The Briefing Room
General Category => Science, Technology and Knowledge => Topic started by: EC on April 14, 2017, 07:44:31 am
-
SAN DIEGO (KGTV) - The deadline for all new cars to have a rear-view camera is fast approaching, but it's already too late to help an Escondido family.
One-year-old Kloe Cruz was hit and killed Monday night by a driver backing up. A rear-view camera might have prevented the crash.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration put a rule in place in 2014 that requires any new car under 10,000 pounds to have a rear-view camera. The deadline for compliance is May 2018.
At Frank Subaru in National City, the entire fleet already complies with the rule.
"Anything that will assist you in that driving process, people are really leaning towards that," said Robert Wind, a manager at the dealership.
Wind was heartbroken to hear about what happened to Kloe and her family.
The NHTSA says about 200 people are killed every year by back-up crashes. Another 14,000 are injured.
More: http://www.10news.com/news/rear-view-camera-might-have-saved-little-girls-life-in-escondido-crash
I had no idea this rule even existed.
-
Love mine. Makes backing up so much easier and safer.
Don't think the govt should be requiring them.
-
Got a back up sensor on my car. Hate the damned thing, but can't turn it off without serious screwdriver work to get at the speaker connections (I've tried).
-
I like mine, but they are not necessarily safer. I often find myself focusing on the camera image, which shows what's behind me, but not what might be coming from the sides.
-
I like mine, but they are not necessarily safer. I often find myself focusing on the camera image, which shows what's behind me, but not what might be coming from the sides.
Mine has cameras on the sides and has cross radar. I don't even really need to look as it will tell me if something is there.
-
Love mine. Makes backing up so much easier and safer.
Don't think the govt should be requiring them.
Agreed! That regulation will just be used as an excuse to add more cost to all vehicles, because the bureaucrats will not just stop at requiring a camera, they will specify in excruciating detail where it shall be located, the technical specifications of the camera system, etc ad naseum.....
-
Mine has cameras on the sides and has cross radar. I don't even really need to look as it will tell me if something is there.
Nice. Some of the new safety technology might make me buy a new truck long before I "need" to.
-
Agreed! That regulation will just be used as an excuse to add more cost to all vehicles, because the bureaucrats will not just stop at requiring a camera, they will specify in excruciating detail where it shall be located, the technical specifications of the camera system, etc ad naseum.....
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.
-
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.
@Cripplecreek
They may be considered a luxury or optional item but they are not toys. The camera and radar make it much easier to drive. They greatly reduce the chance of a collision. When in parking garages or busy parking lots they are incredible.
You Sir, are a Luddite.
-
@Cripplecreek
They may be considered a luxury or optional item but they are not toys. The camera and radar make it much easier to drive. They greatly reduce the chance of a collision. When in parking garages or busy parking lots they are incredible.
You Sir, are a Luddite.
So pay for it as an extra or would you prefer to subsidize one for me?
-
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is as evil as the EPA. Their highwayman demands of mandatory "safety" features under the ruse of saving lives drives up the cost of the vehicle and rarely justifies the cost vs benefit.
-
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is as evil as the EPA. Their highwayman demands of mandatory "safety" features under the ruse of saving lives drives up the cost of the vehicle and rarely justifies the cost vs benefit.
Plenty of crony capitalism taking place there. Everytime someone comes up with a new safety technology some idiot comes running to scream "If it saves only one life"! To make matters worse the lobbyists start whispering in the ears of congressmen about jobs created if only my product were required or better yet, just think how much money investors would make if our product was required.
-
So pay for it as an extra or would you prefer to subsidize one for me?
@Cripplecreek
I did pay for it myself. I also posted above that the Govt shouldn't require it.
So you want your Obamacam eh.
-
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is as evil as the EPA. Their highwayman demands of mandatory "safety" features under the ruse of saving lives drives up the cost of the vehicle and rarely justifies the cost vs benefit.
@Wingnut
These things do drive up cost. That $2 camera and $15 dollar screen cost a fortune by the time the car makers are done marking them up.
Cars are overpriced as it is. The issue is govt intrusion not the cost this will add.
-
@Wingnut
These things do drive up cost. That $2 camera and $15 dollar screen cost a fortune by the time the car makers are done marking them up.
The issue is govt intrusion not the cost this will add.
I thought that was implied. Let the free market dictate. Not the government regulate.
-
I thought that was implied. Let the free market dictate. Not the government regulate.
Sorry I missed that.
-
I thought that was implied. Let the free market dictate. Not the government regulate.
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.
-
I love mine but why require it? I drive a Ford Fiesta, it doesn't require a damn backup camera.
BTW, did you guy see where some guy attached a photo of Nick Cage to his wife's backup camera?
(http://i.imgur.com/CKu8Tyb.jpg)
http://imgur.com/CKu8Tyb
-
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.
And you should be able too.....if this was 1965!
-
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.
Screw all that, I'd settle on being able to bypass a dealership altogether. I hate them. Biggest bunch of scumbags on the planet.
-
So pay for it as an extra or would you prefer to subsidize one for me?
Yep. And it's just one more thing to break down. We already have technology for driving backwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6xXNToFas
-
Yep. And it's just one more thing to break down. We already have technology for driving backwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA6xXNToFas
We used to cruise all over my little hometown backwards. We used to play on the ice and dirt roads, back into the diagonal parking to BS in the middle of the night with less than an inch between vehicles. etc. We really learned how to handle vehicles effectively.
-
@Cripplecreek
They may be considered a luxury or optional item but they are not toys. The camera and radar make it much easier to drive. They greatly reduce the chance of a collision. When in parking garages or busy parking lots they are incredible.
You Sir, are a Luddite.
While Luddites complain about cameras, they can also complain about tire safety, crash safety, seatbelts, glass safety, airbags, anti-lock brakes, among other safety oriented technologies. Baby seats and anchoring, too.
-
We used to cruise all over my little hometown backwards. We used to play on the ice and dirt roads, back into the diagonal parking to BS in the middle of the night with less than an inch between vehicles. etc. We really learned how to handle vehicles effectively.
Yes and you walked 10 miles uphill both ways through 6 feet of snow to get to school.
-
My wife has a new Camaro SS with the camera. It is nearly 100% impossible to see out the back window and the rear quarter windows are maybe 3/4 foot square if that.
Side mirrors and camera is just about the only way you can see in back of you.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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:
(https://icons.wxug.com/data/wximagenew/m/mind20set16/1171-800.jpg)
Like this when it's breezy (running with a tailwind): (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MsbMVev38Yw/hqdefault.jpg)
..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: (https://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/styles/desktop_900_x_360_/public/2016-02/badlands.jpg?itok=OzAYSwDQ). When the nearest house is just over the hill: (https://prd-wret.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/styles/full_width/public/F_0.jpg?itok=oFoZEUi_) (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.
-
@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.
-
(https://gf.nd.gov/sites/default/files/styles/desktop_900_x_360_/public/2016-02/badlands.jpg?itok=OzAYSwDQ)
@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...
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.
-
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.
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
-
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.
(http://bilder.augsburger-allgemeine.de/img/incoming/crop23188076/3247217014-ctopTeaser/Unfall.jpg)
Of course, don't even look at what happens to a Smart.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/87/f9/f087f9a5c0670bf1c9a5d256574f2bd7.jpg)
-
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://bilder.augsburger-allgemeine.de/img/incoming/crop23188076/3247217014-ctopTeaser/Unfall.jpg)
Of course, don't even look at what happens to a Smart.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/87/f9/f087f9a5c0670bf1c9a5d256574f2bd7.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
@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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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://bilder.augsburger-allgemeine.de/img/incoming/crop23188076/3247217014-ctopTeaser/Unfall.jpg)
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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://bilder.augsburger-allgemeine.de/img/incoming/crop23188076/3247217014-ctopTeaser/Unfall.jpg)
Of course, don't even look at what happens to a Smart.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f0/87/f9/f087f9a5c0670bf1c9a5d256574f2bd7.jpg)
I think driving a "Smart Car" is insane.
-
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.
It depends on where you are. Small, light vehicles (and those with a large sail area) get blown off the road here. Little vehicles can't punch through snow drifts, but are instead deflected and even overturned, and at low speeds get hung up.
In this environment, ground clearance counts, weight counts, power counts.
Then pay attention to what is going on and drive it defensively.
If you want ideal maneuverability and horse power to weight ratio, go with a motorcycle, but that isn't so good in a collision, and defensive driving is even more important, because even little cars don't 'see' you. (Loud pipes save lives!)
-
It depends on where you are. Small, light vehicles (and those with a large sail area) get blown off the road here. Little vehicles can't punch through snow drifts, but are instead deflected and even overturned, and at low speeds get hung up.
In this environment, ground clearance counts, weight counts, power counts.
Then pay attention to what is going on and drive it defensively.
If you want ideal maneuverability and horse power to weight ratio, go with a motorcycle, but that isn't so good in a collision, and defensive driving is even more important, because even little cars don't 'see' you. (Loud pipes save lives!)
I'm not arguing small and light. Just that there's an optimum in the middle. I'm also not arguing that there are other factors, like what it is used for and where. And specifically, what I originally was addressing was pickup trucks from the 70's or 80's being safer than modern equivalents - I very much doubt that. There have been many engineering improvements over the years to both make them better handling and more survivable.
-
I'm not arguing small and light. Just that there's an optimum in the middle. I'm also not arguing that there are other factors, like what it is used for and where. And specifically, what I originally was addressing was pickup trucks from the 70's or 80's being safer than modern equivalents - I very much doubt that. There have been many engineering improvements over the years to both make them better handling and more survivable.
There is an optimum in the middle, but up here pickups and suburbans are the middle, among fleets of semis and winch trucks, the average family sedan is 'small'. If you are in a climate that does not get snow, your needs are different than here, where having a summer car and a winter vehicle is a bit of a luxury. You get what you need for the worst conditions you will drive in, or a little more. Not having seen any stats on survivability to compare 70s and 80s pickups to more modern ones, and not having been in a wreck since '80 in one (I got t-boned by a guy coming down a cross road, the yield sign on his road had been flattened and not replaced). I broke the rear wheels loose and the truck spun when hit. Both were totaled, but the raw impact to the one I was in was muted by the reduced traction. We both walked away from the wreck. That accident made me a much more defensive driver. I knew he was supposed to yield, I knew the roads, he did not. Had I not expected him to yield, I may have been better able to avoid the collision altogether.
A fellow in a early 2000's Ford F-150 brought an end to the project pickup (66 Ford) I had on the road when he did the same to it, with my wife and two grandkids in the cab, wife driving. None of them were hurt, but the only truck that drove away was the '66.
There was a lot less metal in the trucks by the late '70s.
My current pickup is an '87 Dodge, and the front is mostly metal (plastic grille).
Up here (North Dakota), bigger is better. Elsewhere, perhaps not so much. One size does not fit all.
-
When my father died this past October, he left money for my sister, my mother and me to get new cars because he was worried the ones we were currently driving might fail.
My sister bought hers while he was still alive, because we all knew about this money. I told him I didn't want to do anything until the summer until after my hip surgery and my car would be outside all winter I saw no reason to get a new one.
So now my mom has been saying it's time to look at new cars. To be honest, there is nothing wrong with my old car.
Mom and I have each looked at several models (2017) for ourselves, and saw the rear view thingy on every car. Not an option.
The thing is, we both decided we just aren't in love with the cars we have seen. Yes, they are beautiful cars, but we like the cars we are currently driving, so we will just keep our cars for now. Yes they are about ten years old but they run well.
To be honest, I miss my first car. A 76 Pontiac, no technology on it other than the tape deck I installed. You even had to manually roll down the windows.
-
To be honest, I miss my first car. A 76 Pontiac, no technology on it other than the tape deck I installed. You even had to manually roll down the windows.
I'd love to have my '71 Plymouth Duster again. It would be even nicer with a rear-view camera, though. My current car ('14 Subaru) has it, and it's very helpful.
-
I'd love to have my '71 Plymouth Duster again. It would be even nicer with a rear-view camera, though. My current car ('14 Subaru) has it, and it's very helpful.
Wow. We were actually going to buy Subarus. Mom and I currently have Hondas. Thank you @mountaineer
-
Subaru is a very good car and not as pricey as others in its class. I tried to buy American in 2014, but didn't like the options in the small SUV category and so went with the Forester.
-
Subaru is a very good car and not as pricey as others in its class. I tried to buy American in 2014, but didn't like the options in the small SUV category and so went with the Forester.
@mountaineer
And they WORK. Hillbilly life is notoriously hard on vehicles... You can be reasonably guaranteed you will find a 3/4T or better pickup truck in their yard... and a far better than average chance there will be a subaru too... to the point that in talking to them, 'subaru' has nearly replaced the word 'car'.
Not very much short of a heavy pickup can withstand 15-20 miles of pavement, another 7-10 miles of gravel, and probably 2 miles of forest track all the time, not to mention in the winter. Pretty much the only thing out there other than 4x4 pickups, 4-wheelers, and snowmachines has Subaru on the grill.
@Freya
-
I'd love to have my '71 Plymouth Duster again. It would be even nicer with a rear-view camera, though. My current car ('14 Subaru) has it, and it's very helpful.
Didn't Al Bundy drive a Duster?
-
Back up cameras are for idiots that don't know how mirrors work.
-
I'd love to have my '71 Plymouth Duster again. It would be even nicer with a rear-view camera, though. My current car ('14 Subaru) has it, and it's very helpful.
Sibling to my '71 Plymouth Scamp.
-
Back up cameras are for idiots that don't know how mirrors work.
Not at all.
-
Freya wrote:
"To be honest, I miss my first car. A 76 Pontiac, no technology on it other than the tape deck I installed. You even had to manually roll down the windows."
Heh.
My very first car with air conditioning, power windows, and a -stereo- radio, was my Toyota RAV4 I bought in October of 2005.
Previous to that I'd been driving a 1993 Acura Integra without a/c, a radio (of any kind), and roll-down windows -- for 300,000 miles. (for music, I toted around a portable CD player and headphones)
With hip surgery, I'd suggest one of the current crop of mini-SUVs (like the RAV). Very easy to get in/out of!
-
Subaru is a very good car and not as pricey as others in its class. I tried to buy American in 2014, but didn't like the options in the small SUV category and so went with the Forester.
A guy who worked with me on oil rigs bought a Subaru to replace his Tahoe. Better mileage, than the Tahoe, and a vehicle that would handle the trip from Wyoming to an oil rig in North Dakota in winter (without any trouble on the rig road). He was excited to get it and thrilled with it once he did. A very capable vehicle for an off the lot SUV.
-
I loved my old Escape. It was truck-like and got around 19 mpg. The new Escape is completely different and I really didn't like the interior, so we went with the Forester. The Subaru gets 29-30 mpg, which is nice. I still don't like that the rear window in any of the new small SUVs can't be opened. That was convenient in my old Escape whenever I had to buy some 2x4s; could just hang them out the back window. But you're right, @roamer_1 - the Subaru is very common around this part of WV. We have winding hilly roads, and the AWD is good to have in winter.
-
Had 2 escapes prior to the redo. loved em. The New ones cost to much so I bought a Subie. Picked up a nicely equipped Crosstrek for @26K incl TT&L. If I had to do it over again I'd go for the Forester even tho the trek is the better looking of the two but the forester has more inside room for storage. Currently I need the Roof Basket for the extra stuff.
-
Back up cameras are for idiots that don't know how mirrors work.
I haven't found a truck with mirrors that shows the trailer hitch. World of difference when hooking up by yourself.
-
Back up cameras are for idiots that don't know how mirrors work.
My wife's new Camaro has zero visibility out the rear window.- it comes standard with the camera. Most new cars esp 4 doors have the sloped back roof and high trunk lid and you cannot see behind them at all.
@Frank Cannon
-
I haven't found a truck with mirrors that shows the trailer hitch. World of difference when hooking up by yourself.
No doubt about it but it should still be optional.
Just yesterday I saw a Ford ad making the claim that all the technology was teaching kids to drive better. In reality it teaches them to rely too heavily on technology. I saw it about an hour after my sister almost hit a guy on a cycle because the technology on her 2017 Chevy Cruz decided the bike wasn't important enough to stop for while my sister was apparently just a passenger.
-
No doubt about it but it should still be optional.
Agreed. I bought an aftermarket at Tractor Supply and added mine to my basic truck.
-
Agreed. I bought an aftermarket at Tractor Supply and added mine to my basic truck.
Exactly. The technology is fine for those of us who already have the responsibilities of driving deeply embedded in our psyche. The youth who are learning to drive today seem to believe they're absolved of those responsibilities. We have a case here in the county where a teenager is charged with vehicular manslaughter because he saw and ran over a pedestrian while assuming the car would handle it. (His car didn't have braking or steering assist, he assumed all cars had it.)
My sister is especially irritating because she knows better. She grew up driving beaters the same way I did but she's now ultra progressive and can only see a means of controlling others. She informed me that poor people shouldn't drive if they can't afford the ever more expensive new cars. Poor people should take public transportation which means they should all live in the city.
-
No doubt about it but it should still be optional.
Just yesterday I saw a Ford ad making the claim that all the technology was teaching kids to drive better. In reality it teaches them to rely too heavily on technology. I saw it about an hour after my sister almost hit a guy on a cycle because the technology on her 2017 Chevy Cruz decided the bike wasn't important enough to stop for while my sister was apparently just a passenger.
I JUST met my first 'can't hook up a trailer because your truck doesn't have a backup cam' guy... Friend of my kid... After eight stabs on the mirrors, he just bailed. Doesn't know how to back it up on the mirrors. He's always had a backup cam.
How can you be a guy and not know how to back up a truck using mirrors???
-
I JUST met my first 'can't hook up a trailer because your truck doesn't have a backup cam' guy... Friend of my kid... After eight stabs on the mirrors, he just bailed. Doesn't know how to back it up on the mirrors. He's always had a backup cam.
How can you be a guy and not know how to back up a truck using mirrors???
I don't have a lot of experience with trailers but I grantee I could get within a couple of inches with a few trial and error attempts.
-
Uh, no it won't make people that much safer. The problem is that they cameras only work in optimal weather conditions. I know, I use them regularly on a company-owned vehicle.
In severe cold, condensation / ice obscure the lens and when it rains, water droplets destroy visibility 100%. Are they also going to require tiny wipers or heating elements to deal with that? Of course not. So the net result is that people will grow too used to having them and then when they stop working, the drivers will be far more-unsafe than if they had always used conventional means to observe behind them in the first place.
All-but-guaranteed that for every person saved by such devices, one or more will die because the driver allowed themselves to be 100% dependent on a piece of technology that was not 100% functional 100% of the time.
The government will never learn that there is no way to legislate responsibility to those who will not exercise it voluntarily. No amount of technology will ever fix that unless and until human beings are no longer permitted free will on pretense that it's "too dangerous".
Then we are in the scenario of Clockwork Orange, where human freedom itself is considered too dangerous to permit. Seeking a perfect world free of auto accidents is an act of folly.- so naturally it has strong advocates at all levels of government and industry because new products can be created and revenue generated.
-
Uh, no it won't make people that much safer. The problem is that they only work in optimal weather conditions. In severe cold condensation and ice appear on the lens and when it rains, water droplets destroy visibility. Are they also going to require tiny wipers or heating elements to deal with that? Of course not. So the net result is that people will grow too used to having them and then when they don't they will be far more unsafe than if they had always used conventional means to observe behind them.
The government will never learn that there is no way to legislate responsibility to those who will not exercise it voluntarily.
The people saying that you can't see out of the rear of modern cars aren't really helping their case, they're describing a design flaw that automakers should correct.
-
I'd imagine there were luddites 100 years ago questioning why people needed mirrors on their cars. Heck is it that hard to turn your head and look?@!
-
I'd imagine there were luddites 100 years ago questioning why people needed mirrors on their cars. Heck is it that hard to turn your head and look?@!
hah hah very funny. I will do you the courtesy of believing that you are not referring to me as a luddite and ignore it. That being said, surely you are aware that the single greatest cause of automobile accidents involving death (including backing up) is DISTRACTED DRIVING?
There is plenty of evidence that increasing the magnitude of technology in vehicles (short of fully automating operations) will do little or nothing to ameliorate that central element, because it involves human nature, which does not change much from year-to-year, decade-to-decade or with applications of fancy technology.
Give people an excuse to allow themselves to be distracted and they will grab it with both hands and not let go. And that is no joke for the people killed in auto accidents.
If the government really wanted to save innocent lives, they'd do away with CAFE standards, which have resulted in roughly 10, 000 extra vehicle deaths annually for many years. Notwithstanding, bowing to the ecoparanoids who claim that they are "saving the planet from global warming", the ever-ready-to-pander politicians and auto-industry are set to increase gas mileage requirements even more, which will doubtless cause even more innocent lives to be lost. Not important when there is political capital to be raised and profits to be harvested from a gullible public.
-
So backup cameras distract drivers going forward?
hmmmmm
If you engage reverse while going down the highway I somehow think the camera isn't going to be the issue.
-
So backup cameras distract drivers going forward?
hmmmmm
If you engage reverse while going down the highway I somehow think the camera isn't going to be the issue.
That's not what I meant and you know it. Stop making silly jokes and do me the courtesy of responding substantively to my post, or one would be obliged to assume that you are being flippant, which I'm sure you would agree, would be rude.
-
That's not what I meant and you know it. Stop making silly jokes and do me the courtesy of responding substantively to my post, or one would be obliged to assume that you are being flippant, which I'm sure you would agree, would be rude.
I responded rudely because of your post. You over generalized and built a huge strawman.
TECHNOLOGY is not the enemy. It has made cars incredibly more safe then they were 50 years ago. It has saved many lives and to propose it is costing lives is naive at best.
This story is about backup cameras. They make backing up safer when used properly. The govt shouldn't be mandating them but they are a very good tool.
-
I responded rudely because of your post. You over generalized and built a huge strawman.
TECHNOLOGY is not the enemy. It has made cars incredibly more safe then they were 50 years ago. It has saved many lives and to propose it is costing lives is naive at best.
This story is about backup cameras. They make backing up safer when used properly. The govt shouldn't be mandating them but they are a very good tool.
So I overgeneralized in your opinion and that gives you the entitlement to be rude !?! Got it. Have a good life. I can see that trying to communicate civilly with you is not going to work because of a fundamental difference in values concerning forum decorum.
And frankly it seems to me that someone else is the one engaging in setting up and knocking down straw men, since I never stated anything even remotely close to what you accused me of saying. I stated that the root cause of traffic accident deaths was distracted driving (true, whether you acknowledge it or not).
You ignored the other substantive elements of the post and digressed into vituperation. So why should I or anyone else bother trying to communicate with you further, since you are all attitude and no willingness (or ability) to remain civil or contribute substantively to the thread?
-
So I overgeneralized in your opinion and that gives you the entitlement to be rude !?! Got it. Have a good life. I can see that trying to communicate civilly with you is not going to work because of a fundamental difference in values concerning forum decorum.
And frankly it seems to me that someone else is the one engaging in setting up and knocking down straw men, since I never stated anything even remotely close to what you accused me of saying. I stated that the root cause of traffic accident deaths was distracted driving (true, whether you acknowledge it or not).
You ignored the other substantive elements of the post and digressed into vituperation. So why should I or anyone else bother trying to communicate with you further, since you are all attitude and no willingness (or ability) to remain civil or contribute substantively to the thread?
ummmm ok, have a great day
-
All-but-guaranteed that for every person saved by such devices, one or more will die because the driver allowed themselves to be 100% dependent on a piece of technology that was not 100% functional 100% of the time.
A pervasive problem. I see it here in the woods - Folks don't understand or maintain primitive skills like rudimentary navigation, and the same thing applies. At 20 below, *nothing* electronic works. GPS is fine until the batteries die, or you drop the fool thing in a creek... Here we don't navigate much by direction - Taking a rough azimuth, understanding map topography, and knowing your backstops are very effective and basic skills necessary for finding your way around in the mountains.
But few carry map or compass, and even fewer can navigate by the stars and sun.
And even fewer are even aware of how dangerous their reliance on technology has become.
Good point.
-
The people saying that you can't see out of the rear of modern cars aren't really helping their case, they're describing a design flaw that automakers should correct.
Form over function is a blatant sign of poor engineering.
-
My wife's new Camaro has zero visibility out the rear window.- it comes standard with the camera. Most new cars esp 4 doors have the sloped back roof and high trunk lid and you cannot see behind them at all.
@Frank Cannon
Bleh. Like they never made cars with massive blind spots before. Ever drive a 70's Charger or a '59 Caddy? You couldn't see anything without using the side view mirrors and still people were able to parallel park and back out of driveways without killing people.
(http://hanabi.autoweek.com/sites/default/files/styles/gen-932-524/public/73%20Dodge%20Charger%20SE%20-%20Playboy%20May%2073%20-%20All%20-%201600x900.jpg?itok=0JMwhHzg)
-
The first car I ever owned was a 73 Montego and it didn't have great visibility. I still managed to back into and out of our diagonal parking on main street in my home town.
(http://i.imgur.com/KYcRf5H.png)
-
She informed me that poor people shouldn't drive if they can't afford the ever more expensive new cars. Poor people should take public transportation which means they should all live in the city.
wow...
-
Form over function is a blatant sign of poor engineering.
I would say it is meeting demand.
Stupid buyers pay a lot of bills of those selling.
-
Bleh. Like they never made cars with massive blind spots before. Ever drive a 70's Charger or a '59 Caddy? You couldn't see anything without using the side view mirrors and still people were able to parallel park and back out of driveways without killing people.
I have been in nearly every car ever made from a 6 banger 67 Camaro to a Lamborghini Countach.
The new Camaros you cannot see out of them because the seats are literally on the floor and the floor pan is lower than the side frame rails more than average cars and the rear glass is up behind you at an angle ad I am 6-2. The rear glass on Camaros are 3-4 feet long but actual viewing height is very small because the rear glass is getting to the point it is almost horozontal.
You cannot see out of the rear side windows because the passenger seat is in the way. between the front seat and rear seat there is only 2-3" of space between both seats.
@Frank Cannon
-
I don't understand why you guys are arguing here? I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.
Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.
-
I don't understand why you guys are arguing here? I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.
Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.
Stop making cogent arguments on the subject at hand you damn rabble rouser! lol
-
wow...
She's sure its for the good of everybody involved whether they know it or not. She went insane when she became a liberal. She's sure that our poor upbringing is abuse and she thinks my younger sister and I are in denial about it. Things like riding in the back of the pickup when we were kids is the sort of thing she cites as abuse. We had guns in the house!!!!!!!
Apparently the only way she can cope with the "abuses" of our childhood is by abusing poor people.
-
I would say it is meeting demand.
Stupid buyers pay a lot of bills of those selling.
There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.
-
There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.
Depends on your definition of right. For many folks its a car that looks and sounds cool.
-
There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.
The only way to back up a Countach. This car was built right. As a old hot rodder, looks are always over function in my book.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/poGzJobZUec/hqdefault.jpg)
@roamer_1
@driftdiver
-
I don't understand why you guys are arguing here? I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.
Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.
Back prior to 1967 cars only came with what they now call the fruit jar. A single cylinder master cylinder. If one brake line sprung a hole you lost your entire braking system. In 67 Gov't mandated cars come with 2 chamber master cylinder and front brakes separate from rear.
Not everything the gov't mandates is wrong. Large business is not always right and looking out for the little guy. It took this mandate for ar companies to make the 2 cylinder MC.
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
-
Depends on your definition of right. For many folks its a car that looks and sounds cool.
Not to nitpick (well, I guess I am nitpicking) the correct contraction spelling of "it is" is with an apostrophe, "it's". The possessive its has no apostrophe. That is not a personal attack, I would have pointed it out to anyone. See, conservatives need to be superior to leftists in every possible way, even correct spelling, grammar, syntax and punctuation.
Just ribbin ya' a little, bro. No hard feelins. yer alright! (PS like your avatar and comment a LOT!).
-
There is no excuse for poor engineering. Ever. Build it right.
Your definition. As an engineer myself, I long ago learned the golden rule.
He with the gold, makes the rules.
If I want to work as an engineer, I better design something people want. This isn't my hobby. I need a paying customer.
Some people believe they will just drive fast enough and never have to worry what is behind them.
-
Not to nitpick (well, I guess I am nitpicking) the correct contraction spelling of "it is" is with an apostrophe, "it's". The possessive its has no apostrophe. That is not a personal attack, I would have pointed it out to anyone. See, conservatives need to be superior to leftists in every possible way, even correct spelling, grammar, syntax and punctuation.
Just ribbin ya' a little, bro. No hard feelins. yer alright! (PS like your avatar and comment a LOT!).
GrammEr Nazis must die!
:)
-
Your definition. As an engineer myself, I long ago learned the golden rule.
He with the gold, makes the rules.
If I want to work as an engineer, I better design something people want. This isn't my hobby. I need a paying customer.
I am a maker myself, though not papered. I have always held out for the right thing, and have walked away from jobs where the design mods were to be intentionally compromised. I won't do it. I need to be able to sleep at night.
Sure there are compromises, but something mission critical is never ever tolerated. Prim a-donna, perhaps. Perfectionist, probably. I have been called worse. But I have never sold out the job.
Worry about the work, the money will come.
Some people believe they will just drive fast enough and never have to worry what is behind them.
Right. Imagine their surprise...
-
The only way to back up a Countach.
I know. I have had the opportunity.
This car was built right.
LOL! No it wasn't. I wouldn't own the thing if you paid me. It's a nightmare.
As a old hot rodder, looks are always over function in my book.
You can keep your book.
I have built or participated in building scratch-built full mod hot rods, 4x4 pickups, and 1/4 mile strip cars (superstreet, funny, and rail).
What matters always is how it works. Hell, with most of them, the body didn't even exist unitl after the machine was functionally finished.
-
I think we can all pretty much agree that mandating backup cameras (or anything else) is wrong, stupid, and against the basic tenants of conservatism.
Like a backup camera? Buy a car with one or install one. Don't like 'em? Don't buy 'em.
Pretty much the whole issue in a nutshell.
Let the driver decide.
-
I am a maker myself, though not papered. I have always held out for the right thing, and have walked away from jobs where the design mods were to be intentionally compromised. I won't do it. I need to be able to sleep at night.
Sure there are compromises, but something mission critical is never ever tolerated. Prim a-donna, perhaps. Perfectionist, probably. I have been called worse. But I have never sold out the job.
Worry about the work, the money will come.
Right. Imagine their surprise...
You may refuse to design it. You should not compromise your standards if you can pay your own bills.
I have had a couple times I've refused the clients requests. But always when there was no compromise to keep it safe. (a back up camera for example)
But it seems foolish to believe nobody is going to design the product that enough people want to buy.
Cheers
-
Cripple wrote:
"The people saying that you can't see out of the rear of modern cars aren't really helping their case, they're describing a design flaw that automakers should correct."
I've noticed that myself with small SUVs like the Toyota RAV.
The rear window, along with the quarter-panel windows above the rear tire, keep getting smaller, to the point of having little functionality ("functionality" being defined as having a window there so you can see what's outside of it).
Particularly with small SUVs, they all seem to be "of the same shape" lately, particularly towards the rear.
I'm guessing that this has something to do with wind resistance, and the need to lower the rear roofline to reduce resistance and improve fuel economy in order to meet ever-tightening and unrealistic regulations.
This won't change until the Trump administration (and hopefully Congress) rolls back fuel economy requirements to conform to the real world.
-
But it seems foolish to believe nobody is going to design the product that enough people want to buy.
That is true. There's always going to be someone that doesn't care about the quality. But it ain't going to be me.
Cheers
Indeed. No fault no foul. It's just a passion of mine.