Faster is not always better: why the case for higher speed limits is fatally flawed. - eviltoast
  • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If you get the opportunity. It’s just as likely the impact of the all-steel frame with no crumple actually bisects your body right in half, or crushes your internal organs to paste.

    Rolling over a hood is “better” because it consumes energy. Everything about mitigating a crash impact is about putting as much of the energy of the impact as possible somewhere other than a human body. You don’t get the opportunity to do that at all if the initial impact is rigid. It’s putting all that collision energy directly into you.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think the average human has enough mass to meaniningfully use a crumplezone. The trend of higher bumper heights causes more head an chest injuries than lower bumper heights. Higher bumper heights also increase the chances of being run over.

      The average car is also much heavier these days and simple math means that car will have more force on impact at the same speed compared to a lighter car.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You are absolutely right that cars are heavier now, which means they are putting more energy into a collision, but cars are also better at dissipating that energy. I don’t actually know enough to know what wins in that face-off. You could very well be right. I’d defer to someone with more expertise in collisions.