Author Topic: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018  (Read 8248 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2017, 08:29:07 pm »
Agreed, they may be cool toys but they are adding needless cost to private passenger vehicles. If you don't want people to back over children, teach people to not back over children by returning some professionalism and skill to driving rather than just making it easier for them.

Most new 4 door  sedans  have zero rear visibility does not matter if Malibu or Lexus. All new cars have the sloped back roof and high trunk.

@Cripplecreek
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 08:32:44 pm by mirraflake »

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2017, 08:32:14 pm »
The car companies would probably sell more cars if they actually had true base model cars and allowed people to add the options they wanted rather than making them standard on all cars at an increased cost.

I want to be able to go to the dealership and buy a car without traction control, anti lock brakes, braking assist, steering assist, parking assist, power windows and locks, and I want a standard shift transmission.

Just buy a 1960's car or truck.   

Offline mirraflake

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,199
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2017, 08:44:54 pm »
The car companies would probably sell more cars if they actually had true base model cars and allowed people to add the options they wanted rather than making them standard on all cars at an increased cost.


Car companies no longer have pick and chose because it cost them more to make the cars.  It took more people and advanced  communication and more cost from the parts suppliers to make sure each car received the exact option.

Actually cheaper just to add the options in the first place or have base options.

@Cripplecreek 

Oceander

  • Guest
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2017, 01:36:44 am »
Rear-view cameras are a really good idea.  It's not just a nifty toy.  The new VW Passat R-Line has it and while it hasn't saved a life yet, it's already prevented what could have been an expensive rear bumper cover repair on a leased vehicle.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2017, 05:13:07 am »
Agreed, they may be cool toys but they are adding needless cost to private passenger vehicles. If you don't want people to back over children, teach people to not back over children by returning some professionalism and skill to driving rather than just making it easier for them.
I'm with you. Since I started driving, the  things that have become "standard" on an automobile are mind boggling. Seat belts, air bags, air conditioning, cruise control, power steering and brakes, automatic transmissions, antilock brakes (I hate them), and now moving into the lane alerts, self-braking, collision avoidance systems, etc.

It seems the less driving there is to do, the less people pay attention to it, and the body count just doesn't seem that much reduced. (much of that to the credit of better EMS and Trauma teams, air evac, and paramedic training).
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #30 on: April 17, 2017, 05:19:23 am »
Rear-view cameras are a really good idea.  It's not just a nifty toy.  The new VW Passat R-Line has it and while it hasn't saved a life yet, it's already prevented what could have been an expensive rear bumper cover repair on a leased vehicle.
I have a couple of simple rules for backing up. Always check behind your vehicle before you get in for fixed objects, and if in town, for kids in the vicinity who might wander your way. Look! Check all your mirrors and the side windows, more than once. Don't back up any farther than you have to. Do so slowly--any contact will be less severe, if you do hit anything.
In town, there are plenty of idiot drivers, but they all seem to be racing for some parking space whenever I am backing out of one. I fully anticipate someone will pull up behind me at 90 degrees to my direction of travel, so I reverse accordingly.
It may not guarantee against an accident, but so far it has worked for me.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #31 on: April 17, 2017, 06:58:11 am »
Nice.  Some of the new safety technology might make me buy a new truck long before I "need" to.

And it's a big part of why I stay in pickups from the 70's and 80's... Safety is a full frame, a straight axle, and 500 lb bumpers.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2017, 07:01:51 am »
Their highwayman demands of mandatory "safety" features under the ruse of saving lives [...]

These little golf carts they're selling as cars these days... If you want to talk about safety, look at what happens to one of those when it gets hit by a logging truck at highway speeds...

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,175
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2017, 07:07:08 am »
And it's a big part of why I stay in pickups from the 70's and 80's... Safety is a full frame, a straight axle, and 500 lb bumpers.

I suggest you go look at the death rate in those older vehicles. I doubt it supports your theory.

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2017, 07:19:17 am »
I suggest you go look at the death rate in those older vehicles. I doubt it supports your theory.

Depends upon terrain. If you fall off the road here, you're going a long way down, bouncing off of big trees, not to mention whatever may have knocked you off the road in the first place... Bullet proof is nice.

Last wreck i was in was a glancing head-on at somewhere around 45 mph... I glanced off of him, hit the ditch and took out 4 8" trees and finally stopped by whacking a a two-footer... But The smaller trees slowed me down a mite.

The guy who hit me was totaled... I broke my nose and my jaw, bent the crap out of the steering wheel... Lost a fender and a door... But the bumpers saved the most of it.

I didn't like it much, but I walked away, and fixed the truck for a few hundred bucks.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 07:19:52 am by roamer_1 »

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2017, 07:42:48 am »
I'm with you. Since I started driving, the  things that have become "standard" on an automobile are mind boggling. Seat belts, air bags, air conditioning, cruise control, power steering and brakes, automatic transmissions, antilock brakes (I hate them), and now moving into the lane alerts, self-braking, collision avoidance systems, etc.


You forgot the butt warmers... and eleventy-seven cup holders....

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2017, 04:34:11 pm »
You forgot the butt warmers... and eleventy-seven cup holders....
Yes, I did. Maybe the ladies like sitting on something warmer than they are, but I don't like those things. None of the cup holders seem to fit the cup, quite, either. Another thing the new ones have are those screens they use to tell mileage and 'directions' with a display about the size of a paperback book. The screen is mounted about where the Radio used to be.
A friend has one of those, and it seems like one heck of a distraction to me. The front end is all plastic. In a wreck with vehicles of the same weight class and with fixed objects they're designed to crumple up and keep the passenger compartment somewhat in the same shape. Against a larger, more solid vehicle, especially traveling in the opposite direction, they don't do so well.
I am not sure how well they do in warmer climates, but catalytic converters tend to plug here in the winter and there is no worse feeling than a vehicle that can't drag its own shadow down the road because something that is absolutely not an essential mechanical part malfunctions, especially when it is 30 below out and you are miles from the house. That engine equals heat, too, which is why I tend to use the defrost to keep the windows clear and dress a little more for the weather. Stuff that looks like this on a calm day:


Like this when it's breezy (running with a tailwind):


..and although our mountain removal project is pretty near completion, here, we still have some terrain a fellow doesn't want to get off the road in: .  When the nearest house is just over the hill: (what hill?) you don't want to get in a bind.

Which gets back to K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Basic systems are most survivable in harsh climates and remote places. If it can be repaired by the user, it's better.

How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2017, 05:05:09 pm »
 @DB @roamer_1 To get back on topic, the most survivable crash (something those of us who like motorcycles have been saying for decades, now) is the one that didn't happen.

As I have been repeatedly assured from the time I first got behind the wheel of a tractor (5 years old), on every job site and oil rig I have been on, the best piece of safety equipment a person has is between their ears. All the crumple zones, air bags, padded interiors, 'cabin integrity', EMS training, Trauma Centers and air medivac squadrons in the world are moot if you just don't wreck the darned vehicle.

Bottom line is that while all the geegaws may make someone safer when they have a wreck, do they make them a better driver? Or do they just give them the impression they are 'safe' and free them to find another way to be reckless, giving them the option of blaming the gadgets for their own failure to pay attention, or their lack of skill behind the wheel?
 
This may sound harsh, but when there were no seat belts, the dashboards were steel, and airbags were science fiction, people drove more carefully because any wreck was going to hurt. That didn't stop the drunks, the stupid, the careless, and a few unfortunates from turning the highways into abattoirs, but people generally paid more attention, and the kids in the back seat learned to behave and play quietly. You heard 'that funny noise' long before a wheel fell off or something broke because you were listening to the vehicle. And if you were a kid in the back seat, you learned that driving was serious business.

As a matter of note, as the transition from those 'more primitive' vehicles to ones loaded with 'safety'  systems occurred, something else was happening on the other side of the equation.

Traditional fixed objects were being replaced with breakaway sign posts and energy absorbing barriers.

Shock Trauma at Johns Hopkins had developed a 'new' concept in civilian trauma treatment, concentrating on "The Golden Hour", getting seriously injured people to the sort of surgeons and medical facilities which could handle those injuries within 60 minutes of the injury.
 
The State of Maryland purchased two helicopters which were operated by the State Police but whose primary mission was to evacuate trauma patients from accident scenes to the new Trauma Unit at Hopkins. (The Governor was in transit in one of the helos when a call came in, the pilot set him down in a small town on the Eastern Shore and proceeded to the accident scene for the pickup.) There were incredible political fights over the concept, often with local hospitals dead set against it.

EMS training improved substantially from ambulance personnel being "qualified" to run calls with Red Cross Standard and Advanced First Aid cards to full EMT certifications (and later, Paramedics).
Extrication equipment moved from what looked like giant can openers and pry bars and chain come-alongs to the "Jaws of Life" (a huge improvement, and a tool I absolutely loved to use) which made peeling the vehicle away from the victim faster and more precise than ever, which was good, because vehicles were becoming lighter and less structural.

That more rapid and precise extrication, better First Responder training and equipment, and more efficient transport not to the nearest medical facility, but the best facility for those type of injuries, made a huge difference in patient survivability.
While that did not occur everywhere at once, the proof of concept finally overcame the 'nearest hospital' turf wars over patients, and within a decade the concept was in use across most of America.

With the possible exception of the seat belt (still relevant) and the collapsible steering column (which used to be a selling point, now so standard it isn't mentioned), I'd give those factors the credit for reducing the death toll more than anything else.
Crumple zones and air bags were still in the future, along with lane alerts and back up cameras, traction control, AWD/shift on the fly 4WD, and a host of other gadgets on 'wish list' drawing boards.
But if the driver isn't paying attention to what they are doing, or doesn't have the skill to operate in the conditions they are driving in, the result can be unpleasant.

Here, with the latest round of road construction (and even before) 'rumble strips' are impressed in the asphalt along the edge of the highway and at the center line on major roads, similar to ones which cross the lane as one approaches a stop sign. The unpleasant sound will wake a driver who nodded off, and alert anyone by sound and feel that they are crossing one. That infrastructure modification works with any vehicle that runs on wheels, adds no cost per automobile produced, and requires only welding bars on one side of the roller when the asphalt is finished, which can be ground off later for smooth work: cheap, effective, and has backward compatibility. That simple modification for the construction crew works much later, even in a whiteout, and doubtless has saved many lives here.



« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 05:11:13 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2017, 06:02:49 pm »


@Smokin Joe
Man, that's pretty... As an aside, I remember riding that kind of land - Kinda like the Missouri Breaks country, but with less grass...
I'll tell you what, a feller has to work at it to get lost up in here... A compass doesn't really do much more good than knowing that if the sun is on your left shoulder, you're heading west-ish, but really, we navigate by landmarks, ravines and water... Water goes downhill, so chase a creek down, and you will get out, sooner or later...
But get yourself up in that puzzle-box country like that, and you can get turned around real quick... and dang little on the horizon to mark the way... I can understand how folks can just up and disappear...

Quote
Which gets back to K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Basic systems are most survivable in harsh climates and remote places. If it can be repaired by the user, it's better.

I think I've got myself a proper project. I think I have picked up a 58 Apache Fleetside (and it's got the wrap-around rear window). Now, me being who I am, I am gonna jack that puppy up - I have an '83 1T 4x4 chassis I am gonna put that old pickup on to... Big block, Swampers... You probably know the drill.

But the thing I am getting at: That truck probably cost around $2000 coming off the show-room floor. Very functional, and entirely analog... And here we are, some 60 YEARS later, and every piece of that truck with the exception of one wing-window, still works... Even the AM push-button radio.

Try and do that with a '90's or newer truck. Shoot, most of the 90's trucks are falling apart already... And a 35mph crash will total the thing.

And it's a laugh-riot to watch this new generation try to back into a trailer without their precious rear-facing cam. Pretty near useless.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 06:03:30 pm by roamer_1 »

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2017, 06:35:17 pm »
To get back on topic, the most survivable crash (something those of us who like motorcycles have been saying for decades, now) is the one that didn't happen.

As I have been repeatedly assured from the time I first got behind the wheel of a tractor (5 years old), on every job site and oil rig I have been on, the best piece of safety equipment a person has is between their ears. All the crumple zones, air bags, padded interiors, 'cabin integrity', EMS training, Trauma Centers and air medivac squadrons in the world are moot if you just don't wreck the darned vehicle.

Now there's a valid point, and directly on point. That tractor you were driving when you were five years old is a far more dangerous machine... Learning how to operate the vehicle is probably the best safety you can get.

And it's also probably the most lacking... And exacerbated by all the gadgets that do it for you. You lose situational awareness. Like that kid trying to back my truck into my trailer in the previous post, but expanded into the entire sphere of driving. If telemetry is guarding you from getting too close... if the brakes automatically come on when you get too close... You lose the capability because you gave away the responsibility.

Quote
Bottom line is that while all the geegaws may make someone safer when they have a wreck, do they make them a better driver? Or do they just give them the impression they are 'safe' and free them to find another way to be reckless, giving them the option of blaming the gadgets for their own failure to pay attention, or their lack of skill behind the wheel?
 

EXACTLY


@DB

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2017, 06:48:25 pm »
These little golf carts they're selling as cars these days... If you want to talk about safety, look at what happens to one of those when it gets hit by a logging truck at highway speeds...

The technology and engineering in some of the little 'golf cart' cars are pretty amazing though. Fiat 500 head on with an 18 wheeler. Driver stepped out mostly unharmed.



Of course, don't even look at what happens to a Smart.


Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2017, 06:55:06 pm »
The technology and engineering in some of the little 'golf cart' cars are pretty amazing though. Fiat 500 head on with an 18 wheeler. Driver stepped out mostly unharmed.



Of course, don't even look at what happens to a Smart.


The dents in the door and just behind it in the Fiat show me the door was opened with the Jaws. Yep, there is cabin preservation in the Fiat, but it won't take to the road again until the steel is recycled and made into another vehicle.
Then, too the question arises of what the Fiat was doing running head-on into the truck?
It'd still be on the road if that had not happened, and because the Fiat is the vehicle that would bounce away from the impact, it looks like it was in the wrong lane.

As for the smart car, well, not so much under those circumstances. Better to leave some distance in front under those circumstances and get in the habit of cutting the wheel to the side when stopped so if hit from behind it gets punted out of the pinch.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 06:57:21 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43,677
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2017, 07:27:10 pm »
The technology and engineering in some of the little 'golf cart' cars are pretty amazing though. Fiat 500 head on with an 18 wheeler. Driver stepped out mostly unharmed.


@AbaraXas
I've been a wrecker driver long enough to know the other side of that tale. And it ain't pretty.
There's a reason why most folks out here put their wife and kids in a Suburban or a Tahoe... And they're right.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 07:27:58 pm by roamer_1 »

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #43 on: April 17, 2017, 07:31:53 pm »
@AbaraXas
I've been a wrecker driver long enough to know the other side of that tale. And it ain't pretty.
There's a reason why most folks out here put their wife and kids in a Suburban or a Tahoe... And they're right.
Yep. Survivability--and enough room to stretch out if you get stuck...
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 07:32:29 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline InHeavenThereIsNoBeer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,127
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #44 on: April 17, 2017, 07:48:16 pm »

Then, too the question arises of what the Fiat was doing running head-on into the truck?
It'd still be on the road if that had not happened, and because the Fiat is the vehicle that would bounce away from the impact, it looks like it was in the wrong lane.


What I find especially curious is that the lane dividers look pretty white to me.
My avatar shows the national debt in stacks of $100 bills.  If you look very closely under the crane you can see the Statue of Liberty.

Offline ABX

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 900
  • Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2017, 07:52:02 pm »
What I find especially curious is that the lane dividers look pretty white to me.

Beat me to it.  I need to find the link again, but that's what the forum I pulled this off of was saying. The truck was going the wrong way down an access road. If you zoom in on the picture, you'll see a traffic sign on the right up the road which seems to confirm the truck was going the wrong way.

Offline thackney

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,267
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2017, 08:11:41 pm »
The technology and engineering in some of the little 'golf cart' cars are pretty amazing though. Fiat 500 head on with an 18 wheeler. Driver stepped out mostly unharmed.


http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/30/fiat-500-least-safe-vehicle-to-drive-according-to-insurance-webs/

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crashed a 2012 Fiat 500, the little car got the best scores in all categories. It's a safe car, then, right?

"If safety is a priority, you should avoid the smallest cars," advises Russ Rader, spokesperson for IIHS. "Weight counts. Smaller, lighter cars are safer than they used to be, but all things being equal, people riding in bigger, heavier vehicles get more protection in crashes."

That's why, despite its near-perfect crash-test score, the Fiat 500 is No. 1 on Insure.com's list of worst vehicles for protecting passengers from injuries. In an accident with a larger object, the Fiat's safety cage and array of air bags do what they can to protect passenges, but like eggs in a coffee can, the passengers get thrown about and smashed up....
Life is fragile, handle with prayer

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,591
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2017, 08:52:21 pm »
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/30/fiat-500-least-safe-vehicle-to-drive-according-to-insurance-webs/

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crashed a 2012 Fiat 500, the little car got the best scores in all categories. It's a safe car, then, right?

"If safety is a priority, you should avoid the smallest cars," advises Russ Rader, spokesperson for IIHS. "Weight counts. Smaller, lighter cars are safer than they used to be, but all things being equal, people riding in bigger, heavier vehicles get more protection in crashes."

That's why, despite its near-perfect crash-test score, the Fiat 500 is No. 1 on Insure.com's list of worst vehicles for protecting passengers from injuries. In an accident with a larger object, the Fiat's safety cage and array of air bags do what they can to protect passenges, but like eggs in a coffee can, the passengers get thrown about and smashed up....
In the smaller vehicle, not only is there deceleration from traveled speed to zero, there is the acceleration back along a reciprocal heading which compounds the impact force.

That does not happen so much striking a fixed object as an oncoming and heavier vehicle because an oncoming and heavier vehicle imparts additional force to the smaller vehicle causing it to rebound in excess of the force the vehicle would have sustained striking a fixed object. Because the occupants have their own momentum independent of the vehicle, unless they are secured to the vehicle or restrained within it, they act as projectiles within the vehicle, and if not secured, sometimes exit the vehicle as a result of that force.

This is why seat belts save lives in most instances, and why air bags reduce impact between the occupants and the interior of the vehicle. 
Medically serious damage can occur to internal organs, including the brain, as a result of that deceleration, even under ideal circumstances and without orthopedic damage.
Then, too, there are situations where the impact is so severe cabin distortion causes direct trauma, despite any energy absorbing features.
In general, bigger is better, all things equal otherwise.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2017, 08:54:15 pm by Smokin Joe »
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,175
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2017, 09:34:24 pm »
http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/30/fiat-500-least-safe-vehicle-to-drive-according-to-insurance-webs/

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crashed a 2012 Fiat 500, the little car got the best scores in all categories. It's a safe car, then, right?

"If safety is a priority, you should avoid the smallest cars," advises Russ Rader, spokesperson for IIHS. "Weight counts. Smaller, lighter cars are safer than they used to be, but all things being equal, people riding in bigger, heavier vehicles get more protection in crashes."

That's why, despite its near-perfect crash-test score, the Fiat 500 is No. 1 on Insure.com's list of worst vehicles for protecting passengers from injuries. In an accident with a larger object, the Fiat's safety cage and array of air bags do what they can to protect passenges, but like eggs in a coffee can, the passengers get thrown about and smashed up....

The IIHS death rates for different vehicles pretty much sum up all the different issues with different types of vehicles regardless of crash tests, etc. That's the first thing I check when looking for a car for a family member. It also gives some indication of vehicles that better allow you to avoid an accident in the first place. Big and heavy do not usually help on that account.


Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,175
Re: Rear-view cameras on vehicles required by 2018
« Reply #49 on: April 17, 2017, 09:36:48 pm »
The technology and engineering in some of the little 'golf cart' cars are pretty amazing though. Fiat 500 head on with an 18 wheeler. Driver stepped out mostly unharmed.



Of course, don't even look at what happens to a Smart.



I think driving a "Smart Car" is insane.