Do we really need all that safety stuff?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Altough it seems negligible, seatbelts and airbags do add some weight and, considering airbags and pre-tensioning seatbelts, some complexity that seems a little too much for me. I wouldn't mind if I could have lap-belts in a new car for a lower cost instead of 3-point belts, and considering that American school buses don't have seatbelts but are still deemed the safest terrestrial vehicles in the world would we really need airbags and seatbelts?

[RedDevil]

How many people do you know that got killed or hurt in traffic accidents?
How much better would they have fared if their cars were up to spec in safety, or how much worse if not?

I made the tally and I cherish those safety features, I don't mind spending a few drops of fuel extra to carry them around.

I was a passenger on a city bus that rammed a car at about 10 km/h.
Many people in the bus fell. Some got hurt.

[redpoint5]

If I drove a school bus, I wouldn't wear a seatbelt either. I drive vehicles that are less than the average weight in America, so I wear a belt.

I wonder how much weight all the airbags and related systems add? I have front, knee, and side airbags in the Prius and TSX.

That said, I also ride a motorcycle, which means I am comfortable with the danger of having no restraint system, let alone car frame.

People in the U.S. tend to be very paranoid about safety. When I asked about buying a reconstructed titled car on the Prius forum, most people thought I was crazy to even consider it. In their mind, the car could explode at any moment. Some will buy a large SUV for safety reasons, yet statistics show that we will most likely die of heart disease. If people were truly concerned with safety, they would eat less and exercise more.

[dirtydave]

I'm an Anti-Braker

Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.

I’m taking the brakes off my car. This isn’t a rash decision, so please listen up.

A few weeks ago I saw a car accident - two people went through an intersection at the same time. Both slammed on their brakes at the same time and collided. Fortunately no one was seriously injured.

But then it occurred to me - if they had just gone through the intersection, they wouldn’t have collided. The brakes CAUSED the accident!

So, I decided to do my own research and what I found was *staggering*: Hundreds of people every year are seriously injured by unnecessary braking. One time, I was driving in the snow and I just lightly tapped my brakes and it caused my car to COMPLETELY LOSE CONTROL. My brakes could have very easily gotten me killed. Even more astoundingly is how often brake pads will warp and distort rotors, causing bumpy rides and squeaky wheels.

And you know what? I also found that decades ago brakes weren’t even used! People would control their vehicle’s speed with downshifting and engine braking. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but back when engine braking was used there were almost no automotive fatalities. There were NEVER brake caused car accidents.

After doing some more digging, I found a nefarious plot - Mechanics: The very people who we trust to work on and care for our cars - get PAID to install and change brakes! You might THINK they care about our safety, or our cars - but they’re just in it for the $49.99 brake pad installations.

So I talked to my Mechanic about taking the brakes off my car and I was disgusted by how poorly he treated me. He accused me of being ignorant, when I was the one that looked up how much rotational torque brakes can put on your rotors. He didn’t even know how much torque a rotor can take before being warped!!! He said “rotors are designed to be compressed, that it isn’t actually a problem” just completely dismissing me.

Then he had the NERVE to say that my personal choice had consequences, that I would affect everyone around me. Well I’ve had it with him, I’m looking for a new mechanic. The problem is that so many mechanics are bought and paid by the automotive industry that ALL of them are insistent about my car having brakes. Most of them won’t even look at my car for other reasons, saying that a brakeless car could cause damage to their shop and other cars. What a bunch of bull****, they just don’t like those who believe in alternative braking techniques.

Now of course big government is getting involved, saying that I *MUST* have brakes. That this isn’t just about me, and that I could hurt people. What happened to personal freedom? What happened to liberty?

So all I’m saying is, do your research. Don’t just listen to the NTSB and big automotive. I made a personal decision for my family, we just said no to brakes. We’ll be using natural remedies like Gravity, and putting our feet on the ground to stop. After all, if that was good enough for me when I was on my bike as a kid, it’s good enough for my children in my car.

Please keep the comments respectful!

Legal Disclaimer: I am not a mechanic and should not be considered a valid source of information for automotive inquiries

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

I made the tally and I cherish those safety features, I don't mind spending a few drops of fuel extra to carry them around.

Weight will also increase your stopping distance... If you added up all the weight of all the safety components (including safety cells, deformable structures etc - keep in mind a heavier car then needs a heavier engine, gearbox, brakes and so on), there's probably as much as 50% of a cars mass. More mass= more accidents (partly why SUVs are crashed so often).

Example, a Metro weighed in at ~700kg, while current cars of that size are often weigh over 1000. That's before we account for the way modern vehicles are built, where weight is carefully kept to a minimum.

If you built a Metro with modern techniques (to the same crash standards), it could weigh as little as 500kg, and even less if you went with some of the more exotic materials that are now creeping in.

A 500kg car would stop in far less distance than a 1000kg one, and if you consider that 5 metres of stopping distance is the difference between stopping safely and having a severe accident, it's hard to say that safety technology does anything more than make you feel safe (which probably makes you less safe).

[user removed]

Breathing causes Cancer.

If you don't think that is true then just quit breathing. I guarantee you will NOT die of cancer.

Point is you can argue any point well enough to give it some validity.

The wife thought I was crazy to buy the Sentra. "It doesn't have airbags!"

But dear it has automatic shoulder harnesses so I will never get a ticket, even if I forget to wear the separate lap belt.

Going back to the era of the 50s and early 60s, I can only wonder how high the road fatalities and permanent injuries would be without.

windshields that don't decapitate people
Side guard beams that prevent terrible injuries in minor collisions
collapsible steering columns instead of spears
decent brakes versus, oh my god the pedal just went to the floor!
recycling crankcase blowby instead of a cloud of smoke identifying traffic jams
tires that last more than 6k miles

regards
mech

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Weight will also increase your stopping distance... If you added up all the weight of all the safety components (including safety cells, deformable structures etc - keep in mind a heavier car then needs a heavier engine, gearbox, brakes and so on), there's probably as much as 50% of a cars mass. More mass= more accidents (partly why SUVs are crashed so often). ...
A 500kg car would stop in far less distance than a 1000kg one.

Sorry, but this is a misconception.
If a car is twice as heavy it will press twice as hard against the road; the tires can generate twice as much friction before they begin to give way.
A car that is twice as heavy should, all other things being equal, be able to stop in the same distance as a lighter car.

Of course the brakes need to be able to handle twice the braking force too.

If you fail to brake in time then the damage inflicted will be higher, that's true.
On the other hand, if you get hit you'd better be in a heavier vehicle as the higher mass of your own vehicle makes the resulting speed change after impact lower.

But stopping distance and vehicle mass are totally unrelated to each other.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Weight will also increase your stopping distance...

Weight also reduces maneuverability. My piggish leaf really plows into the corners, where the prius seems almost agile (though the lighter econoboxes feel much more agile than the prius).

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Weight also reduces maneuverability. My piggish leaf really plows into the corners, where the prius seems almost agile (though the lighter econoboxes feel much more agile than the prius).

The same goes for that, a heavier car can also provide more sidewards friction so it should - in theory - corner just as fast as a lighter car.

A smaller car would feel more nimble, as it has a smaller footprint so it reacts (rolls) more to changes in direction or speed than a big car would. But that's relative to its size, not absolute.

There are big differences in suspension setup between cars. That alone may cause your Leaf to feel heavy compared to the Prius.
Most high performance sports cars are heavier than either, but nobody would say they are less agile.

[oldtamiyaphile]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Sorry, but this is a misconception.
If a car is twice as heavy it will press twice as hard against the road; the tires can generate twice as much friction before they begin to give way.
A car that is twice as heavy should, all other things being equal, be able to stop in the same distance as a lighter car.

That's fine in theory, in the real world you could use softer tyre compounds with more grip and similar wear characteristics.