofawitshz > Bluecold 05/31/2014 at 12:52

1

Great post. Unfortunately, it's the combination of EU regulation and laziness/cheapness on the part of the automakers that results in the ugly bloated things being produced. As you mentioned, there are many ways to work around this, many of which would actually improve the handling of the vehicle without jeopardizing the stylistic integrity of the design, like moving the engine back a bit or just not putting the engine in the front (I like that idea in particular). "Lowering the center of gravity and polar inertia of our cars" is something I fully support. The problem is automakers would rather take the easy way out, and essentially tell the design teams "deal with it," rather than actually engineering a solution that would both comply with the regulations and improve vehicle dynamics. Ergo, we get bloated styling, bumped up hoods and massive gaping maws instead of low, sleek, balanced driving machines. And since if you get hit by a car at any significant speed, chances are you'll still be dead whether the vehicle is bloated and ugly or not, I still think that both pedestrians and drivers should be advised to put the fucking smartphones down, focus on what you're doing, and prevent the accident from happening in the fist place.

Axial > Bluecold 05/31/2014 at 13:17

0

As an engineer:

You can't necessarily lower the engine if your ride height is already at the legal limit and the engine is already mounted as low as it can be.

You can't use a slacker V-angle without possibly adding more vibrations, which need more equipment to counter, which increases weight and reduces that government-mandated fleet fuel economy. It also adds more things to stress and negates one of the chief advantages of using an engine with more cylinders: inherent smoothness.

Not putting the engine in the front makes service more difficult. Unfamiliarity can scare away customers. Even the Volt/ELR still have front-mounted engines.

Not that the above aren't nit-picky (and the C7 example is excellent), I just think it's unfair to list solutions without also listing the drawbacks because everything has drawbacks. My real beef with the pedestrian safety regs is that the automakers are generally being lazy and are simply making their cars bigger to compensate. Something is horribly wrong when a "compact sedan" is the size of a mid-size sedan from 15 years ago. It sucks, because I'm a fan of those low and pointy designs from the late '70s through the '80s and early '90s. I hate the overly bulgy and overly round features of today's cars, with the exception of Porsche because they've always been that way and they own the look.

Bluecold > Axial 05/31/2014 at 18:34

0

To be fair, manufacturers have time and time again shown a willful disregard of engine vibration modes. If they cared, all engines would be slant sixes or crossplane V8's. Fiat makes a two cilinder for crying out loud and you hear nobody complaining about that either. Besides, V angle of 180 can also be considered a slack angle.

I do realise that in order to make ends meet, compromises need to be made. To list all the variables going into an engine design regarding height would be quite the story. The examples given were intended as illustrative to my point.

Axial > Bluecold 05/31/2014 at 19:02

0

Like I said, I'm not saying the drawbacks aren't picking nits, but I do feel like they should be voiced because only mentioning one side of the debate makes for a faulty argument.