Slashdot Mirror


External Airbag Designed to Protect Pedestrians

Thanks to researchers at Cranfield University, you don't have to feel bad when you plow into a group of pedestrians who are crossing the street too slowly. They have designed an external airbag that mounts to your hood at the base of the windshield. Research shows that this is the area where a pedestrian's head is most likely to hit in an accident. "Test results indicate that the system works extremely well. When fitted to a demonstrator vehicle not originally designed with pedestrian protection in mind, the results were well inside all current legal criteria for pedestrian protection currently in force in Europe," Roger Hardy of the university's Cranfield Impact Centre said.

253 comments

  1. Ohhh! by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Funny

    I really want to bounce off a car with this!

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    1. Re:Ohhh! by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 2

      Not much of an achievement but I for one tip my hat to you.
      And my sig may be apropos.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    2. Re:Ohhh! by flaming+error · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > to be modded redundant in the first post is of the utmost Mod stupidity.
      Once upon a time Slashdot had a system where we could moderate the moderations - "metamod" they called it. It'd be nice if that came back.

    3. Re:Ohhh! by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2

      One point of advice. Next time, ensure you have built up some karma before going for a first post. You are now in the dreaded zero point posting land and are doomed to a life of slashdot obscurity.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Ohhh! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      No. The redundant is what got me to 0. My karma is pretty good. Not perfect, but who the hell wants all their comments to be respected. :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:Ohhh! by davester666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it uses sensors so the airbags can start being deployed prior to impact, why not add some bags to the front bumper. This may not eliminate crippling leg injures, but it might lessen them...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Ohhh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol

    7. Re:Ohhh! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Wait, the most I've got is Excellent Karma, is there anything like Perfect Karma? Do you go to Nirvana and never post again after that happens?

        Perfect Karma would be such a cool movie title... It'll need to have Jean-Claude Van Damme and Jackie Chan and a digital recreation of Pat Morita.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    8. Re:Ohhh! by TinBromide · · Score: 1

      You can tell you're at perfect karma when you get 15 mod points (maybe more) but after I have a string of good posts, good mods (yes, your mods will be meta moderated) and slip cowboyneal a $20, it'll give me 15 mod points like every 3 days. I think that perfect karma might be 20 mod points or 15 mod points like every other day.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    9. Re:Ohhh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I reached Perfect Karma yesterday when I got 15 mod points. I tough I was gonna die and this was cmrTaco's way of saying good bye.

    10. Re:Ohhh! by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's still there, as far as I can tell. The only time I see a link to it is when I have mod points, though- it's right at the top of the discussion.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    11. Re:Ohhh! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't believe your mod points are as closely tied to metamodding as that. But something has happened with all that dynamic content stuff Slashcode seems to have gone in for. If you set your preferences to go back to the "classic" interface, the metamod prompts appear as they used to.

    12. Re:Ohhh! by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Well, I've been posting for years, and modding for years. For the last maybe 18 month - 2 years, not a single mod point. No metamod option either. Sigh. And I've got Excellent karma.

    13. Re:Ohhh! by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      It's still there. If you don't see it, it's because your access has been revoked. And if you're talking about not seeing its effect anymore, then it's because some of us (mostly me) are just too lazy to do it.

    14. Re:Ohhh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You might break both of your legs, but hey, let's not think and just do it, right. And be proud of it. Right? Right? :( I don't think you'd survive very long, if natural selection would still work.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Ohhh! by TinBromide · · Score: 1

      How often do you check the site? They pull mods from the pool of people with excellent karma, do some meta moderations (where you mod other people's mods) and only check the site like 2-6 times a day.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    16. Re:Ohhh! by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      I'm usually on many times a day, just like always. Unless obsessive readers don't get mod points?

    17. Re:Ohhh! by TinBromide · · Score: 1
      you are correct.

      Regular Slashdot Readers The scripts track average accesses from each logged-in user. It then selects eligible users who read an average number of times. The homepage doesn't count either. It then picks users from the middle of the pack- no obsessive compulsive reloaders, and nobody who just happened to read an article this week.

      there's a faq

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    18. Re:Ohhh! by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      If you went and tried it, you'd see that what they call "metamoderation" today is not about the mods at all, but some buzz-up/buzz-down thing about the post.

      When somebody mods a first post as "redundant", there's no longer a way to flag that mod as bullshit.

    19. Re:Ohhh! by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I should correct my previous post- The metamod prompt actually shows up every time I make leave a comment, regardless of my mod points. Ever since I started metamoderating that is where I got to it- if there ever was another way I never knew about it.

      I don't like the new slashcode either, but for different reasons.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    20. Re:Ohhh! by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you didn't click the checkbox where you tell them you aren't interested in modding?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  2. Ok ? by bobjr94 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thats silly. More often people get drug under an SUV

    1. Re:Ok ? by OrangeTide · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just put a cowcatcher on SUVs.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Ok ? by PotatoFarmer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that this story is coming out of the UK, not the US. The majority of the car-driving world drives smaller vehicles.

    3. Re:Ok ? by Moryath · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem is, impacts are not predictable.

      The "most likely spot" to hit, is actually depending on the following factors:
      - Speed of collision
      - Braking/coasting/accelerating (braking typically causes a vehicle's nose to dip, accelerating causes it to rise)
      - Height of the pedestrian in relation to the height of the vehicle's front bumper/grille.
      - Angle of collision (pedestrian motion will be different if hit head-on, as opposed to someone trying to whip around a right-hand turn and blindsiding someone who's crossing properly; angle also changes if you're not at a right-angle intersection)

      The other problem is, does this truly cushion the blow, taking the energy into the crashbag and causing the pedestrian to be more likely to remain on the stopped vehicle, or is it more elastic, imparting acceleration back into the poor pedestrian in time for them to slide off the car - now accelerated to a good 15-20mph or higher - and then hit their head on the cement?

       

    4. Re:Ok ? by PPH · · Score: 2

      Just put a cowcatcher on SUVs.

      Good idea. We need them for Idaho stops anyway.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:Ok ? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      I thought they already had them, except they refer to them as "brush guards".

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:Ok ? by WARM3CH · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Thats silly. More often people get drug under an SUV
      Maybe the stupid thing here is the number of people driving SUVs and trucks in US?

    7. Re:Ok ? by Ice+Wewe · · Score: 2, Funny

      The other problem is, does this truly cushion the blow, taking the energy into the crashbag and causing the pedestrian to be more likely to remain on the stopped vehicle, or is it more elastic, imparting acceleration back into the poor pedestrian in time for them to slide off the car

      I'd be interested in hearing what the force threshold for such a device is. Right now I see this as yet another expensive thing to replace when you accidentally bump the front of your car while moving your trash can, a football hitting the front of your car, etc.

      Realistically, I think that if they set it high enough so that an unintentional bump won't set it off, if you, as a pedestrian, get hit by said car, you're pretty much done for anyway.

    8. Re:Ok ? by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Cowcatchers / Bull-bars are illegal in several countries (Netherlands among others) as they are rather unfriendly to pedestrians when colliding with them.

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
    9. Re:Ok ? by Miseph · · Score: 1, Interesting

      And take the airbags out of the interior. Or, even better, replace them Claymore-style pellet sheets to insure maximum soft target damage. Seriously.

      Far too many people think that they are somehow "safer" in an SUV than a smaller car (this despite sedans routinely outperforming them in both government and private safety tests), and if that puts every other driver on the road in greater danger, then fuck everyone else. Maybe if we made the danger a driver's life is in directly proportional to the danger they put everyone else's in we'd see less fuckwads on the roads (and more bleeding out just next to them).

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    10. Re:Ok ? by Sam36 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sir how dare you. Everyday I worry about my unintelligent 16 year old daughter driving. I owed it to myself to make sure that she has the biggest vehicle that I can afford so that she can stay safe on the road. We all have feelings sir. And you sir are a bigot. And probably a republican too since you like to tell people how to live. Communist.

    11. Re:Ok ? by pitterpatter · · Score: 1

      and then hit their head on the cement?

      That's what we need - a law requiring pedestrians to wear helmets at all times.

      /sarcasm>

    12. Re:Ok ? by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      As the article said, a 25mph impact causes 18% fatality rate. It would interesting to find a relationship between speed and fatality rates in this kind of collision, but I would imagine it wouldn't be a linear rate of change (anyone have any statistics??).

      The point is, 25 mph is pretty fast, so I think a speed-based rule is best to determine whether to set it off: < 15mph, no airbag, >=15mph airbag.

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    13. Re:Ok ? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >[...] they are rather unfriendly to pedestrians when colliding with them.

      Well that's the whole point, isn't it? :)

    14. Re:Ok ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Democrats don't tell people how to live, okay? Have you heard of how Communists live, and who the decision makers are in Communist societies? Hint: it ain't the people!

    15. Re:Ok ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      SUV's are, in fact, safer. Simple physics. You think I'm gonna take government tests over what I -know- to be true?

      The easiest way to make a care safer is to add 100 lbs. Period. End of story. SUV's are inherently safer because they weigh more and will therefore fare better in collisions. As my father used to say: tie goes to the truck.

      One of the hidden costs of pushing society into cheaper, smaller, lighter cars will be an increased loss of life, like it or not.

    16. Re:Ok ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot. Period. End of story.

      Go read up on rollover and vehicle ejection rates of SUVs.

      Higher centers of gravity makes SUVs less safe. It's simple physics.

    17. Re:Ok ? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      It's not linear. I attended a speed awareness class in the UK in lieu of points on my licence for a minor speeding offence that explained this, with video. At slow speeds, you hit a pedestrian, they bounce off your bonnet as you might expect. As speeds rise (i.e. over 30mph for definite) if you hit them square on, there's enough momentum for the body to rotate - i.e. their head bounces off the bonnet/windshield, with a correspondingly large spike in fatalities. Corollary: at 20mph, chances of killing someone quite low. At 30mph, chances of killing someone very high.
      I knew from the summary that a bunch of idiots on /. would immediately start up with the "Know what'll make things safer? A spike on the steering wheel!" crap, and lo and behold, here it goes. It's the motoring safety equivalent of Godwin's law. All I can say is I hope none of the posters advocating such idiocy have kids.

    18. Re:Ok ? by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Another thing to consider is what is the actual cause of death at higher speeds? If it is the bonnet, then the airbag will help. But if the cause of fatality is impact with the ground, then this doesn't seem like a good approach -- unless the argument is that it softens the impact, which causes the victim to travel a shorter distance before hitting the ground.

      Don't worry about the idiots and their kids; Darwin will take good care of them.

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    19. Re:Ok ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is to reduce the chances of severe damage on the occasions when the pedestrian IS hit in the "right" way.
      This is not binary.

    20. Re:Ok ? by LeadLine · · Score: 1

      *Wooosh!*

    21. Re:Ok ? by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      In general cars are unfriendly when colliding with pedestrians, especially anything over 25mph.

    22. Re:Ok ? by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      You're one of those idiots who think bigger means safer and pretend you know physics.

      Shut your face up and spare the world your arrogant ignorant nonsense. The facts speak for themselves:
      In a rollover accident, Midsize SUVs have almost 4x higher fatality rate than Full-size and midsize cars.
      Total fatality rates in full size and midsize cars are lower than SUVs and pickup trucks, the only thing being safer overall are minivans and large vans.

      Passenger Vehicle Occupent Fatality Rates by Type and Size of Vehicle: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809979.PDF

      It's not a government test, it's a death count.

    23. Re:Ok ? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      San Francisco MUNI buses are unfriendly to pedestrians too, but that doesn't seem to keep them from running over a few people every year. (I assume it's illegal to run over people in SF, but I could be wrong)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    24. Re:Ok ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you find this so upsetting maybe you should just walk.

      SUVs normally outperform small cars in crash tests for the below 30mph tests. But the situation is reversed once weight becomes a liability at high speed.

    25. Re:Ok ? by doom · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine likes the idea of replacing the air-bags with a large iron spike pointed at the driver's chest.

      But then, there may be a touch of hostility about that... us bicycling types get a bit annoyed at car drivers on occasion.

    26. Re:Ok ? by doom · · Score: 1

      Higher centers of gravity makes SUVs less safe. It's simple physics.

      It's a little more complicated than that from what I understand from reading "High and Mighty" by Bradsher. I gather they pushed the wheels out from the body in an effort to improve stability, but that put them in an exposed position where they can snag the posts on highway dividers. They like to stop short and flip over them...

      But it's all complicated by the fact that SUVs were marketed to dicks so they could be even bigger dicks -- the psychological problems with telling an anti-social bastard that they're physically invulnerable almost certainly dwarf the technical differences of the vehicles.

  3. Cowcatchers by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Funny

    What we really need are cowcatchers, like on trains, so that the pedestrians don't get stuck under the wheels and jam them. :-)

    1. Re:Cowcatchers by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Man, do you know what a pain it is to clean pedestrian off the grille of your car?!?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Cowcatchers by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of the cowcatcher, it deflect the obstruction to the side and into someone else's grille. Even then you can just let the birds pick the meaty bits out and hose down later.

    3. Re:Cowcatchers by Duradin · · Score: 1

      I wish cars had deercatchers as an option. They'd probably work just as well on pedestrians (though the law may not like any aftermarket automatic cleaning and butchering options you add).

      My old Crown Vic wouldn't have needed one but my current vehicle isn't as sturdily built. I don't think I'd get away with $30 in used parts with this car after smacking one.

    4. Re:Cowcatchers by Garbad+Ropedink · · Score: 1

      We don't adapt nearly enough technology from old railway times to our modern cars.
      I'd like to see some sort of modern adaptation of the infamous hobo catcher.
      Back in the 30's hobos riding on the undercarrages of trains became such a problem that in some cases trains had trouble getting up hills. So the railway companies started laying down spring loaded spikes on train tracks.
      Sure we don't have the problem of hobos riding the bottom of peoples cars *yet*. Just wait till the economy gets worse.

      --
      And that was the last Terry Fox run I ever participated in.
    5. Re:Cowcatchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we really need are cowcatchers, like on trains, so that the pedestrians don't get stuck under the wheels and jam them. :-)

      Nah. Probably best to put a spike in the center of the steering wheel.

      Think how much safer people would drive with that safety feature.

      I'm not kidding. I don't think any safety features since the advent of the 3rd brake light have actually done any statistical difference in automobiles. Actually, I believe things like antilock brakes and traction control increase accidents because people are not aware of the capabilities of their car.

      Remember, its human error that accounts for roughly 100% of accidents. Not hardware failure. So, go ahead and keep making those cars more "safe".

    6. Re:Cowcatchers by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Remember, its human error that accounts for roughly 100% of accidents. Not hardware failure. So, go ahead and keep making those cars more "safe".

      I think you need to take another look at the statistics. It's entirely possible for failed brakes or a busted tie-rod end to cause an accident.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    7. Re:Cowcatchers by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Nah. Probably best to put a spike in the center of the steering wheel.

      Think how much safer people would drive with that safety feature.

      Car interiors designed like iron maidens? I'm going to expect to see that as a product marketed by Dethklok in a future episode of Metalocalypse.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    8. Re:Cowcatchers by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I think you need to take another look at the statistics.

      Nope. He said "roughly" and within a reasonable error margin (say, 1% or so) he's correct. Pehaps, rather than "it could have been mechanical failure" you could actually give a number. If you can't, then I'll assume as I did before, that it can be estimated that 100% of crashes result from human error.

      It's entirely possible for failed brakes or a busted tie-rod end to cause an accident.


      And it's possible that the space shuttle fell out of the sky on top of your car. But that doesn't change the fact that human error is so likely the cause that estimating that factor to account for 100% of crashes will be close enough for any reasonable purpose.

    9. Re:Cowcatchers by ksheff · · Score: 1

      In Australia, some cars have bull-bar/roo-bars as a factory installed option. There are enough of them fitted with these devices that someone decided to study the "effect of bull-bars on vehicle-pedestrian collision dynamics". I know you can get them here for pickups, but I wouldn't mind one on my car for those pesky deer.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    10. Re:Cowcatchers by jozlod · · Score: 1

      um, busted tie-rod end, come on, how often has this ever happened, it should be picked up when it has play, and even then it will not just fall apart, unless maybe someone smacks into a gutter really hard, but then that is much more likely to bend the tie-rod, or puncture the tyre, or buckle the rim, but then this is back to driver error again. also, should lack of car maintenance be included as driver error, i think so. as for failed brakes, its not that hard to wipe alot of speed of a car even without breaks, things called gears and handbrakes and stuff will help, but a properly maintained car shouldnt be having brake failures anyway. I agree with extra safety features taking the responsibility away from the driver

      --
      this is not my signature
    11. Re:Cowcatchers by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      um, busted tie-rod end, come on, how often has this ever happened, it should be picked up when it has play, and even then it will not just fall apart, unless maybe someone smacks into a gutter really hard,

      It happened to me. There was no "play" to be detected. The steering worked fine, and then all of a sudden it didn't. I was driving down the road at 50MPH, and when I slowed down and tried to make my left turn onto another road, it wouldn't turn. Up until that very second it was still working exactly like it had for years before. Nothing to alert me that it was about to go.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    12. Re:Cowcatchers by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      I want my pedestrian airbag to be in the shape of a grim reaper. They'll still die. Just of a heart attack!

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    13. Re:Cowcatchers by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Do you at least have deer whistles? When I was a kid, I could hear those things a block away.

    14. Re:Cowcatchers by doom · · Score: 1

      Remember, its human error that accounts for roughly 100% of accidents.

      But keep in mind that internet factiods are roughly 98.9 % unreliable (plus/minus 10 percent).

  4. ...Not originally designed... by VorpalRodent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The summary indicates that it works well when applied to a vehicle not originally designed for pedestrian protection. They say this in conjunction with research indicating where a pedestrian's head will hit.

    I'm sorry, but what cars are designed with pedestrian protection in mind in scenarios that would involve striking a pedestrian such that his head would hit my windshield?

    Also, if I'm protecting the pedestrian, do I lose my entire field of view, and end up running down other pedestrians?

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    1. Re:...Not originally designed... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "When fitted to a demonstrator vehicle not originally designed with pedestrian protection in mind, the results were well inside all current legal criteria for pedestrian protection currently in force in Europe"

      Okay, so this airbag was sufficient to meet with pedestrian protection laws... Uh, assuming most cars on the road are compliant with the law, I'm wondering exactly how much protection those laws call for. I'd think pretty much anything that didn't attempt to increase pedestrian danger would be fine. So no spiked grills, buzz saws, axe wheels, reactive armor, pumapults and the like. Since an airbag isn't any of those things (or at least isn't if designed correctly), add one to a car that is street legal and -- ta-da! -- it's still street legal! Woo!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:...Not originally designed... by VorpalRodent · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since an airbag isn't any of those things

      Sir, I applaud your engineering genius. I must build a reactive armor airbag: the car, upon being assaulted by a pedestrian, cushions the pedestrian's impact...just as it throws him 30 feet into the air.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    3. Re:...Not originally designed... by powerlord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it pales in comparison to the #1 advance for "pedestrian protection", DON'T F-ING HIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      Sorry, but the idea that ricocheting a pedestrian from my hood into something else (presumably something without an airbag) seems absurd.

      At BEST its attempting to move liability from one person (the one driving the vehicle), to another (the driver that caused the life altering injury when some hapless pedestrian got thrown like a billiard ball against his car).

      If these come out, I'm just going to wait until the lawsuits start piling in, although since they'll most likely be filed by living people instead of on their behalf, it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs (cue Monty-Python's "You got turned into a newt? ... I got better" routine)

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    4. Re:...Not originally designed... by Swizec · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most cars on the road today are not compliant to the new standards beacause they were changed last year and are only enforced on NEW vehicles. However, I don't believe even all new vehicles have to comply this year already but have a few year's time to adapt.

      The most notable change you can see is that all new European cars (model year 2009) have an extremely high front bumper and are incredibly round on that end making them look somewhat chubby. Most of them are also made so the bonnet can collapse under a pedestrian's weight while also making sure they don't hit the engine or something on it.

      Another very noticable change is that the edge between bonnet and wind screen is no longer a sharp metalic edge on most cars, but has a smooth transition made of plastic.

      I am saying this as an armchair crash test fanatic, not an expert in the field so I might be marginally incorrect on some points.

    5. Re:...Not originally designed... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey man, let's see you design an air bag that isn't actually a spinning axe wheel of death or a mountain lion and see if you think it's that easy. And if you do, then let me know what I'm doing wrong?!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, assuming most cars on the road are compliant with the law,

      To quote Sam Jackson: "Know what happens when you make an assumption? You make an ass out of U and Mption."

      The pedestrian protection laws are still being implemented in the EU and existing vehicles are grandfathered in. Just because the vehicle was legal last year doesn't mean that it would still be legal today.

    7. Re:...Not originally designed... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it pales in comparison to the #1 advance for "pedestrian protection", DON'T F-ING HIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      Sorry, but the idea that ricocheting a pedestrian from my hood into something else (presumably something without an airbag) seems absurd.

      And I find your suggestion to not plow into pedestrians equally absurd. How else am I going to rack up combo bonus points?

      Also, obviously the goal is to have as many cars as possible with these air bags on them, so the pedestrian won't just bounce off my car into another air-bagless car and die, but instead will be bounced again and again from car to car until harmlessly tossed onto the grass, where they will doubtless jump up and shout in child-like glee "Again! Again!" And I'll get like 10,000 points for a 40-bounce combo. Looks like a win-win scenario to me. Why Luddites like you are against using technology to make life more awesome, I'll never know.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:...Not originally designed... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Okay, so if my car had those pedestrian safety modifications, and a pumapult, would it be compliant? Or are those still not okay?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    9. Re:...Not originally designed... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      And I find your suggestion to not plow into pedestrians equally absurd. How else am I going to rack up combo bonus points?

      Also, obviously the goal is to have as many cars as possible with these air bags on them, so the pedestrian won't just bounce off my car into another air-bagless car and die, but instead will be bounced again and again from car to car until harmlessly tossed onto the grass, where they will doubtless jump up and shout in child-like glee "Again! Again!" And I'll get like 10,000 points for a 40-bounce combo. Looks like a win-win scenario to me. Why Luddites like you are against using technology to make life more awesome, I'll never know.

      Ah. I obviously hadn't considered the "Multi-Bounce onto the Grass" scenario. ... now if only they would start planting grass on City Sidewalks.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    10. Re:...Not originally designed... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I am saying this as an armchair crash test fanatic, not an expert in the field so I might be marginally incorrect on some points.

      I think you need to go outside more often. Really.

      Do you, like, subscribe to a newsletter? Or is there a forum for this sort of perversion?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:...Not originally designed... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't they have parks in your city? The drivers would probably start passing the pedestrian along, like a game of vehicular hackey sack, towards the city park. Bonus points if they land in the fountain!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, it pales in comparison to the #1 advance for "pedestrian protection", DON'T F-ING HIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      Are you kidding, that little old lady with the walker was practically begging for it.

    13. Re:...Not originally designed... by Swizec · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Youtube+Fifth Gear+Top Gear+all car magazines

      There's a lot of crash testing out there that trinkles down to the consumer because vehicle safety, in Europe at least, is a huge huge selling point.

      Also back in primary school I used to make crash test cars out of Lego, crashed them into walls, inspected the damage, tweaked and so on. After ten generations of the car they became so safe the "driver" didn't leave his seat even without a seatbelt, while the car desintegrated into tiny bits around him. Fun times.

    14. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but what cars are designed with pedestrian protection in mind

      All the [new] cars in Europe.

    15. Re:...Not originally designed... by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      No shit, that must be why she's there like every other block no matter how many times you hit her. Hey, she wants to get hit, who am I to let her down.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    16. Re:...Not originally designed... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow. Never even thought about this sort of thing.

      The world is a big place. I just thought everybody played with Thermite when they were kids.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    17. Re:...Not originally designed... by maxume · · Score: 1

      How else am I going to rack up combo bonus points?

      Aim for kids on bikes.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    18. Re:...Not originally designed... by MattXBlack · · Score: 3, Funny

      I knew safety standards had been increased, but I never realized armchairs had to be crash tested.

    19. Re:...Not originally designed... by Idiomatick · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Also, if I'm protecting the pedestrian, do I lose my entire field of view, and end up running down other pedestrians?"

      I think after you hit the first one you are supposed to stop. Hell you could even try slowing down before you hit him.

    20. Re:...Not originally designed... by robably · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you need to go outside more often.

      What? This is Slashdot, news for nerds. You need to stay inside more often.

    21. Re:...Not originally designed... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Also in case you were being serious. FTFA: "The bonnet airbag is U-shaped so that the driver can still see"

    22. Re:...Not originally designed... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      where they will doubtless jump up and shout in child-like glee "Again! Again!" And I'll get like 10,000 points for a 40-bounce combo

      Ultra... Ultra... Ultra... Again! Again! Ultra... Ultra... Again! Ultra...

    23. Re:...Not originally designed... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Safety is a reasonably strong selling point in the US as well. Using myself as an example: When I last bought a car, any vehicle that got less than 4 stars out of 5 in any of its safety tests was immediately struck from my list of candidates.

      I can't imagine that any country with a decent selection of vehicles wouldn't be pretty focused on safety features.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    24. Re:...Not originally designed... by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      I remember some of the Volkswagen Passat marketing material stating something about the hood being designed to keep pedestrians alive on impact...

    25. Re:...Not originally designed... by ross.w · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually most cars now are designed with pedestrian protection in mind. When I bought my Honda Jazz (or Fit, depending on your country) the dealer told me never to press on the bonnet to shut it. Rather I was supposed to drop it on the catch and let the weight shut it.

      According to the same dealer it is designed to cushion a pedestrian's head and therefore would dent if I pressed on it.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    26. Re:...Not originally designed... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Earlier I had posted a link to an old Australian study about the effects of bull-bars on hitting pedestrians and it mentioned that low bumpers were better for pedestrian safety. Hoods/bonnets that were flexible w/o sharp leading edges were also mentioned as a way to reduce injuries. The study was done in 1980, so manufacturers were apparently implementing some of these features as far back as the 1970s.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    27. Re:...Not originally designed... by anss123 · · Score: 1

      Sir, I applaud your engineering genius. I must build a reactive armor airbag: the car, upon being assaulted by a pedestrian, cushions the pedestrian's impact...just as it throws him 30 feet into the air.

      Which still gives me two seconds more to live, and if I'm lucky I'll survive the fall too. I'll take that over instant death on the hood thanks.

    28. Re:...Not originally designed... by Swizec · · Score: 1

      And research in early 2000's has discovered that low bumpers increase injury when hitting a pedestrian because they fling whatever you hit into the air, it then lands on your bonnet (falling from the sky) then bounces off into the pavement. That's three impacts.

      With a high front-end the pedestrian is hit and the load is evenly distributed across their whole body, then flung against the pavement. One less impact AND one of the impacts is much less severe.

      This does not work if the driver isn't braking and runs over you, but then you're out of luck anyway since the impact itself is deadly in any case.

    29. Re:...Not originally designed... by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of that age-old adage: It's not the fall that kills you, it's the force of the impact.

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    30. Re:...Not originally designed... by iron-kurton · · Score: 1

      You mean there's an article with that summary??? *rolls eyes*

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    31. Re:...Not originally designed... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Interesting. They found the exact opposite: higher the bumper & impact site, the more violent the rotation of the body and the impacts more severe. Maybe the materials/designs used today deforms better, and doesn't spring back, allowing some of the impact energy to be absorbed by the car.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    32. Re:...Not originally designed... by Swizec · · Score: 2, Informative

      No no, not hte bumper being higher - the overall bumper's height being greater ie. bigger impact surface area == less pressure == less injury. And of course the whole not being flung up into the air and onto the car is a rather nice side-effect too.

      To my knowledge the discovery was made by accident because fewer people died being hit by SUV's than larger cars, which seemed odd because SUV's are heavier and thus more energy is transfered.

    33. Re:...Not originally designed... by mzs · · Score: 1

      Two other things are becoming common:

      No more of those little nubs on the head lights to ease robotic installation.

      Windshield wipers without non-deformable parts or those parts well below a deformable hood.

    34. Re:...Not originally designed... by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Informative

      So if some guy leans on your hood he does $800 damage?

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    35. Re:...Not originally designed... by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs

      You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???

      Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light, taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.

      I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept standing there chatting!

      I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat the shit out of him.

      And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my car.


      So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.

    36. Re:...Not originally designed... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 4, Informative

      An airbag is not like a beachball- it's not elastic. In fact, it has to be inelastic for it to work. If in-car airbags acted like you described, they would simply cause the driver's head to bounce back into the headrest, causing massive brain injury. The airbag works by decelerating the head more slowly than the steering wheel would. 40 mph to 0 mpg in a few milliseconds versus a much larger fraction of a second is HUGE in terms of physics.

      The best way to protect a falling egg is to drop it onto something inelastic yet yielding- a pile of goose down would work well, for example. Airbags work on this principle (as do crumple zones): Slow the deceleration, absorb the energy (as opposed to transferring it like a bouncy ball), person lives (usually).

      A pedestrian airbag would work like that- more a pile of leaves than a trampoline. Find a video on youtube or something of the airbags used by stuntmen in movies- they don't bounce, they deflate.

      Hope this helps.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    37. Re:...Not originally designed... by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      >>I am saying this as an armchair crash test fanatic, not an expert in the field so I might be marginally incorrect on some points.

      Are armchair collisions a big problem in your part of the world?

      -b ;)

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    38. Re:...Not originally designed... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. We do not read articles.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    39. Re:...Not originally designed... by chrismeidinger · · Score: 1

      Actually, all cars are designed with pedestrian protection in mind. One of my customers for a lob time was a lab that worked for automakers simulating pedestrian impact, and designing the cars to do as little damage as possible. For example, pedestrian protection is why there are no cars with extremely acutely angled grills - those break people's legs much more seriously than getting hit by a grill that's more-or-less parallel to the ground.

    40. Re:...Not originally designed... by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      I'm presuming they mean Euro NCAP safety ratings for new cars. They're given a star rating, which in turn will lead to lower insurance premiums and higher sales for cars that score highly. This includes occupant safety and now pedestrian safety - this is why a lot of modern Euro cars (I'm looking at you, Peugeout) have a pronounced hump on the bonnet of the car, to allow it to deform and absorb impact, rather than the bonnet being a thin cover over the immovable block of the engine. It also explains why some sleeker cars like the new Jaguar XK have a "popup" bonnet which detects impact and pops up the bonnet itself slightly to allow for some elasticity whilst retaining a sporty low line.

    41. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Dude! Do you see all children running after their balls or whatever as Darwin-award candidates as well?

    42. Re:...Not originally designed... by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Also, if I'm protecting the pedestrian, do I lose my entire field of view, and end up running down other pedestrians?

      I am almost sure that when you hit a pedestrian you are expected to stop... of course, YMMV

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    43. Re:...Not originally designed... by Kangburra · · Score: 1

      Here in Australia Hyundai sold more sets* of Mag wheels than ABS kits. Both are the same price and both options on the Getz. More people bought flash wheels than a basic brake upgrade.

      * As admitted by the local car dealer I do some work for.

      --
      Common sense is not so common
    44. Re:...Not originally designed... by diagonal_mambo · · Score: 1

      This could also be a convenient way to beat rush hour traffic.

    45. Re:...Not originally designed... by AlterRNow · · Score: 1

      While I was learning to drive, I managed to skid the car which had ABS in the dry so either ABS is a con or the instructor needed his car fixing!

      --
      The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
    46. Re:...Not originally designed... by madcow_bg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it may take juries a bit to warm up to the idea of placing blame where it really belongs

      You mean the dumbass who walked into moving traffic???

      Situations certainly exist where the driver bears responsibility for hitting a pedestrian (running a red light,
      taking a blind corner as fast as the car can handle), but let's not turn this into one of those joke arguments
      about poor defenseless pedestrians vs the nasty aggressive drivers.

      I'll skip the stories of idiot bimbos on cellphones randomly walking out from between two parked SUVs to cross
      four-lane roads, and skip right to a real gem that blew me away. Two winters ago, coming home from work, the
      roads had a nasty layer of ice on them. I crested a hill doing easily 10mph under, and saw a guy talking to
      his neighbor across the road, from the MIDDLE of my lane. Now, I had a good 600-800ft to him, and he had
      perhaps a full 30 seconds to get out of the way. I applied the breaks, no effect. So I honked (three
      brief taps, not blaring the horn at him) to warn him, and the stupid bastard flipped me off and kept
      standing there chatting!

      I kept honking and eventually nudged my car into the other lane (thank god for no oncoming traffic) to avoid
      hitting him, and succeeded. But seriously - I swear if I could have stopped, I would have gotten out to beat
      the shit out of him.

      And yet, had my car hit him, any court in the country would have called it "my" fault for failure to control my
      car.

      So yeah, not a lot of sympathy when you tell me we where the blame "belongs" for these Darwin-award candidates.

      Dude, it is failure to control your car, after all. Also, I cannot seem to recall the exact passage in the traffic regulations that says you can run over pedestrians.

    47. Re:...Not originally designed... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      Or avoid a commuting cost. ... might raise your health insurance cost though.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    48. Re:...Not originally designed... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it pales in comparison to the #1 advance for "pedestrian protection", DON'T F-ING HIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!

      I agree, and it would be of great help if more peds actually listened to crossing signals and / or LOOKED before entering the roadway. Here it seems that peds think they have the right to step out whenever, where ever they want to cross the street, oncoming traffic be damned.

    49. Re:...Not originally designed... by plague3106 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, the streets AREN'T A PLACE TO STAND WHILE TALKING. They are for motor vehicle NOT SOCIAL GATHERINGS.

      There needs to be a balance, and peds are ALSO responsible for their own safety. And that means NOT standing in the road.

    50. Re:...Not originally designed... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, standards are developing for that. The "protection" is minimal, but things like making the bumper low enough to strike below the knee can help a lot (it's much better for the pedestrian to go up and over rather than under the car).

      If a pedestrian hits your windshield, I imagine that and the sudden spiderweb will block your vision already. Hopefully you are already braking full force by then.

    51. Re:...Not originally designed... by sjames · · Score: 1
    52. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That bird was well earned.

      If you hit the brakes and there is _no effect_ then you are driving at unsafe (read ludicrous) speeds for those conditions. Unsafe for YOU and everything around you. Next time you decide to drive in such conditions, consider slowing down to a manageable speed or outfitting your vehicle properly.

      YOU ARE THE DARWIN AWARD CANDIDATE.

    53. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you hit the brakes and there is _no effect_ then you are driving at unsafe (read ludicrous) speeds for those conditions"

      I see you ignored the part about "cresting a hill", and 30s to cover 600-800ft is 15mph.

      We'd all like to stay home in front of a nice fire on snowy days, but some of us do have to work regardless of the weather.

      or outfitting your vehicle properly"

      Riiiiight - Put a set of chains on your car and see how nice of a fine you get for driving on asphault.


      Jackass.

    54. Re:...Not originally designed... by pla · · Score: 1

      Do you see all children running after their balls or whatever as Darwin-award candidates as well?

      Yes, actually, I do - Though in that case, I would call the event more of a blameless one, since kids at least have the defense of possibly not knowing better (and as for the driver, I still refuse to attribute "blame" to an unavoidable event, however unfortunate).

      But really... I knew fully well, long before I ever had the opportunity to go outside alone - If a ball goes in the road, don't chase after it, ask a parent to get it for you.

    55. Re:...Not originally designed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Actually, it pales in comparison to the #1 advance for "pedestrian protection", DON'T F-ING HIT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!"

      You probably live in a city and follow common sense. Don't assume everyone else is doing so.

      I've been a driver and a pedestrian, one or the other largely depending on where I am living. Pedestrians also can be ignorant and walk anywhere anyway without regard for themselves. Stupid legislators actions in labelling crosswalks don't help either.

      Two instances come to mind. I realize this reg in the story is largely for the EU, but in the US, here in Pennsylvania, we have crosswalk laws that have been expanded. Now, I'm in favor of crosswalks. But a lot of them are very badly shown. In most sane jurisdictions, there is a large yellow sign on either side of the street above the bright white crosswalk on a wide street where you can see on either side of the lane a vehicle may cross.

      However, the same law also makes it acceptable to put these stupid little toddler sized signs in the middle of the street. The municipalities and towns that often do this not only cannot afford these nice clear signs, but they also seem to also lack funding to freshly paint the crosswalk. This is also backed by the fact they are often small, older towns with narrower streets.

      You can be 3 seconds behind someone and yet these crosswalks are easily obscured by trucks and SUVs ahead of you, as well on slight curves by car sized vehicles. In towns with tight lanes and often where these crosswalk signs are used for some reason, there is little to no warning before you come up on a crosswalk.

      The second problem is how pedestrians sometimes act. Runners and joggers will often not even pause before crossing, just go straight across. Again, in towns and cities, this is like someone bolting out of a store door and running across the street. Similarly, the slow family with the stroller and grandma that catches up--they sit at the entrance of the crosswalk, everyone is watching to see if they begin to cross, they don't. Then when grandma or a toddler finally makes them a group again, a parent will suddenly shoot out with the stroller to cross.

      Finally, just to indicate that pedestrians are often stupid as shit, two more stupid scenarios I've seen not necessarily related to crosswalks. One is the cell phone talking gum popping bonehead. Usually it's a male skateboarder or an airhead female teenager. They're talking, not looking, then suddenly will swing out into the street.

      Yesterday, I was carefully passing an Amish buggy on the left side of the road (this is usual and legal here, the horse and buggy is considered a vehicle traveling under half the speed limit whereupon you are allowed to pass). We were coming up on a pedestrian on the left side of the road facing away from us (which is proper, the walker was on the opposite side of road facing oncoming traffic). There was plenty of space even though it was a back country road. I gave a wide berth to the buggy and the pedestrian, splitting the leftover space.

      The pedestrian suddenly realized either the oncoming horse trot or the sound of a vehicle approach and looked to see...except it wasn't a so much a look to see so much as an abrupt face, full body turn around, took 2 steps out into the left lane.

      Something in my mind told me to give both the buggy and the pedestrian a wide berth, but I ended up taking the car slightly closer to the buggy for some reason. Missed the pedestrian now standing in the middle of the left lane by 2 feet.

      Anyways, don't always think pedestrians do the right thing. I was largely a pedestrian for years in Chicago and DC, and I've seen a lot of stupid ass driver shit, particularly DC taxis. In larger metro areas, pedestrians tend to have a brain and look and move in herds (so much so some people step out when the other side does when it still unsafe for them to); they are more aware to be certain and careful. This is not the case everywhere and for everyone.

    56. Re:...Not originally designed... by ross.w · · Score: 1

      Probably, but most cars now are the same, or soon will be. this one at least has a steeply slanted hood at a height that doesn't encourage sitting or leaning.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    57. Re:...Not originally designed... by ksheff · · Score: 1

      And of course the whole not being flung up into the air and onto the car is a rather nice side-effect too.

      Unless the car/suv keeps on going and drives over you. The authors of the old study found that landing on the hood provided a cushioning effect - not to mention, if the driver didn't see you the first time, he will hopefully see you bouncing off the hood. :)

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  5. yeah.... by reidiq · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can see someone changing the windshield wipers and all the sudden............

    --
    Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
    1. Re:yeah.... by arcsimm · · Score: 0

      ...did you get your hands blown off at the wrists the last time you used the horn?

  6. and now for something completely stupid... by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yeah, the impact from the car won't scratch you, but when it shoves you into a stationary lamp post or wall at 45 mph you will still splatter.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:and now for something completely stupid... by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      That would have been the perfect last scene to this little sketch.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    2. Re:and now for something completely stupid... by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      I think a 3,000 pound airbag traveling at 45 mph will hurt at impact.....forget secondary effects.

  7. Car analogy by 77Punker · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the ongoing spirit of computer/car comparisons, I suggest we install an airbag on computers to deploy when inept users approach in the hope of repelling them.

    Actually, maybe I'll just put one of these on the entrance to my cubicle to keep the salesmen away.

    1. Re:Car analogy by Starteck81 · · Score: 1

      In the ongoing spirit of computer/car comparisons, I suggest we install an airbag on computers to deploy when inept users approach in the hope of repelling them.

      Actually, maybe I'll just put one of these on the entrance to my cubicle to keep the salesmen away.

      I installed electrodes that deliver a mild shock when they do something bad and a little treat dispenser for when they do something right.

      Operant conditioning FTW.

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
  8. Oblig. Jimmy Carr by geedra · · Score: 1

    As Jimmy Carr would say... "Where's the ad for swerving?" "slow down, take the edge off, but it must learn its lesson!"

  9. Farmers Markets by Misanthrope · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess this means I can start going back to farmers markets that don't already have protection from being massacred by elderly drivers.

    1. Re:Farmers Markets by VorpalRodent · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a fundamental flaw here - your statement implies that the onus is on pedestrians and the locations they frequent to protect themselves (or, worse yet, on drivers to not hit pedestrians).

      The truth of the matter is that it is the responsibility of automobile manufacturers to ensure that people not riding in cars are safe at all times.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    2. Re:Farmers Markets by Misanthrope · · Score: 1

      You're insinuating that the manufacturers and not drivers are responsible if someone is killed when a car hits a pedestrian? Frankly that's insane, also I as a pedestrian in a large city known for such accidents try to keep up my vigilance to avoid putting myself in vulnerable situations.

    3. Re:Farmers Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP was making a joke. Maybe you were too?

    4. Re:Farmers Markets by SlappyMcInty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well that seems like a pile of crap. Of course the pedestrians (like anyone else) are responsible for their own well being - to protect themselves. This is one of the major problems with everyone today - the "it's not my responsibility to use common sense" mentality.

    5. Re:Farmers Markets by Kumiorava · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the Ford Pinto passengers. They shouldn't have been rear-ended in the first place. Pedestrian unsafe cars have similar design flaws as Ford Pinto, the flaw is just directed to pedestrians instead of the car passengers. I just cannot understand what goes on in the mind of people who are against modifications to the cars to make them safer to drive and be around. Please don't go to the extremes of proposing 10mph upper speed limit and full body airbags, because designing cars with pedestrians in mind isn't restricting the car performance or abilities in any significant way.

    6. Re:Farmers Markets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this means I can start going back to farmers markets that don't already have protection from being massacred by elderly drivers.

      You think you're clever, but the airbag only protects the first one. All I have to do is plow into you second, whippersnapper.

    7. Re:Farmers Markets by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Of course the pedestrians (like anyone else) are responsible for their own well being - to protect themselves.

      So they should never cross the road in case some asshole like you ignores the red light?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Farmers Markets by VorpalRodent · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate being modded informative, I am amazed at the number of responses that are attacking my position.

      Unfortunately, I am a horrible artist, and incapable of drawing one of those highly offensive ASCII masterpieces depicting the joke flying above my detractors heads.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
  10. Statistics by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1
    FTA:

    A standard car hitting a pedestrian at 25 mph would have a Head Impact Criterion score of about 1,000. That translates to an 18 per cent chance of a life-threatening injury.

    Note to self: one in six is pretty shitty, especially since that's life-threatening, not life-ending. Must go faster to reduce chance of victim surviving. Or make sure to get the head beneath the tires.

    Oops -- was that my out-loud voice?

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  11. Is this really a good idea? by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I say we mount spikes on the grills of our vehicles, so pedestrians will know to get the hell out of our way! Like most attempts to coddle the clueless, won't widespread adoption of this just result in even more careless pedestrians? Besides which, when I point my vehicle at someone and accelerate, I wanna make sure they die, not get thrown safely clear and live to sue me. Besides which, some people would never buy a car with this feature.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some people

      I really like how the url for this article says "car-crash-festival" rather than "car-crash-at-festival". had me thinking something entirely different before the page loaded.

    2. Re:Is this really a good idea? by vertinox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like most attempts to coddle the clueless, won't widespread adoption of this just result in even more careless pedestrians?

      Yeah, those damn pedestrians keep walking on that sidewalk I use for my shortcuts!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      I say we mount spikes on the grills of our vehicles, so pedestrians will know to get the hell out of our way! Like most attempts to coddle the clueless, won't widespread adoption of this just result in even more careless pedestrians?

      Agreed. Why not let evolution take care of this? By making cars more deadly, eventually humans will evolve to be impervious to cars crashing into them (and by extension, impervious to crashing while riding in cars). The problem will solve itself!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am sure that people will think, "You know I could get out of the way, but so many cars now-a-days come with pedestrian air-bags so I think I'll just let that car hit me."

    5. Re:Is this really a good idea? by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

      Upon hovering my mouse over that URL, I was left thinking: "Wow, only 4 dead after a car crash festival? The Dutch don't know how to properly honor a queen."

    6. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking that. But you know, we've had automobiles for over 100 years now, and we still haven't evolved deer, rabbits, or skunks with reflective stripes on them that help keep them from being hit by night drivers. Evolving a pedestrian with the common sense to avoid stepping in front of a 2 ton metal object moving at 60 mph may take even longer -- especially if they keep insisting on enforcing all those pedestrian-coddling traffic regulations! I'm still waiting... In the mean time, does anybody know a good solvent for removing those unsightly (and incriminating) bits of blood, hair, and skin from my front bumper?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      My suggestion is very similar. Why don't we mount a giant razor-sharp spike on the steering wheel, facing directly towards the driver, instead of airbags?

      How many people would run into things then?

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    8. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would really help people who run over pedestrians in the crosswalk because they are looking to see if they can turn right on a red become even more of a danger to society.

    9. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say we mount spikes on the grills of our vehicles,

      If we want to see a quantum jump in the quality of people's driving, the spikes should be mounted inside the car, on the dashboard facing inward, with one great big spike mounted in the center of the steering wheel.

    10. Re:Is this really a good idea? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are you French by any chance?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Would you pay extra for this? by wjousts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean, if I got hit by a car, I might appreciate that they'd paid extra for it, but since I'm not likely to hit myself with my car (unless my wife tries to run me down), why would I pay extra?

    Unless this is mandated, it won't catch on.

    1. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless this is mandated, it won't catch on.

      Might make your insurance go down..?

      Then again, it's usually cheaper if the victim dies, so it might be a wash.

    2. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's rewarded by the insurance companies. Lowering damage to pedestrians involved in an accident means reducing insurance payments to eventual victims. For liability insurances, this could make a lot of sense. They could charge higher rates to cars without pedestrian airbag and have a defensible case.

      There are also arguments for just mandating it, but if that fails, I have some hopes on the insurance front.

    3. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because most people think it is good to save a few pennies (relatively speaking), so that other people get hurt more/killed if they fuck up...

      Most people actually don't want to hurt other people...

    4. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by wjousts · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And I don't doubt that most people would agree with you, right up to the point where you ask them to take their check book out. Or until you ask them to choose this over heated leather seats.

    5. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, if I got hit by a car, I might appreciate that they'd paid extra for it, but since I'm not likely to hit myself with my car (unless my wife tries to run me down), why would I pay extra?

      Unless this is mandated, it won't catch on.

      If you think about this, I am sure you would feel quite shit if you killed someone in car accident and you might be able to avoid it?

      then again, in reality, that probably aint enough to make us pay few thousand dollars extra. arent we all shitty people?

    6. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's that so much as that most people will see it as a waste.

      First, no one expects to ever hit a pedestrian (I know I don't; I've had my fair share of mishaps while driving but never came close to hitting a pedestrian) and second, even if they *do* hit a pedestrian, the odds of the circumstances being just right for this device to not only come into effect but also help protect the pedestrian are so low it's just not worth the extra money. Better to spend more money on driver training and features that help the driver put that training into effect.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    7. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      When you get sued into oblivion? The cost of the feature I'm sure is minimal in comparison.

    8. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I guess that's why we'll never have turn signals on our cars. Oh well, saves me money.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    9. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would I pay extra?

      Lower insurance premiums

    10. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by andy+jenkins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why would I pay extra?

      Lower insurance premiums.

    11. Re:Would you pay extra for this? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No. The minute this is available rates for everyone will go up; buying a car with this "feature" brings you down to what you were paying before.

  13. Dedicated gamers want to know... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    What is this going to do to our Death Race 2000 scores?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. Re:Great, no more worries about my car... by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    he might die permanently Yeah, I hate it when they just die temporarily... damn zombies!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  16. I need one... by MikeOtl67of · · Score: 1

    ... I want to test it on my dear neighbour ...

  17. Speed Racer Mach 5 Rotating Saws . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

    . . . button "C" on the cartoon Speed Racer's original Mach 5 activated rotating saws at the front, that were able to clear the way of *anything*.

    We might need to adjust the regulations for pedestrian protection for this to be offered as standard equipment.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  18. "pre-detect" collisions? by panthroman · · Score: 1

    "The system uses radar and infrared technology to 'pre-detect' a collision..."

    Normal airbags inflate post-collision, but before you smack into the steering column. These new systems (1) detect imminent collisions and (2) react automatically. Am I stuck in 2004, or is that new?

    1. Re:"pre-detect" collisions? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      The upcoming version replaces all in-vehicle systems with three creepy misshapen children embedded in your bedside table. They tell you ahead of time whether you'll hit any pedestrians that day, so you can call in sick and avoid the problem.

  19. Last week in Holland... by hkz · · Score: 1

    ...some idiot plowed deliberately through the crowd at a Queen's Day rally in an apparent attempt to commit suicide and take the Royal family with him. Seven people died. Since this was live on national TV, there is surreal broadcast-quality footage that makes it look like some bad movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1Vs-9tfkX0

    First thing in my mind when I read this post. //Dutch.

    1. Re:Last week in Holland... by hkz · · Score: 1

      Because I'm going to hell anyway, here's a better clip with the street-level point of view. First time I saw this, my blood drew cold.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cg5oVVGilM

    2. Re:Last week in Holland... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The driver survived apparently. He'll probably get sentenced to a slap on the wrist and three months at a CenterParc. Then he'll sue the victims for the damge to his car - and win.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Last week in Holland... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, the driver ended up dying, around the same time one of the other survivers died.

    4. Re:Last week in Holland... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      According to the stories I read he was still alive, but that was a few days ago. I wonder if someone "accidentally" switched a machine off, or mismeasured the medication...

      Good riddance anyway.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  20. Will this just "encourage" stupid driving? by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    I wonder just how somebody like this stupid oxygen thief (woman killed a motorcyclist because she was too busy doing her nails to actually drive her car) might think "It's OK if I hit somebody now - I have this airbag!".

  21. This is news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.autoliv.com/wps/wcm/connect/autoliv/Home/What+We+Do/Research/Some%20Projects

    Or is it news because Americans just figured out something that others have known for years?

  22. Dads... by tool462 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lock up your daughters! A pillow on the hood of the car? As if they needed any MORE encouragement...

    1. Re:Dads... by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      And don't forget the "impact absorbing" hoods. They'll leave buttprints.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  23. Nanny State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If we are going to rely on the government to protect us, then wouldn't it be much cheaper to make all pedestrians wear helmets than try and fit this on every car made?

    Not to mention the cost of replacement is so much cheaper. If you kill a pedestrian you still have to replace your airbag, but if the pedestrian wearing a helmet dies then no new helmet need be purchased.

  24. It's all an elaborate ploy... by keeegan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To put more people in jail for DUI's. Personally, I hope it works.

    1. Re:It's all an elaborate ploy... by smchris · · Score: 1

      As a dedicated pedestrian with about a quarter century of survival behind me, I _HATE_ that attitude. Every time a car nails a pedestrian and the news says "alcohol was not a factor", I think "Clean kill!" Got away with it.

      But what are the odds that cars will have this? Only in the most "socialist" countries. Never pass in the U.S. Should it? I don't know. Personally, I'd like to see more penalties for driving that endangers pedestrians first -- and a mandate for cops to enforce them.

    2. Re:It's all an elaborate ploy... by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      Personally I'd like to see enforcement of jaywalking laws stepped up. Everyone acts like peds should be able to be as stupid as they want and break any rules they want, and the driver is expected to magically avoid everything.

      So.. I agree we need more enforcement, but aimed at people that think the crosswalk signals are there for decoration only.

  25. You're gonna need this airbag... by thewils · · Score: 1

    because when you're driving through town you won't want to slow down enough that the sneaky pedestrians can bounce off your car just to set off the air bag.

    Seriously, if anyone sees this on a car they'll be trying to set it off all the time. Especially if it costs the driver a thousand bucks just to get it reset.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
    1. Re:You're gonna need this airbag... by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Like they do with regular airbags? Or car alarms... That's like saying why bother putting in windshields? It is just an invitation for punk kids to smash. You sir sound afraid of change.

  26. They're doing it wrong! by thewils · · Score: 1

    The pedestrians should be the ones fitted with airbags.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  27. Funniest Home Videos by alta · · Score: 1

    Haven't we all seen the one where there's a large inflatable thing in the middle of a lake with a kid on it. A heavy adult jumps onto it from something high, and LAUNCHES the young child in the air like a flailing sack of potatos...

    Someone find the link, I hate video sites.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  28. Awesome, but one concern by Pinckney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is seriously awesome. I applaud the good work these researchers are doing. However, this line caught my eye:

    The system uses radar and infrared technology to "pre-detect" a collision and inflates quickly enough to cushion the impact, said Roger Hardy of the university's Cranfield Impact Centre.

    It seems possible that such a sensor could be duped with false input on the proper frequencies, causing the bag to deploy. This would likely be a malicious and expensive prank, as well as obstructing the drivers view. Of course, it would require technical expertise, putting it out of reach of most pranksters.

    1. Re:Awesome, but one concern by hurfy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or start kicking at cars as you cross in front of them stopped at a light to see if it senses the cars speed correctly before deploying? How long does that sensor stay calibrated?

      How about just tossing rubber balls into the street? Normally $0 damage but $1000 if you time it just right... Can the driver even sue you if you don't even hit their car?

      How about we just call the whole thing a bit overblown?

      For those of you who want the spikes in the steering wheel, maybe you can try my 55 ford. With a bench seat and no seatbelts if you go around a corner too fast you may slide over to the passenger side of the car! That should cut down people going to fast to make the corner ;) Should you hit something the horn button being steel should leave a nice FORD imprint on your face to remind you not to do that again.

      For those advocating the opposite ... Bonus points if the pedestrian gets stuck on the big pointy hood ornament :)

    2. Re:Awesome, but one concern by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      It seems possible that such a sensor could be duped with false input on the proper frequencies, causing the bag to deploy.....Of course, it would require technical expertise, putting it out of reach of most pranksters.

      Large-ish Mylar balloons (visible to radar), spray painted black to warm them up in the sun, thrown from the side of the road as cars pass.

      50 cents a pop, good entertainment value. Although I'd probably just push them out a side window whilst driving a car from the opposite direction for that extra hit'n'run buzz.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    3. Re:Awesome, but one concern by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I wonder how well the infrared works in cold climates where most pedestrians will be wearing 3-4 inches of insulation? I assume the infrared portion serves to distinguish pedestrians from lightposts.

      As far as duping goes- how do you dupe doppler effect? There have been many other cases where ultrasound is used for collision avoidance and AFAIK no one has caused trouble by fooling the sensors.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    4. Re:Awesome, but one concern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

      Let's see... we have a system using infrared & radar with predictive logic that can identify a likely collision with a pedestrian. What do we do with it? hmmmm....

      And the answer is! --- Inflate an airbag! [Wild applause from the crowd.]

      Why not consider: applying the brakes, steering the car away from the collision, reassessing the health and/or ability of the driver, registering the event (permanently), deciding whether to call an ambulance and/or the police, phoning home one last time or settting-up an appointment for driver's ed/counseling?

      I'm sure there are other applications for such fine work, like deploying parachutes in the event that an imminent collision between, say, a satellite and an unforeseen obstacle, like a planet, is detected.

      Out of the minds of grad students... come some truly silly applications for great technology.

  29. Iron Spike by Bigbutt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What I really want is an iron spike in the center of the steering wheel. Then the people who should be driving instead of [pick the distraction] would actually pay attention to the task at hand.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
    1. Re:Iron Spike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wa-huh???

      Because all accidents are the drivers fault right? No-one ever got shunted, no-one ever had an animal run out in front of them, everyone gets exactly what they deserve...This isn't stupid, reactionary or poorly-thought-through at all, no...well, not according to +5 insightful mods, anyway...

    2. Re:Iron Spike by maxume · · Score: 1

      I'm just not that enthusiastic about bicycling everywhere.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    3. Re:Iron Spike by excelblue · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with the iron spike idea is that most people don't know that the iron spike is going to do them any harm in a crash.

      Don't assume that most people have an understanding of physics. Those that do probably wouldn't be driving dangerously in the first place.

    4. Re:Iron Spike by swillden · · Score: 1

      The problem with the iron spike idea is that most people don't know that the iron spike is going to do them any harm in a crash.

      Put a nice razor-sharp point on it and I think they'll get the idea.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Iron Spike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How low can you karma whore, with your stolen Chris Rock skits?

    6. Re:Iron Spike by twostix · · Score: 1

      You go first then ey?

    7. Re:Iron Spike by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Please. How do they have any right to existance, if they don't know that a big iron spike can kill them?

      I say let's do it, and let evolution sort them out. I bet it raises the average IQ by 100% in just a year.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    8. Re:Iron Spike by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you got modded zero, whilst the original post got 5.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  30. Followed Almost Immediately by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    By a new sport by drivers to see how high they can bounce pedestrians.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  31. Zombies? by rleibman · · Score: 3, Funny

    In any scary movie when the good guys get on the car and then try to mow down the bad guys with the car they have some measure of success. With this external airbag I'm not sure this is going to work very well... We must provide more anti-zombie (and anti-raptor) features in cars. I mean... give me a car advertised as "20% more likely to survive a zombie attack" and I'm right there.

    1. Re:Zombies? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Don't worry you only need to break their legs anyways. Legless zombies aren't really that dangerous.

    2. Re:Zombies? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Here goes my karma...

      If you want to be immune to a zombie attack, drive an SUV. Zombies only go after vehicles that stand a good chance of containing brains.

      sigh.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  32. Wow. I wonder if Honda thought of but dismissed by davidsyes · · Score: 1
    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  33. what about the front end (bumper) by Penguin+Follower · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But what about the front of the car that takes out your legs? Plus, the airbag at the windshield seems like it wouldn't help since it's barely above the hood across the center.

    1. Re:what about the front end (bumper) by ksheff · · Score: 1

      The hood will flex when you land on it and absorb some of the energy of the impact. The glass windshield won't.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    2. Re:what about the front end (bumper) by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      I think that it's a given that if you hit someone at speed, you will break their legs. That usually isn't fatal though.

      What they are trying to prevent is the pedestrian's upper body and especially their head slamming down onto a solid bonnet/hood then sliding up and striking the bottom of the windshield.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
  34. Pull your head out of your A$$ by alexschmidt · · Score: 2, Informative

    ..and look around you when you are walking around. I'm sure many of us have seen people just blindly walk into the road figuring 'well, I have the right of way, car must stop'... Defensive driving is about paying attention and looking ahead. The same applies when you are walking around. If you are walking into traffic without paying attention, it's 'evolution in action'. This sort of safety mechanism is stupid and expensive and really won't do much to save lives. If you get hit by a car at anything over 20kph, you'll likely spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair drooling.

    1. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Indeed, which is why I loathe the "pedestrian right of way" concept. People blindly walk out into intersections all the time in Atlanta because they have the "right of way", which is bloody idiotic. The laws of physics overrule the laws of man, and a 40mph, 3000 pound car isn't going to come to a dead halt in the space of twenty feet just because you have the "right of way", nor is your "right of way" going to help you when you're a smear across the asphalt because someone didn't see you or couldn't stop in time.

      On foot, at a crosswalk where I have the right of way I will stand there until traffic is clear, no matter how long it takes -- not just stroll across hoping people will stop. My parents taught me not to walk into traffic when I was three.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    2. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by cheros · · Score: 1

      You know, I don't see a problem. I have screen wipers. There are other valid reasons why you shouldn't mow down pedestrians, though, not only do they make dents at a decent speed, they also mess up your paintwork..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    3. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is this informative? Putting the onus on pedestrians. Law stipulates that pedestrians pretty much always get right of way. Parent also assumes there are no bad or drunk drivers. I've personally been hit by 5cars, 3 of those times I was on a sidewalk.

      And he pulls #s out of his ass. From the article a hit at 40km/h gives an 18% chance of death (rated at 1000pts). And that with this hood that drops to ~450/1000 (8% chance of death assuming the numbers correlate well).

      Oblig... A car is deadlier than a gun. What gives you the right to drive one without minor precautions? A car has airbags inside to protect YOU when you run into things. If you were a good driver why would you need them? Total waste of money right? Just ... pathetic.

    4. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by Pinckney · · Score: 1

      This sort of safety mechanism is stupid and expensive and really won't do much to save lives.

      35% of pedestrian vehicle collisions are the fault of the driver only, according to this review. Even if we totally discount the lives of idiot pedestrians, approximately 2 700 pedestrians are killed annually through no fault of their own. One can make an argument that that is an insignificant number, and perhaps it is.

      I too have seen my share of idiot pedestrians, but let me contribute my anecdote on the incompetence of drivers. As I was walking towards a major intersection, I witnessed a car careen off the road, through the street-sign at the corner I was approaching, along the sidewalk, and back onto the street along which I walked, where it finally came to a stop upon striking the opposite curb. I do not know how the driver managed to lose control so badly, and on such a straight road, but regardless, he managed it, and at the speed he traveled, would likely have killed anyone waiting at the intersection.

    5. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I don't mind the right of way concept that much at the crosswalk. Drivers should expect to look out for vehicles turning from other directions and people using the crosswalks like they are supposed to be used. It's the jackasses that walk out into the street in the middle of the block. Sometimes it seems like they want to get hit.

      I did see the result of a dump truck meeting one of these jaywalkers. The truck kept going and the jackass was left twitching in the street...the gene pool became just a little bit cleaner.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    6. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by the_one(2) · · Score: 1

      I do not believe that his point was that it was the pedestrians fault (although it did sound a bit like it); just that if the pedestrians were more careful they would be safer from idiotic drivers. If there is a car running a red light you should not attempt to cross the street (even if you have a green light)

    7. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised at all this victim-blaming bullshit and this whole social darwinist attitude of "if you aren't fit to take care of yourself, you deserve to die". I wish I had mod points so I could mod half the top-rated comments in this story down. Somehow, the moderators just love this macho ranting.

      Seriously, accidents will happen. This technology has the potential to save lives. It will save the lives of some fools who weren't paying attention. Do they deserve to die? It will save the lives of some people who happened to be in the way of other other fools who weren't paying attention. Assign blame how you will, but whoever is at fault, saving lives is a GOOD thing.

    8. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      The same argument pretty much applies to other drivers too - the more careful you are, the safer you are from idiotic drivers. However, we know that is insufficient to prevent every accident.

    9. Re:Pull your head out of your A$$ by optimus2861 · · Score: 1

      Putting the onus on pedestrians. Law stipulates that pedestrians pretty much always get right of way.

      Physics do not care what the law says. Your 70kg "ugly bag of mostly water" versus 1000kg+ of steel, glass, and plastic is a losing battle every time. When you are near moving motor vehicles, pay attention and don't do anything stupid.

  35. Not to worry by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A good handbrake slide will catch the pedestrian better as you'll have more surface area, and it'll be a long time before they think to deploy airbags on the outside of your side!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not to worry by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      A good handbrake slide will catch the pedestrian better as you'll have more surface area Sure, but that requires a certain amount of skill that those not practiced in the art of "drifting" don't possess. Plus, the tire screeching it produces serves as an advance warning that gives the pedestrian more time to run away. Nope, I'll stick with the tried and true good ol' American method of "point the car in the general direction of what you want to hit", thank you very much!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Not to worry by AlterRNow · · Score: 1

      But then you don't get the achievement :(

      --
      The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
    3. Re:Not to worry by sjames · · Score: 1

      You'll never get to the professional leagues that way. When you hit them with the front of the car they'll fly in a nearly random direction. How do you expect to score a goal that way?

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Already in commercial sector... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Autoliv already sells something like this to OEMs and/or is developing it.

    Autolive ped protection

  38. What about other Creatures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this help deer, elk and moose, which get hit a lot more often than people (just ask Google :-)? Or the driver in the case of a 1000 pound moose hitting the windshield?

    1. Re:What about other Creatures by ksheff · · Score: 1

      That depends if your state allows people to take road kill game animals home after they hit them. I'd want the animal dead, not hobbling off into the woods/pasture to die sometime later.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  39. So.... by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    .. your head bounced off the external airback, as you fall to the ground, hitting breaking your skull on the pavement. Ohhh I see where this is going, you can now sue the city instead of the driver.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  40. Fuel Efficiency? by sudotron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems like we're fighting this never ending battle to shove more worthless equipment into cars while at the same time attempting to increase fuel efficiency. We'll never be able to have both. Every ill-conceived and improperly tested safety feature that's put in a vehicle will either increase its weight, sap power from the engine, or both. Call me nostalgic if you want, but I miss the cars of 20 to 30 years ago: Light, fuel efficient, and simple. I highly doubt that any of the cars coming out today will be running a few decades from now, what with all the cheaply made electronics that are essential to their function.

    If you want my two cents, I'd say that all cars should be made with five-point safety harnesses and a roll cage integrated into the frame. This would be light, not require constant electronic monitoring of status, and sufficiently protect the vehicle's occupants. After all, race drivers have had these for years with mostly positive outcomes.

  41. Three horsepower rubber cars by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2

    I think we should all move to three horsepower rubber cars with a planter in the back, and drop all speed limits to zero.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  42. This was on Beyond Tomorrow years ago. by ldheinz · · Score: 0

    I saw this idea implemented on a Jaguar years ago on an episode of the Australian TV show, "Beyond Tomorrow".

  43. Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    So it can't be patented due to prior art,

    what does this add to the cost of a car?

  44. Before Perfect Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Post Anonymously, be a Jackass.

    After Perfect Karma

    Post Anonymously, be a Jackass.

  45. fuget pedestrians, what about moose!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you add spikes, the moose don't go through the windshield

  46. Points! by Anenome · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wait, remind me again: which is worth more points, hitting clowns or mimes? This is gonna be fun!

    --
    "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
  47. Some European cars has it by egork · · Score: 1

    I've read recently about some. Do not remember which one that was.

  48. You insensitive clod! by jigyasubalak · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't have even a single internal airbag!

    --
    The best planning can be done after the project completes.
  49. Cushion to stop collision between cars. by Amitz+Sekali · · Score: 1

    If all car makers agree to fit all cars with cushion on the perimeter of the car x metre from the ground, I bet insurance cost won't be as high as it is right now.

    --
    If you delay pleasure infinitely, the pleasure will be infinite. (YM)
  50. How to test: run over pedrestrians by Targon · · Score: 0

    How do they really test this, other than have some people with a death wish stand around and wait for the test driver to run them down? Test dummies will never do the job properly, so what do they use for the test, sex offenders?

  51. Will it really help ? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

    Will it really help ? All it would take is a small compensation on the drivers behalf to negate any advantage ("ohh: I have the latest pedestrian airbags; I can drive a little faster in crowded streets.")

  52. Uh, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You're supposed to avoid obstructions in the road.

    Yup, he's a prick for standing where he was, but you still have the duty to avoid him and pass him safely. He doesn't have the duty to move aside.

    If you really think it necessary, your only recourse is to call the police and get him done for obstruction of traffic.

    But he doesn't have to move out of the way for you.

    1. Re:Uh, yeah. by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What is the point of your post? He clearly knows he has a duty to avoid obstacles, and never said otherwise. He was talking about a situation where it was sheer good fortune that he was CAPABLE of avoiding someone actively thwarting his attempts to avoid a collision.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  53. I've got better protection by Y2KDragon · · Score: 1

    If you hit pedestrians while driving (and it's your fault, not the pedestrian who ran out without looking), you don't get to drive anymore.

  54. fail by Smelly+Jeffrey · · Score: 1

    Without seatbelts, airbags do exponentially more harm than good.

  55. Protect idiots and fools? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    In the US they took dueling away from us in the 1800s. President Andrew Jackson used to get rid of a lot of fools that way. In the 20th century they kept suing to protect idiots and fools who would for example put their hand into a trash truck compactor. Put a sign on the side of the trash truck "Don't put hand and feet into compactor." Then they had them put it in multiple languages. Now they want to protect them if they get hit in the street. So how exactly are we to get rid of idiots and fools in the future? Let's bring back the Duel.

  56. Not to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that black guy that's too cool to walk fast enough to get out of the street before the light turns green.

    Mod me down for racism but we've all seen it.

  57. Why not just.... by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

    Why not put a safety jacket (with air bags if you want) + an helmet on every pedestrian ?
    Much safer this way ;) (even for old car models)

    --
    I can't call that English ;-)
  58. Not just for pedestrians.. by One+Brave+Prune · · Score: 0

    It won't take long for homeless people to figure out it's a free bed with a pillow.

  59. Perfect for some vehicles... by AtlasBatterie · · Score: 1

    Like the Dodge RAM. Hard to believe a company with the RAM and the Nitro (for a gas-powered vehicle!) couldn't make it work. "The Nitro. Made to crash and burn!"

    Let's face it. Even the name Dodge means you'd better watch out.

    I was holding out for the Dodge Genocide: "Be the last person on your block to own one!"

  60. Have we come to this? by Scaleslea · · Score: 1

    Is the quality of driving so bad that now there is no longer the expectation that a driver will attempt to avoid hitting a pedestrian? Have we completely given up on improving driver skills and pedestrian awareness? Now we're going to concentrate on mitigating the consequences of reckless and incompetent driving?

    Good lord.

  61. Pedestrians... oy by Merovign · · Score: 1

    1) The vehicle code says pedestrians have the right of way. Physics says the 3000lb vehicle has the right of way. One of those rules may override the other.

    2) I see more and more idiot pedestians walking or riding bikes out in front of cars, and kids playing in the street. You can try to protect everyone from stupidity, but you're going to fail, because nothing is more ingenious than an idiot.

    3) Yes, drivers need to be more careful. But pedestrians, carrying around the short end of the momentum stick, need to be even more more careful.

  62. Feel bad? Are you kidding? by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1

    you don't have to feel bad when you plow into a group of pedestrians who are crossing the street too slowly

    [Shrug]
    I don't now!