Should Cars Have External Airbags to Protect Cyclists and Pedestrians?
 

Should Cars Have External Airbags to Protect Cyclists and Pedestrians? : TreeHugger

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...crop-smart.jpg

This might be a good thing in a "perfect" world - but I think we need to work on the efficiency of our cars until we can't improve it anymore first.

Sure we should improve their fuel-efficiency before pushing for more "supernanny" features. Nothing is more important to prevent crashes than defensive-driving.

in the article they think drivers would applaud this as a form of risk compensation... but i think if these were common place it would make more sense to call it risk compensation for the cyclist

Cars will have accident avoidance features as standard equipment before too long. This will negate the need for external airbags.

I'm already trying to convince my grandpa to buy a Subaru Outback with brake assist. The system monitors obstacles and applies the brakes automatically to avoid a collision.

I like the idea of raised cross walks, because that is where you are most likely to hit someone, a raised cross walk is almost like a speed bump, only it's slightly lower and is the width of the cross walk making it uncomfortable to drive to fast over, then it doesn't matter what car you are driving because you'll get used to slowing down at cross walks and if you slow down at a cross walk you are more likely to see someone crossing.

Speed bumps aren't effective and just wear out suspension components. It's actually more comfortable to hit speed bumps at higher speeds and let the suspension absorb it than to roll slowly over, causing the entire vehicle to move up and down.

If I could remove only 1 traffic control device, it would be the worthless speed bump.

There are already laws that determine right of way issues. People should just follow these rules or loose their driving privilege. I'd be happy to see the bottom 5% of drivers currently on the road loose their license. As a side benefit, public transportation demand would increase.

The fact that my grandpa is still allowed on the road tells me that it is way too easy to obtain and maintain a license in the U.S.

That, and fuel usage would increase from constantly having to slow down and speed up due to the crosswalks.

i'd rather treat the cause of the stupidity(either the stupid driver or the stupid pedestrian), not the symptom(the bicycle or shoes or car).

Ah-hah..... Second sentence explains the first. LOL

I try to manuever so one set of wheels miss the speed bump altogether, either by putting the right set in the gutter, or the left set off the other end of the bump. This casues the "jolt" to be reduced by 1/2 overall, and even more for the side that misses it.

If I can't miss one end or the other, then I try to hit it at an angle, so both fronts and both rears don't hit it at the exact same time. In that case, going a little faster smooths it out, but it's harder to do combined with the "angle manuever".

An airbag, honestly, doesn't weigh all that much. But the electronics and controllers for the system will cost a whole lot.

External airbags make more sense than pop-up hoods. A Jaguar test unit hit a cone at the racetrack here a while back and that caused some insanely expensive damage to the hood from the explosive bolts triggered by the collision.

I don't see the concept of external airbags as viable for the following reasons.

The cost and complexity would be fought hard against by the automakers lobbyists.

Timing the airbag deployment would be nearly impossible. For example, car - deer collisions rarely trigger the passenger compartment airbags. The triggering would have to be so sensitive that it would create its own hazard by creating a condition of deployment that would likely trigger the airbags in non pedestrian collisions and obscure the drivers vision with the airbags creating a hazardous condition. The TV advertising lawyers would be lined up.

As CAFE standards continue to go higher, windshield rake goes lower. With each passing model year, a struck pedestrian is more likely to go over than through a windshield.

As bicycling has become more encouraged and mainstream, infrastructure for bicyclists has been increasing in many areas. States and cities are taking advantage of Federal grant money to create bicycle lanes and pathways and this trend will undoubtedly continue helping to separate the disparate transportation modes.

Just as the penalties for drunk driving have become more severe and as a result have reduced collisions, penalties for distracted driving (handheld cell devices) are beginning to follow suit. The penalties should also apply to distracted pedestrians as they are every bit as culpable in collisions.

As Darwin theorists and insurance actuarials all know, some fatal stupidity is just going to happen and we have to accept that. There is a certain percentage that all the engineering in the world can't fix.

Yes, (wink,wink), pedestrians and bicyclists SHOULD wear full-body (Michelin-man style) air-bags!

Many bicyclists actually ignore their own responsibilities with their own safety.

...to their credit, most motorcyclists wear leather against "pavement rash" and full "brain-bucket" helmets.

If I hit a cyclist, it's because he thinks he owns the road and got in my way...
Too many idiot cyclists out there!

Many years ago I was headed back to my shop. On the last road within .5 mile of the shop I noticed a truck following me very close, too close to see the windshield in the rear view mirror of my NX2000. I tapped the brakes as a warning, then when I slowed down to turn left into the parking lot she hit me. My employee went to the hospital. I went back to work. She called her husband who showed up in a couple of minutes. They were rich old time residents (many generations) and they immediately went on the offensive. She claimed I did not put on my trun signal.
I told her and the cop, "I didn't realize the penalty for failure to signal a turn was to get hit by an idiot in a GMC truck!". Beside that she couldn't SEE the signal since she was so close to my rear end, all I could see. in my rear view mirror, was her grille!.
Guess who got the ticket and paid for the damage :eek: (her).
I always thought some form of energy absorbing beltline device would dramatically reduce collision damage. Back when the 5 MPH bumpers first came out you could actually bump into another car at low speeds and not do $3k in collision damage.

regards
Mech

Wouldn't be a bad idea for old people to wear "air bag" pants to avoid broken hips.

regards
Mech

Pants, heck, I vote for full-body, air baggies!

I consider myself a reasonably serious cyclist (rode 60 miles today), but I say no. I think we have gone overboard with all this safety stuff on cars. The problem isn't unsafe cars, but unsafe drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Too many people are oblivious to the world around them. I think we have made the world too safe so that many people now think that nothing bad can happen to them and the rest of the world is protecting them. It is amazing how many cyclists and pedestrians I see who ride or walk into a road without even looking to see if there are any vehicles coming. And we have already had plenty of discussion about distracted drivers.

One thing I have noticed in the local news is that in the majority of accidents that result in death or serious injury, one of the drivers was driving with a suspended license.

I remember when Ralph Nader was writing "Unsafe at any speed" there was one example where an occupant was killed by a pot metal radio knob. A belt line pressurized bumper, extending completely around the vehicle would mitigate all kinds of low speed impact damage.

When the impact involved a pedestrian or bike the ability to reduce the highest g forces of that impact would reduce injuries and an exterior design like Basjoos' Honda would minimize the damage even further.

2 million people have died in the US in my lifetime in road accidents, many more seriously injured. Last years road deaths were the lowest since 1949, the year before I was born. Road fatalities are close to half of their previous highest levels.

Remember the "sparrow strainer" hood ornaments.

I ride a bike and completely understand the point made in the previous post, but the fact is you will eventually be involved with a stupid vehicle operator. Minimizing the damage both physical and vehicular is not going to make drivers better drivers, but it might make you less of a victim of their stupidity.

I also completely agree with the fact that the more you make the vehicle "smart" the dumber many drivers will become, but that is a different scenario and requires better design, better education, and more serious consequences for irresponsibility.

regards
Mech

Airbags outside the vehicle is a terrible idea. You add weight and complication. Airbags in vehicles aren't a primary safety device, why should airbags outside be? It has been proven over and over that if the occupant isn't wearing a seat belt or is in a position other than upright in a seat the airbag causes injury. With a pedestrian or cyclist you can't predict where they will be or where they will go. I think today's vehicles are already doing a fair job at killing 3 birds with one stone... improving aero and reducing weight will help fuel economy, performance and can help with pedestrian safety by the shape of the body and the use of more composite materials having more give than solid steel body of yesteryear's car. I understand not all vehicles aren't using composite.

When I am walking or cycling I follow my personal rule... might gives right...everything is bigger than me so I give them right of way unless they give it to me. I have seen so many people looking at their phone or otherwise distracted just step out in the road as soon as the crosswalk sign changes then almost get hit... I always look and make darn sure the car is stopping before I will cross.

The funny thing about "smart" cars and "dumb" drivers is...

Back in the old days, there were no airbags or even shoulder belts. Cars didn't have ABS... which didn't matter much, because they didn't have much in the way of brakes. People drove around in heavy, rattly deathtraps that had more motor than suspension or brakes (worth mentioning twice). Old tires with weaker sidewalls would not deflate slowly. They'd simply tear themselves to shreds when they popped. Good luck controlling whatever came next.

Yet...
http://www.texasfreeway.com/dallas/h...ic_undated.jpg
People didn't really care about proper follow distances back then. They didn't always drive within the limits of the car or instinctively back off in the rain. A lot of drivers back then were just as stupid as a lot of drivers are now. The only difference is sometimes they died before they learned better. We remember things differently because we were the ones who learned and survived.

Maybe there's a statistical difference in driver behaviour when they have safety devices. But it pales in comparison to the statistical difference in overall crash fatalities between then and now. And in the end, results count.

Nanny state/s pedestrian & cyclist catchers.
These systems will be redundant when computer-assisted or complete autonomous vehicle systems finally take over the wheel and sadly, you become a passenger-only occupant.

Pedestrian Airbag Just Might Save Your Life | Longboardism.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4d9dqaMDxI

Or airbag body panels?!

iSAVE: Airbags Attached To The Outside Of Cars | TechCrunch

jk.

http://files.coloribus.com/files/ads...mall-64097.jpg

You know airbags and those auto retention seat belts are deployed with explosives... With all the auto seatbelts, airbags and such I wonder if cars will start needing to drive around with DOT signs?

http://static.seton.com/media/catalo...s-72248-ba.gif

I wasn't talking about explosive airbag deployment, just an impact absorbing beltline moulding about a foot tall that was inflated to absorb most minor impacts.

regards
Mech

...put the responsibility BACK where it belongs--on the pedestrians and cyclists--they, too, share the task of "self-protection"...it's NOT just a one-sided obligation.

...but sometimes there's not much we can do! I was hit several years ago on my bike, proceeding through an intersection on a green light when a guy in a pickup truck making a left turn from the opposite direction turned directly into me. I had taken reasonable precaution to protect myself (hit the brakes when I saw he wasn't stopping, wearing a helmet), but the driver shirked his legal responsibility to yield the right of way. Yes, the responsibility for safety is a shared one, but that doesn't absolve drivers of their accountability.

That's something that both cyclists and pedestrians seem to conveniently forget. Back here in my hometown there's a lot of hipster cyclists who are always doing irresponsible maneuvers at the streets, going like they were at their backyards...

Like the placards they need to carry for carting around thirteen-odd gallons of explosive hydrocarbons? :D

If you are referring to gasoline or diesel it is totally different. For one thing they aren't explosive by themselves which is why trucks that transport fuel use a class 3 DOT sign which indicate flammable. Another thing is gasoline or diesel does not have an oxidizer which means it doesn't burn all by itself.

All that aside my post was a joke as airbags don't actually contain explosives. :thumbup:

You have arrived at a natural and logical conclusion, which makes me wonder how in the world the U.S. law is that all pedestrians have the right of way? The law has the effect of making pedestrians feel safe knowing that cars must yield to them. If the law gave the right of way to vehicles, people would be very cautious; making darn sure they don't place their frail body in the path of speedy 2-ton metal battering rams.

On the topic of efficiency, why must something that weighs several thousand pounds, lacking much agility, and traveling at 40mph be forced to stop and yield to a 200 lb vehicle with great agility (person) traveling at 3mph?

The result of that writing was the seat-belt mandate. It's interesting to observe that while wearing a seat-belt reduces the chance of death or injury in an accident, it increases the likelihood of being involved in an accident. According to some sources, vehicle caused deaths have increased since seat-belt laws were put into effect.

The reason that pedestrians and bicyclists have "preference" in the laws is that they will be much more likely to die if they have a "collision" with a vehicle. If it is too hard to drive a big heavy vehicle, then we need to drive smaller lighter vehicles, maybe? And/or we need to drive slower?

Seat belts save lives, and so do airbags inside the vehicle - a lot of lives. How does wearing a seat belt cause an accident?