Pedestrian bumper laws affecting new car design - your opinion on the matter?

[edkwon]

I know this has been addressed and discussed before but I couldn't find the original thread and search words like 'pedestrian crash safey law bumper design' didn't produce the proper thread in the search results like I hoped.

I think everyone here knows what i'm talking about, with recent european pedestrian collision safety laws affecting new european car design to the point where all new coupes and sedans have had their front ends dramatically altered compared to cars in thes 90s and early 2000s, becoming higher, squarish, more ungainly.

This is a multi-part question

1. do you think the laws are justified and pedestrian safety takes priority over how formerly good looking cars have been radically altered?

2. do you think the problem is over exaggerated and this whole redesign trend was highly unnecessary and done just to avoid lawsuits from a litigious few?

3. do you live in an area which is pedestrian heavy/light and think 'we don't even have many pedestrians here, why should their problem ruin my car designs?'

4. do you think the problem is more the drivers fault (why are some irresponsible drivers ruining car design for the rest of us?) or the pedestrian's fault (i.e. being drunk and not watching as they're crossing the street, ergo, why are we having the pay for the carelessness of stupid pedestrians who don't notice cars barreling down the street and choose to step in front of them)

5. or do you actually like the new trend in front bumper design and think this redesign was a good step in a right direction anyway?

Feel free to discuss and backup with photos

 

[CLIK92]

I think society is today is awful, we can't do anything anymore without some law that supposedly helps us. Like in my state we have this law, Kyleighs law that requires new drivers (teens) to place a red decal on their cars. The reason? To prevent teen crash/ death rates by having cops crack down on teens. Will this law actually save lives? Nope, like a red decal can help save lives. It started with just a dumb teenage girl, and her dumb drunk friends in a little Audi TT that crashed into a tree, killing the girl Kyleigh. Then the girls mother protested for this new law to be enacted, but to the state it means more revenue even though there were lots of concerns.

Anyway, it is all down to responsibility, and I think it is stupid that people are becoming all lawsuit happy and trying to get money because "the front end of his car was too square!" or "the little hood ornament hurt my back". Honestly if you want to be careful use caution. I can't tell you how many people just walk blankly across the road with a car coming straight at them, then try to blame the driver. Safety is a great thing, but it is being over used. What next?

Kinda irrelevent but only thing I agree with for the safety is the same level bumpers for SUV's being the same level as smaller cars

 

[narf]

1. Yes. It's not all bad either, my estate wears its pedestrian-friendly nose very well. Also, you can get around the high hoods by using pyro/springloaded systems to pop the hood on impact to create the necessary distance to the engine block (see GTR and maybe some Merc iirc) if you value the looks of a lower nose as very important. Will add to the price, obviously.

2. No. That may be biased though, massive lawsuits against manufacturers that did not warn you to not put your cat into your new microwave oven are uncommon (impossible?) around here.

3. Compared to the US average, heavy pedestrian traffic. Compared to busy inner cities, light pedestrian traffic. Thinking "there are no pedestrians around here, why should my car take care of them" would be an odd way of thought. Cars aren't designed for one specific location, London black taxis excepted :lol:

4. Neither. There are accidents that are solely the driver's fault, and vice versa. For example, my sister's (double broken ankle ) hospital room mate got run over by a car turning at a traffic light. The driver is to blame, however it was his first ever accident in decades of driving - just a moment's lapse of attention. Can't say he is an irresponsible driver, yet he still managed to run her over. In other words, this could happen to each and every one of us. That driver is tormenting himself now, many humans would. Having a less damaging front end would not only reduce the injuries of the pedestrian, but also potentially reduce the psychological aftermath for the driver. Also, it could be you who gets struck by a car.

5. Yep I'm no aerodynamicist, but isn't a teardrop-like shape supposed to be fat in the front anyways? Weren't the uber-flat noses an attempt to make cars aerodynamically efficient without proper knowledge?

Kinda irrelevent but only thing I agree with for the safety is the same level bumpers for SUV's being the same level as smaller cars

Using the logic from the earlier part of your post, use caution and don't crash.

Bad idea, you say? Others could crash into you? Well, ok, but cars can also crash into pedestrians who can't just disappear into thin air.

 

[CLIK92]

Using the logic from the earlier part of your post, use caution and don't crash.

Bad idea, you say? Others could crash into you? Well, ok, but cars can also crash into pedestrians who can't just disappear into thin air.

Well like you said people are people, accidents happen. And I'm not saying the same level bumpers on cars and SUV's are a bad thing if that's what you are trying to get at.

 

[edkwon]

I'm curious to hear how this opinion differs between american and european forum members because the majority of american cities...pedestrian traffic is FAR less than in most euro cities due to automobile bias and the fact cars are much cheaper to afford, own and insure. A few big cities might have even more pedestrians than drivers (a la NYC or SF) but this tends to me in the minority most of the country. In fact most of suburban america, long distance pedestrian traffic is highly unrealistic as things are so spread out, all journeys are done by car or public transit, and the likelihood of a car running into a pedestrian is reduced to parking lots and never on the streets.

 

[thevictor390]

I'm curious to hear how this opinion differs between american and european forum members because the majority of american cities...pedestrian traffic is FAR less than in most euro cities due to automobile bias and the fact cars are much cheaper to afford, own and insure. A few big cities might have even more pedestrians than drivers (a la NYC or SF) but this tends to me in the minority most of the country. In fact most of suburban america, long distance pedestrian traffic is highly unrealistic as things are so spread out, all journeys are done by car or public transit, and the likelihood of a car running into a pedestrian is reduced to parking lots and never on the streets.

In my town there are very few sidewalks, mostly only in the town center. There's a bus somewhere but I don't know where it goes besides the mall. Walking has never really been an option for transportation, and even bicycles are rare except for sport. So you may be right in that our view of pedestrians is different. High-speed pedestrian collisions are pretty rare.

But that doesn't exemplify all of America, in a ten minute drive I can get to a city with sidewalks, pedestrians, and bicycles.

 

[CLIK92]

In my town there are very few sidewalks, mostly only in the town center. There's a bus somewhere but I don't know where it goes besides the mall. Walking has never really been an option for transportation, and even bicycles are rare except for sport. So you may be right in that our view of pedestrians is different. High-speed pedestrian collisions are pretty rare.

But that doesn't exemplify all of America, in a ten minute drive I can get to a city with sidewalks, pedestrians, and bicycles.

Reminds me I did see a mexican guy riding his bike on the highway at 12 AM on the shoulder of the road, pretty scary if you ask me. Plus there's this one road near me that has 4 lanes and a grassy center divider dividing the 2 lanes with people always trying to cross.

 

[SchumacherM]

Doesn't matter what the bumper looks like or how it's designed. When a ton and a bit of metal hits you, not even marshmallow bumpers will help.
This is just more nonsense and claptrap from bureaucrats to satisfy hippies and women with thin lips...

 

[narf]

Well like you said people are people, accidents happen. And I'm not saying the same level bumpers on cars and SUV's are a bad thing if that's what you are trying to get at.

I wasn't getting at the SUV thing, I was getting at your logic with the pedestrian thing. You said cars don't need to be more pedestrian-friendly, pedestrians need to be more careful.
Using that logic, making cars and SUVs compatible is unnecessary because you just need to be more careful.


However as you rightly say, accidents do happen. Car vs car, car vs SUV, car vs pedestrian. All combinations should be made safer where easily possible.

High-speed pedestrian collisions are pretty rare.

High-speed collisions are not the focus of this kind of legislation. When a car hits you at 50mph, it really does not matter much how it is shaped. However, when it hits you at 10mph (random number - could be 15 or 20, idunno) its shape can make the difference between a broken bone plus headache only or a broken skull plus a nice funeral..

 

[edkwon]

Doesn't matter what the bumper looks like or how it's designed. When a ton and a bit of metal hits you, not even marshmallow bumpers will help.
This is just more nonsense and claptrap from bureaucrats to satisfy hippies and women with thin lips...

On a similar note, do you know they're trying to make ALL current design 'slide down rail' cribs in america illegal because of approx 10 reported infant deaths a year because of arms or necks being caught in these style cribs...and mandating all manufacturers do a complete redesign. Never mind the other millions of cribs and parents seem to get on just fine without an incident.

 

[Spectre]

I wasn't getting at the SUV thing, I was getting at your logic with the pedestrian thing. You said cars don't need to be more pedestrian-friendly, pedestrians need to be more careful.
Using that logic, making cars and SUVs compatible is unnecessary because you just need to be more careful.


However as you rightly say, accidents do happen. Car vs car, car vs SUV, car vs pedestrian. All combinations should be made safer where easily possible.

Using the logic evinced by the Euro commissioners, this should be the most pedestrian safe vehicle.... in the world. It has a high hood line, plenty of space between the engine and the engine cover, and instead of that eeeeeevil anti-pedestrian metal stuff the nose is made mostly out of deformable plastic.

For some odd reason, despite having everything the Eurocrats want to see in 'pedestrian safe vehicles', most people hit by one going any rate of speed get killed. Why is that?

 

[narf]

Doesn't matter what the bumper looks like or how it's designed. When a ton and a bit of metal hits you, not even marshmallow bumpers will help.
This is just more nonsense and claptrap from bureaucrats to satisfy hippies and women with thin lips...

Odd reasoning. Again, high speed collisions are not the focus. Imagine you get hit at 10mph. If the bumper is a solid steel tube it will excert a huge pressure (force divided by area) on whatever part of your body it hits. If however you get hit by a larger deformable bumper some of the impact will be absorbed, reducing the resulting injuries. Put simply, you will gently be accelerated to maybe 3mph by the deforming bits before hitting the hard bits at only 7mph instead of 10mph.

 

[Spectre]

Except it doesn't work like that in reality, because unless you want to put giant airbags or meter-plus thick Nerf cushions on the front of cars, the materials won't deform fast enough to do much good.

Also, let's look at cost-benefit. For New York City in 2008, the BLS has amassed these statistics on fatal occupational injuries (which include taxi drivers hitting pedestrians, etc.)

Number of people caught in or crushed in collapsing structure: 9
Number of people killed in workplace assaults or violence: 26
Number of people killed falling off things: 29
Number of people killed in fires: 6
Number of people killed by a tsunami of building materials: 9
Number of people struck by vehicle, mobile equipment in parking lot or non-roadway area: 3.

That's right. 3. A grand total of THREE people getting killed by vehicles being where they're not supposed to be. In a city of eight million, excluding the suburbs and outlying cities, all crammed into only 305 square miles. (The entire metro area of NY is over 19 million.)

You are three times more likely to be killed by a building falling on you in NYC, one of the if not the most pedestrian-used city on the planet with dense crowds on the sidewalks at all hours, than killed by a car jumping the curb.

If you have a ginormous problem with pedestrians getting hit by cars, either you have some really stupid pedestrians, you need better civil engineering or you need better driver training. The problem isn't the vehicles and you don't need to be mandating stupid useless changes to them.

 

[thevictor390]

High-speed collisions are not the focus of this kind of legislation. When a car hits you at 50mph, it really does not matter much how it is shaped. However, when it hits you at 10mph (random number - could be 15 or 20, idunno) its shape can make the difference between a broken bone plus headache only or a broken skull plus a nice funeral..

By high speed I meant anything beyond a parking lot mishap. That was a poor choice of words.

 

[prizrak]

Using the logic evinced by the Euro commissioners, this should be the most pedestrian safe vehicle.... in the world. It has a high hood line, plenty of space between the engine and the engine cover, and instead of that eeeeeevil anti-pedestrian metal stuff the nose is made mostly out of deformable plastic.

For some odd reason, despite having everything the Eurocrats want to see in 'pedestrian safe vehicles', most people hit by one going any rate of speed get killed. Why is that?

Physics - a cruel cruel bitch

I don't necessarily think that looks are being ruined by the such regulations. You got ugly cars and pretty cars from all decades no matter what the regulation. There are a few cases where regulation bumpers would make cars really ugly but its because a car was designed with one regulation in mind and later retrofitted. At this point in time there are somewhat different designs for different markets (where not possible to sell a homogenized product) so that problem is kind of overcome.

As far as this regulation being worthy, I don't really have enough info (or will to research) to say. One has to look at the number of accidents and severity of injuries at same speed/car weight. You also need to consider that depending on the decade the cars got lighter. Those big muscle cars from the 60s made out of armor plating are going to be much worse in pedestrian collisions than something mostly fiberglass or damn near tin that we have on current cars.

Odd reasoning. Again, high speed collisions are not the focus. Imagine you get hit at 10mph. If the bumper is a solid steel tube it will excert a huge pressure (force divided by area) on whatever part of your body it hits. If however you get hit by a larger deformable bumper some of the impact will be absorbed, reducing the resulting injuries. Put simply, you will gently be accelerated to maybe 3mph by the deforming bits before hitting the hard bits at only 7mph instead of 10mph.

You are missing one crucial point - kinetic energy. As you may or may not know kinetic energy comes from potential energy (well it converts from potential to kinetic), which in turn is very much tied into a mass of an object. So a 1,000lb object traveling at 10mph will not hit as a hard as a 2,000lb object at the same rate of speed.

This is why larger caliber bullets do more damage. More mass = more energy = better stopping/penetration power.

 

[jayjaya29]

I need numbers...seriously HOW many people are hurt/injured/die from these type of accidents?

I would argue that its not worth it to change/design bumpers based solely on minimizing injury during a pedestrian impact. Its simply a risk of living in urban areas today I would argue. But if there are some stats out there I would love to take a look.

 

[Cowboy]

1 : No, pedestrians are responsible for their own safety, parents/guardians are responsible for their childrens.

2 : Yes

3 : light, even if it was heavy they should still look were the hell they are going.

4 : A shopping barbie stepping out into traffic whithout looking is hardly the drivers fault is it?

5 : What do you think?

As far as 'running off the road and hitting pedestrians' goes, if your speed is high enough to lose control and jump the kerp to actualy get to the pedestrians they are fucked anyway.....no 'smart' plastic bumper is gonna protect people from basic Physics.

 

[Spectre]

I've commented on this for years - if Europe has such a problem with people getting hit by cars, their pedestrians must be much dumber than the ones in New York City.

Cowboy: Exactly so on the physics. I can put a gigantic airbag on the front of a train and leave it deployed at all times, but if the train hits someone doing 30mph, I'm sorry but they're still dead.

Kinetic energy equals mass times velocity squared.

Edit: The other thing the Eurocrats forget is the 'cowcatcher effect' - while this is anecdotal at the current time, I have heard that the new "taller" front ends are actually causing worse injuries to people they hit; instead of breaking a leg, now people are coming in with broken legs, hips, arms and ribs from minor car hits.

Cowcatchers weren't meant to protect the cow. The cow was dead either way, it just kept the train from getting derailed or stuck.

 

[edkwon]

Except it doesn't work like that in reality, because unless you want to put giant airbags or meter-plus thick Nerf cushions on the front of cars, the materials won't deform fast enough to do much good.

Also, let's look at cost-benefit. For New York City in 2008, the BLS has amassed these statistics on fatal occupational injuries (which include taxi drivers hitting pedestrians, etc.)

Number of people caught in or crushed in collapsing structure: 9
Number of people killed in workplace assaults or violence: 26
Number of people killed falling off things: 29
Number of people killed in fires: 6
Number of people killed by a tsunami of building materials: 9
Number of people struck by vehicle, mobile equipment in parking lot or non-roadway area: 3.

That's right. 3. A grand total of THREE people getting killed by vehicles being where they're not supposed to be.

You are three times more likely to be killed by a building falling on you in NYC, one of the if not the most pedestrian-used city on the planet with dense crowds on the sidewalks at all hours, than killed by a car jumping the curb.

If you have a ginormous problem with pedestrians getting hit by cars, either you have some really stupid pedestrians, you need better civil engineering or you need better driver training. The problem isn't the vehicles and you don't need to be mandating stupid useless changes to them.

Thanks for the statistics. I have friends who worked in trauma surgery in manhattan at various hospitals in the city and they told me they rarely saw pedestrian-auto accidents despite the HUGE volumes of pedestrians crossing the streets, often jaywalking and the overly aggressive taxi drivers who will dart for an opening. My personal experience when walking the streets in NYC are the same: pedestrians tend to be pretty aggressive, forceful, even reckless when crossing the streets, but they are also constantly paying attn and those that are too old, fat, slow witted to be that agile and avoid trouble, tend to wait when its safest and only cross in big herds.

For some odd reason, maybe NY pedestrians are smarter and more observant than others in the rest of the world? I don't know, but those are interesting numbers, only 3 deaths in a year out of the millions cross the streets every day.

 

[Cowboy]

I've commented on this for years - if Europe has such a problem with people getting hit by cars, their pedestrians must be much dumber than the ones in New York City.

What you need to remember is that under most European trafficlaws pedestrians and cyclists are protected as beeing the 'weak trafficusers' (exact translation from Dutch) , this pretty much means a 'do whatever you want and get away with it' badge, so crossing whithout looking and other stupidities are very common , so naturaly running em over is aswell.......

Combine this with a bunch of 'pedestrian rights' activist groups and of course the lycranazi's (aka the: we are a bunch of fucking hipsters who never leave the big cities crowd) and you get this sort of moronic laws.