Drving faster, in my experience does not make a significant change in mileage...

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 23:42:49 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> This means you don't have anything to back up your claim of trivial cost.
>> I accept your surrender.
>>
>>
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that adding side curtain
>airbags to an SUV adds 270 dollars to the cost to manufacture the vehicle.
>IMO, that's "trivial" when you consider the societal costs of the deaths and
>injuries that would result from not having them.

How do you calculate that? If only 1 in 1 million SUV's has an accident where
sidecurtain airbags make a significant difference, that's 270 million dollars
for 1 incident. More human misery might be avoided by doing something else
less costly with that $270 million, perhaps, like constructing and manning a
few more ambulance stations. Maybe several more lifeflight helicopters could
be more beneficial than 2 million airbags that also eventually have to be
disposed of.

Dave Head
>

At roughly $1,500 per car, air bags are a very inefficient way of saving
lives. For instance, instead of air bags, investing the $1,500 per car
into increased seat belt compliance to 90% would prevent over 5,500
deaths - annually. (NHTSA estimated between 1990 and 1998 3,625 lives
were saved by air bags, and admitted 122 lives were lost in otherwise
minor i.e. low speed accidents.)

Putting $1,500 into crash prevention, such as better training of
drivers, would save far more lives than air bags ever did. For many
individuals, investing $1,500 into better tires would be a safer choice
than air bags.

Two Transport Canada studies show air bags reduce the risk of injury by
just two percent for adults who wear seat belts. On the other hand, a
car 200 pounds heavier than baseline gives you 9% greater safety in a
crash all by itself, and another 200 pounds adds another 9%.


Ivan

Ivan > writes:

>At roughly $1,500 per car, air bags are a very inefficient way of
>saving lives. For instance, instead of air bags, investing the
>$1,500 per car into increased seat belt compliance to 90% would
>prevent over 5,500 deaths - annually. (NHTSA estimated between
>1990 and 1998 3,625 lives were saved by air bags, and admitted 122
>lives were lost in otherwise minor i.e. low speed accidents.)

>Putting $1,500 into crash prevention, such as better training of
>drivers, would save far more lives than air bags ever did. For many
>individuals, investing $1,500 into better tires would be a safer
>choice than air bags.

>Two Transport Canada studies show air bags reduce the risk of
>injury by just two percent for adults who wear seat belts. On the
>other hand, a car 200 pounds heavier than baseline gives you 9%
>greater safety in a crash all by itself, and another 200 pounds
>adds another 9%.

Meaningless numbers used to justify bloated cars.

Carrying 400 pounds of lead in the car doesn't make it 1% safer.
i.e. a heavier isn't automatically safer.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

In article >,
Bernd Felsche > wrote:

>
> >Two Transport Canada studies show air bags reduce the risk of
> >injury by just two percent for adults who wear seat belts. On the
> >other hand, a car 200 pounds heavier than baseline gives you 9%
> >greater safety in a crash all by itself, and another 200 pounds
> >adds another 9%.
>
> Meaningless numbers used to justify bloated cars.
>
> Carrying 400 pounds of lead in the car doesn't make it 1% safer.
> i.e. a heavier isn't automatically safer.


Of course you're right - because you said so.

Ivan

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> >Two Transport Canada studies show air bags reduce the risk of injury by
> >just two percent for adults who wear seat belts. On the other hand, a
> >car 200 pounds heavier than baseline gives you 9% greater safety in a
> >crash all by itself, and another 200 pounds adds another 9%.
>
> Meaningless numbers used to justify bloated cars.

Not really. Just statistical evidence for the laws of physics' stubborn
refusal to bend to suit political agendas.

> Carrying 400 pounds of lead in the car doesn't make it 1% safer.

Assuming that 400 pounds of Lead is placed so as to become, effectively,
part of the mass of the car -- and not, for instance, placed on the rear
shelf to fly forward as a missile in a short stop -- it does indeed make
the car safer.

Remember, F = MA even for those who would have us all drive 3-cylinder
microcars.

Ignasi Palou-Rivera > writes:

>Bernd Felsche > writes:
>> Going by your assertion, the "Union of Concerned Scientists" isn't
>> concerned with such practicalities.

>Maybe somebody out there should start a Union of Concerned *Engineers*,
>eh?

>Not that I have anything about pure science...

Maybe you have something against junk science. Junk science is
motivated by political agenda; not by a pursuit of knowledge.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

Ivan > writes:
>In article >,
> Bernd Felsche > wrote:

>> >Two Transport Canada studies show air bags reduce the risk of
>> >injury by just two percent for adults who wear seat belts. On the
>> >other hand, a car 200 pounds heavier than baseline gives you 9%
>> >greater safety in a crash all by itself, and another 200 pounds
>> >adds another 9%.
>>
>> Meaningless numbers used to justify bloated cars.
>>
>> Carrying 400 pounds of lead in the car doesn't make it 1% safer.
>> i.e. a heavier isn't automatically safer.

>Of course you're right - because you said so.

Not because *I* said so.

The junk science that says that heavier cars are safer abuse
measurement, statistics and obscure the reality to justify their
objectives which are evidently *not* the improvement of road safety.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"Daniel J. Stern" > writes:
>On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

>> >Two Transport Canada studies show air bags reduce the risk of
>> >injury by just two percent for adults who wear seat belts. On
>> >the other hand, a car 200 pounds heavier than baseline gives you
>> >9% greater safety in a crash all by itself, and another 200
>> >pounds adds another 9%.

>> Meaningless numbers used to justify bloated cars.

>Not really. Just statistical evidence for the laws of physics'
>stubborn refusal to bend to suit political agendas.

Laws of physics? More like junk science. Abuse of measurement and
statistics.

The "in a crash" phrase pre-supposes that the car will be in a
crash; presumably in a crash with a lighter "baseline" vehicle as
they make a reference to the "baseline". [That's my assumption.]

If that is the case, then one must also consider the total
consequences if two baseline vehicles crash and compare that to the
total consequences of a heavy vs baseline. The total energy in the
latter will be greater, all other things being equal. The "better
off" heavy vehicle increases the severity of the crash at the
expense of the lighter vehicle.

In science, one must not be blinded by just looking at one side and
one's own prejudiced objectives.

>> Carrying 400 pounds of lead in the car doesn't make it 1% safer.

>Assuming that 400 pounds of Lead is placed so as to become,
>effectively, part of the mass of the car -- and not, for instance,
>placed on the rear shelf to fly forward as a missile in a short
>stop -- it does indeed make the car safer.

OK; Bolt 400 pounds of lead to the floor of the car and crash it
into a bridge pylon. I guarantee that the vehicle occupants will be
worse off than the occupants of an un-ballasted vehicle.

The energy-absorbing components of the car will have more energy to
absorb and hence will deform further and more rapidly resulting in
greater acceleration of the vehicle occupant.

Furthermore, increasing the vehicle's inertia reduces its ability to
change direction to _avoid_ a crash or to minimise the severity of
impact.

>Remember, F = MA even for those who would have us all drive
>3-cylinder microcars.

A car is not a point mass. It is a number of elasto-plastically
coupled masses. Which is especially the case in a crash situation to
which the junk science refers.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Laws of physics?

Laws of physics.

> The "in a crash" phrase pre-supposes that the car will be in a crash
> presumably in a crash with a lighter "baseline" vehicle as they make a
> reference to the "baseline". [That's my assumption.]

You've obviously not read the studies in question. You wouldn't need to
assume if you'd only just read instead. The figures for safety effects of
airbags, vehicle mass increases, etc. are *across all crashes*. The reason
why North American airbags show such a low (2%) safety benefit is that
they have a negative or neutral effect in more crashes than they have a
positive effect in. The negative-effect crashes pull down the figure.

> OK; Bolt 400 pounds of lead to the floor of the car and crash it into a
> bridge pylon. I guarantee that the vehicle occupants will be worse off
> than the occupants of an un-ballasted vehicle.

There are single-car crashes that tend to exert a downward influence on
the safety benefit of extra vehicle mass, but car-on-car crashes are more
common than car-into-pylon crashes. That's why the figure is 9% rather
than (say) 12%.

> Furthermore, increasing the vehicle's inertia reduces its ability to
> change direction to _avoid_ a crash or to minimise the severity of
> impact.

That's a separate question entirely.

Just because something doesn't agree with your political agenda does not
make it "junk science". Furthermore, you're on very thin ice making
accusations of "junk science" when you obviously have a very poor grasp of
basic statistical principles.

DS

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005, Bernd Felsche wrote:

> Maybe you have something against junk science. Junk science is
> motivated by political agenda; not by a pursuit of knowledge.

Except in FelscheWorld, where "junk science" means anything Bernd Felsche
disagrees with.