300M In Northampton ???????? (UK interest)

If you had stopped to think for 60 seconds before hitting the keys you might
have thought of all the protruding badges and mascots, never mind bull bars
etc.

An obvious example is the upright Mercedes star, which must be able to bend
at the base on contact. If it didn't, it would rip somebody open.

--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[.........]

............................

 

PS. From your various posts I conclude that life in a country ruled by you
would be brutish, nasty and short,

 

I think you'll find the protruding exhaust pipes refers to those that
project beyond the sides of the vehicle. In many cases these regulations
were meant to minimise the opportunities for snagging pedestrians'
clothing. In a circumstance that otherwise would be insignificant or result
in minor brusing, protruding "anythings" can cause a pedestrian to be
dragged
along the street in circumstances that the driver did not intend.

Even door mirrors can contribute to this problem unless they break-away,
deflect or are contiguous with the vehicle body so that they cannot easily
snag clothes.

Being bumped up over the hood of a Rolls-Royce, to be impaled by the
Spirit of Ecstasy may be high class, but can add to the personal damage.

Having a regulation that asks for a mascot that deflects to avoid such
things, doesn't seem irrational to me.

Similarly, bull bars on the front of a vehicle that has a deformable front
end that is designed to minimise pedestrian injury where possible,
circumvents
the intent of trying to produce a safer vehicle.

Realise that when driving through the wide open spaces of Barking Creek you
are in an area of high population density (and I don't mean like Arkansas).

Bull bars and 'roo bars may be a good idea for the outback and traversing
the range.

 

rip somebody open? how ?

 

But the way you're making it sound our vehicles are just full of sharp,
immobile projections!

They're not.

Surely there are side mirrors that don't fold down, but 'mascots' (I
take it you mean hood ornaments) are almost always flexible as with the
Mercedes star you suggest. They're largely out of style at the moment,
incidently, although there are some makes out there that have them.

All I'm saying is that the amount of protrusions seems more than a bit
overstated. I mean really, exhaust pipes that stick out and harm
pedestrians? That would be really and truly unusual.

Regarding 'bull bars' -- (I take it you mean brush guards or 'push
bars'). Yes, these would be unfriendly to pedestrians in a collision.
I happen to disagree that we need to go out of our way to redesign the
front ends of US vehicles to be 'friendlier' to pedestrians in
collisions. Hence my comment about just governing cars down to a safe
5MPH, If safety is the overriding concern, there's a lot of more
obvious things we could do.

But driving is an acceptable risk that a hundred million or so
people undertake every day in the US. At some point, all the "safety"
concerns about the vehicles become superfluous. I happen to think that
the roadways themselves are what really need a safety focus--non
standard freeway exits, poorly marked pavement, missing and/or
inadequate signage, underposted speed limits, poorly timed traffic
signals, inadequate bridge maintenance and repair...these are the real
hazards, IMO.

--Geoff

 

I've got no particular desire to 'rule' anything, much less a country.
Perhaps this idea is rooted in your British identity as a subject to
the Queen. Some Americans grow up with the desire to be politicians,
surely. Most of us just want to live well. I number myself among the
latter.

What I do desire, more than anything else, is freedom from my
government. I'm coming to realize that people from other nations do not hold the idea of freedom
with the same reverence as do the majority of Americans. Compared to
even our Canadian brothers and sisters, who are as geographically and
demographically as close to being Americans as you can get without a
Social Security Number, we represent a very distinct difference in
philosophy. In my frequent discussions with these fine people, the
difference is palpable.

The fact of the matter, Dori, is that our country has been guided by the
principles of freedom, and despite the expansion of government in the
latter two-thirds of the previous century, probably still doesn't match
the level of intrusiveness and nanny-ism in the typical European
country. Because we lack socialized medicine here, the government
doesn't find it necessary to legislate every form of human activity.

This is not 'brutish, nasty and short,' rather it is liberating,
invigorating and, increasingly long lived.

We value the rule of law, the freedom of expression and the right to
self determination. It's all part of the pursuit of happiness.

And it is a grand, grand lifestyle.

--Geoff

 

In the U.S., sidewalks where pedestrians *should* be
walking are at least several feet from the road. There are some cases
where the sidewalk is literally atop the roadway, but I don't believe
this to be the majority.

I live alongside a roadway of some consequence. The strip of grass between the sidewalk
and the road is 30 feet across; the speed limit is 40 MPH.

Maybe we in the U.S. just don't get as close to the cars as is the case
in Europe? I understand that the streets there are far more narrow than
here.

--Geoff

 

See Rickety's post below. Somebody sliding over the bonnet (hood, engine
compartment cover) can easily sustain substantial additional injuries.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

 

I was talking about the focus of the US authorities. Most European &
Japanese also don't have projections, but we did have a fashionable outbreak
of bull/'roo bars in the UK which has now been stopped (you can just see the
herds of wild bulls charging around the prairies of the London suburbs..).
As far as I know they have been banned in the UK.

I agree that there are other areas where road safety can be improved, but
one of these is the interaction between moving vehicles and pedestrians. I
am sure ther are quite a few such collisions in the US, despite the wide
pavements/sidewalks .

However, it is rather 'detached' to maintain that driving is "an acceptable
risk"; the implication is that there need be no further work in improving
safety.

DAS

 

I am delighted that you are happy living where you are.

However, that does not mean it is all that you think it is in the eyes of
others. I have to remind you that it was England (not the UK) that
pioneered freedom and the legal rights of the individual, long before the US
came into being. Furthermore uniqueness and the sanctity of the individual
were spelled out in the bible, which predates the USA by over 3000 years.

Of course the US has been and is a bastion of political freedom in many
ways, but I think that has little to do with legislation or lack of it on
social issues such as road safety. I wouldn't be surprised if the US
weren't the first country to regulate tobacco products like medecine...

Lastly, I am sure many Americans enjoy a "grand lifestyle," whatever that
means, but so do, I suggest, many if not most Canadians and a surprisng
number of west Europeans etc, but I also think that for a large number of
Americans that is but a dream.

DAS

 

They are, relative to the vehicles legal for sale elsewhere in the world.

It's part of the reason why the US is *thirteenth* on list of countries
ranked in ascending rate of road/vehicular-related deaths and injuries,
despite all the selfgratulatory cheering that goes on about how the US is
best, safest, most right, etc.

Thirteenth, Geoff.

Thirteenth, Geoff.

Thirteenth, Geoff.

 

There are other advantages to the ECE regulations on vehicular
projections. ECE-spec sideview mirrors fold over on hinges when struck in
a narrow street or scraped on the garage doorframe, rather than breaking
off and costing money as many North American-spec ones do.

Apparently "We don' need no steeeeeeenkeen' regulaytchions" Geoff doesn't
like saving money.

 

<Saracasm>

Yeah, but those statistics were probably cooked up by a bunch of pinko,
UN-supporting, atheistic one-worlders who would vote for Kerry or Nader
if they were US citizens.

True God-fearing patriotic Americans *know* that the USA is #1 in
everything.

And then we wonder why we have to spend so much money and human
resources trying to keep out all the people who believe our propaganda.

</Sarcasm>

MB

 

so tell me why the hell is someone sliding over the hood of the damn car?
this aint the dukes of hazard here........

 

Indeed. Something I know quite well. Scrapes but no broken mirrors.

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...........]

........................

 

There are no stoopid questions, but that is a stoopid question... (or are
you being sarcastic?)

DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...........]

 

No, it's the real world, wherein unfortunately cars collide with
pedestrians. You *really* have trouble figuring this out...?

 

well if you hit someone yeah i can see that.......


it just kinda sounds like they are trying to make you safe from yourselves.

 

So there are 12 that are safer, eh? Which? (Feel free to post a URL
and save yourself the typing.)

Another question: what are the other 'part(s) of the reason why the US
is thirteenth'?

--Geoff

 

Oh, I like saving money just as much as anyone else. The real question
is what do I have to spend at the onset to save the money later? At
what cost, safety?

The 96 Intrepid I had was equipped with folding mirrors. One snowy day
I misjudged and whacked the passenger side mirror on the fence post.
Sure, the mirror folded as advertised. The housing was also destroyed.
At the time, the cost to replace the mirror was a *multiple* of what the
cost would have been to replace the mirror on the same model not originally
equipped with the folding mirrors. (Now the prices on car-part.com are
considerably more comparable, but, then again, these cars are starting
to get pretty old.)

I'm sure the price of the folding mirrors was baked into the
original price of the car. All safety 'features' come at a cost. Some
are more worthwhile than others -- there's considerable debate on the
effectiveness of airbags, ABS, etc. There's little or no debate on the
effectiveness of brake lamps, turn signals and seat belts.

That said, I'm quite sure that had the fence post been a person instead,
the folding mirror would've been a lot 'friendlier' than a fixed model.

My question to you is: how much will a new car cost when every
conceivable safety feature is mandatory? What will the market put
up with as a minimum price for a new car? At what point will *everyone* be
priced out of the market, save for a few? At what point will this harm
the industry further?

***

If there's a remedy for something that is truly effective, I tend to go
along with it. For example, if there's a surgery that can be performed
that will extend a person's life for a significant period of time, it's
probably worth it, regardless of what it may cost. If heart transplants
were 100% effective at extending a heart patient's life for a period
measured in years or decades, it wouldn't matter much to me if they cost
$1 million apiece, it would be worthwhile.

But I think we've long surpassed the law of diminishing returns WRT
automotive safety. What we're starting to demand -- cars that can
absorb 70MPH collisions in the rear with no fires, for example -- is
very hard to achieve, and tends to make the vehicles *way* more
expensive. We're demanding that designs account for things that happen
in a ridiculously small percentage of vehicle collisions as if the
mandated changes come at no cost. Where does it stop?

--Geoff