tandempower

Modern automobiles are designed with crumple zones to absorb the impact during collisions and reduce the amount of force experienced by drivers and passengers during a crash. Could this protection be enhanced to better protect cyclists and pedestrians?

Obviously a human body requires softer material than another vehicle when absorbing impact force. Could hoods and other body panels be designed with a soft external layer, almost a foil, that would indent when impacted by a human body? Would some kind of spongy foam coating be better, especially considering the problem of falling branches and other common debris that could ruin a soft foil-finish on a car's hood or trunk?

What about bumpers? Could these be designed in a way that crumple or compress upon impact with a cyclist or pedestrian? Could bumpers be designed to scoop pedestrians/cyclist upward onto the hood instead of pushing them down under the vehicle, the way cow catchers on locomotives were designed to scoop up cows and toss them aside instead of landing them under the train where they could cause derailment?

indyfabz

They do. Have you never seen images of cars that have hit pedestrians or bikes? Lots of crumbed bumpers and other car panels. And most people are not run over but rather "run under" and flipped onto hoods and into windshields. Read "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" by Mary Roach.

skidder

Timely thread, as I have a relative in the UK that works for a GM's 'Vauxhall' (sp?) subsidiary. Here in the USA the safety testing is based on a vehicle impacting a solid, immovable object, and how the occupants of the vehicle are effected. In Europe the standards go a step further and include what happens when a pedestrian is hit. As indyfabz mentions, the pedestrian usually flips over and on top the car, not under it, which is probably what a bicycle rider would do.

alcjphil

Depends on the vehicle the pedestrian is hit by. A car with a standard height bumper and a sloping hood shape is likely to flip the pedestrian or cyclist up and over, but a large SUV or even worse a pick up truck which would typically have a blunt front end is going to flatten that person and run over them

Chris0516

There is a fine line that can verge on being too much of a good thing. What I mean by that, is. Yes, Crumple zones on a vehicle may be advantageous for ultimate injury suffered by a cyclist, at the same physical level as the motorist. But in the age of SUV's becoming an almost standard vehicle for the family. Crumple zones on an SUV, will do a cyclist no good. Because, SUVs have a higher center of gravity than a car.

Also, A vehicle-vehicle collision with increased crumple zones. Could lead to far less protection for motorists at-large.

Mvcrash

Both examples, hood, fender and roof vault and a forward projection (SUV) depend on when and if braking occurs. Most cyclists, like pedestrians, would go over the car unless it is an SUV type vehicle in which case they would be projected forward. All examples are very dependent on the height of the pedestrian, height of the cyclist and speed of the striking vehicle. In my experience, very few folks go under a car.

hooCycles

Keep in mind that cars must also pass the 5 mph bumper standards, whatever they are now. Another regulation involves the clearance distance between the bottom of the hood and the top of the engine in order to provide a crumple zone for pedestrians' heads.

There is so much regulation of the design of automobiles right now that I have no idea how the engineers make affordable cars. I am not in favor of mandating any additional vehicle 'safety' requirements. That should be the choice of the automaker and consumer. With that said, motorists would likely reject the higher initial and accident-repair costs associated with more easily deformed bumpers, hoods, etc.

Would you pay extra for your bike to have an expensive, non-repairable cushion on the front in order to protect pedestrians?

Also realize that spongy materials are not ideal for absorbing the energy of a crash. It is in fact the plastic deformation, not the elastic deformation, that absorbs the energy and reduces crash severity.

corrado33

There's a reason cars are "tall" now-a-day. It's pedestrian impact standards. It makes cars ugly.

alcjphil

Tall cars are much less safe from the point of view of a pedestrian. The higher the hood line, the more likely that if you are hit you will be killed.

CliffordK

You could certainly wrap the entire car with 6" of foam rubber.

Add a cattle catcher to the front to scoop up the pedestrians/cyclists and throw them over the top or off to the side like the old steam locomotives.

Would it help? Maybe for certain types of accidents.

The airbag technology is coming along fast enough that one might also be able to design airbags that would deploy just before an impact
(which could also be used to protect from drive-over accidents).

This would be a huge shift from protecting the occupants to protecting those around the car.

Keep in mind, pedestrians still only account for about 1/10 of the auto deaths, so reducing the overall auto deaths by 10% would make a bigger overall impact than reducing pedestrian deaths by 50%.

canklecat

Unless the car is going so fast that bisecting the human body is a risk, I doubt any feasible crumple zones will make any difference. The human body is a fragile thing. The car could be wearing a gigantic foam or bubble wrap bumper. Won't make any difference if it hits you. The real danger will be contact with the road. I was hit by cars a few times at intersections, pre-crumple zone safety standards, while riding bicycles and motorcycles. At typical intersection speeds - usually 10 mph or slower - impact from the cars hurt far less than my impact with the road.

CliffordK

How popular would it be to require all pedestrians to wear inflatable body armor?

Every death is too many. But, the risk is pretty low if one looks before stepping, and follows basic traffic laws when crossing the roadway.

Recently I had a few cars pass me smelling like bongs. It is a bit of an alarming trend

corrado33

*Sigh*

Taking the Hit: How Pedestrian-Protection Regs Make Cars Fatter - Feature - Car and Driver

mconlonx

Yes, it could be.

"Should it be?" is a better and more relevant question.

As others have pointed out, there are plenty of car safety regulations in effect right now--some geared toward vehicle collisions with less protected users, but most pertaining to vehicle occupants. There are also efficiency regulations to consider as well.

So when considering enhanced protection to better protect cyclists and pedestrians, such enhancements and compromises to such would have to be made within the realm of what is possible, considering all the other regulatory constraints.

noglider 

I'm not happy with the death rate of pedestrians and cyclists hit by cars. That's another way of saying the risk is too high, not low as you call it.

But I agree that bumpers for human bodies are a dumb idea, whether attached to bodies or cars. They can't possibly work, given the mass and speed of cars.

Digital_Cowboy

I still favor the idea that was put fourth a few years ago, i.e. put a big ole spike in the center of the steering wheel either pointed RIGHT at the motorists heart or their face so that if they're in any sort of crash they'll know what pedestrian or cyclist or whatever feels.

But I suppose that we can't do that.

Not very, and how would it work?

+1,000,000 Exactly, in my travels I've personally witnessed way TOO many people who are jaywalking. Just last week I had the "honor" or hearing tires squeal on the pavement. Fortunately NO thuds, although I did see a person flying through the air and land in the crass strip between the sidewalk and the road. Or who run or jump red lights or just blow throw stop signs. And then they wonder why it is that they get hit or states like SD try to pass dangerous laws.

IF we ALL "played" the same rule book while on the road, yes EVEN those inconvenient laws that do not make "sense" from the saddle of a bicycle. In the long run we'd all be safer, healthier and yes happier.

I agree with you. Also I have to wonder why not only LEO's but the media refers to crashes as "accidents" as if it was somehow "unavoidable." I'd think that most crashes COULD be avoided IF the driver of said vehicle was paying attention to what is suppose to be job one, i.e. the safer operation of their vehicle.

Again, I have to agree with you. As nice as it would be I just don't see any realistic way doing this.

CliffordK

The current generation of airbags detect a primary impact, (bumper strike, or deceleration profile, or both), and inflate before one's head strikes the steering wheel or dash.

For a pedestrian impact, one could similarly detect the primary strike, and then inflate the airbags before the secondary strike would occur. Or, perhaps the Hövding already does that (for bikes, but it could be adapted for pedestrian use too).

In theory sensors could predict an accident before it occurred, allowing a full body suit to inflate on a person, or around a vehicle.

The practicality of these extremes? Probably pretty low, with maybe 1 mortality per 100,000 per year, or 1 mortality per 1000 per century, there are many other things that one could invest the money in for a bigger payoff. And, at least around here, many of the fatalities were likely preventable by the pedestrians. For example pedestrians on the freeway.

Digital_Cowboy

Agreed, down here a few years ago we had a minor who had been ejected from the State fair for what has become to be known as "wilding." That's where a group of people, usually kids, i.e. teens run wild on the midway. Some FOUR hours later, yes FOUR hours later while attempting to cross I-4, NOT the exit that he was put out of. Was predictably hit and killed.

His parents were all upset, claiming that he wasn't involved in any "wilding" and that if anything that he was trying to find out why the cops were harassing a friend of his. Which if true, reinforces why it is a good idea that unless one is directly involved do not inject oneself into a police situation. Also predictably his parents sued the cops, the fairgrounds and the organization behind the fair.

As well asking why they weren't called to come and pick up their child when he was ejected. My question, is why was their child allowed to go to the State Fair unchaperoned? Children, I believe teens and maybe younger were given free tickets as a both a reward and as an encouragement for parents to take their children to the fair. But in recent years as with way too many things it's become used as a "free baby sitting" service for parents who do not want to be bothered with raising their children to show respect to their elders.

I do not know what has happened with the free tickets.

CliffordK

Some places require a full fare Adult ticket to qualify for child price tickets.

Each child is different, and perhaps each group of children. One might expect a call to the parents for any disciplinary actions against a kid. But, one can also have some very "mature" 12 and 13 yr olds.

When younger, I spent a lot of time at the 4-H fair. Yeah, there were adults around, but not really in a supervisory role 100% of the time. And I did camp ALONE at the fairgrounds (automatic sprinklers were a pain )

I also showed animals in the regular county fair, and had free passes to the county fair from showing, spending a lot of time without parents.

Anyway, discipline starts at home, and early.

My niece is quickly heading towards her teenage years, and I have no doubt will be a handful for her parents. My nephew will probably be ok.

As far as crossing the street. There are always unpredictable things that happen, but one needs to start early to make a habit of paying attention to traffic before crossing the street. Likewise, on a bike, bad things can happen, but they can be minimized with taking care while riding and taking a few precaution such as using lights.

Digital_Cowboy

As I said, originally those free tickets were given out as an incentive to encourage families to go to the State Fair as a family. But in recent years too many families just take their "lil darlings" to the State Fair and just drop them off at the gate expecting the staff to act as a babysitter for the day. And predictably that results in children running wild and driving away the paying customers.

This is true, as we know all to well we should only be judged on our own actions and not the actions of others even if they fall within a group that we're a member of. Part of the problem as I understand it is that these "wilding" groups are so large that it would be pretty much impossible for the cops to call the parents of every kid that is ejected from the fairgrounds.

Yes it does, and in your case you were not going around making a nuisance of yourself and causing problems for other fair goers. So there is a big difference.

I can understand that, I was talking with a friend yesterday who's sister chided him when his daughters were growing up and he allowed them to go somewhere, presumably unsupervised. She'd made the comment that if he allowed his daughters to do that that they'd end up as drug addicted prostitutes. The irony is that it was his sisters kids who ended up as drug addicted strippers. Oh, and his response to his sister was that he trusted his daughters to do the right thing.

The Quiet One

This makes sense to me. We're just specialized bags of water and it's hard to hit bags of water without doing considerable damage.

rydabent

IMO it is nearly impossible to make a car that would protect a cyclist or pedestrian and still protect a driver in the mandated offset test at 40 mph against a concrete block.

hooCycles

I think it is very much possible but prohibitively expensive.

highrpm

New cars are actually required to have a crumple zone for pedestrians. Mostly there needs to be crush space in the hood. Did you ever wonder why all the new cars have such high front hoods? The hoods were raised to give clearance from the engine, acting as a crumple zone.

Volvo had a concept car with an airbag type system in the hood at one point. I don't think it went into production though.

Digital_Cowboy

That reminds me of a line from Star Trek: The Next Generation. They'd encountered a silicon based lifeform on a "barren lifeless" world. And when they finally made contact the Enterprise crew and the crew that was stationed at the terraforming station as "ugly bags of mostly water."