nicomachus

I first wrote out some of these thoughts three years ago. You can see my original post here.

But I still don't understand why more isn't being done here — or maybe there is, and I am not aware of it. I hope that by posting my question here, someone might be able to let me know about some radical research that addresses what I'm thinking about.

Let say, too, that I am aware of BMW and Mercedes and Toyota's research into radar-input navigation systems that are designed to avoid crashes. And while these are very real technologies (a friend avoided hitting a deer on the interstate because his Lexus "reacted" to the deer before he was even aware of it), a certain number of crashes will still happen. Especially in tight, urban areas, where the effectiveness of radar/computer-reacting systems is diminished.

Kids will always dart out in front of cars, and so will cyclists. And it won't always be the cyclists' fault. And even when it is, death need not be the penalty for a poor decision.

So, I'm wondering, what can car manufacturers do to make cars safer for bicyclists? Air bags on the outside? Bumpers made of jell-o? Seriously, I'd love to read or hear about some off-the-wall ideas as well as new of any real research you know about.

Seattle Forrest

The ground will still hurt when you bounce off the jello bumpers, though.

In my urban setting, I think the biggest issue with cars is the people driving them, who make bad decisions. I guess the most realistic way for technology to improve the situation would be for stopped cars to have radar guns. A driver at a 2-way stop has to decide when there's a large enough gap to enter the stream of traffic. Usually, when they see a bike coming, they go, and I (charitably) suspect it's because people don't realize how fast bikes can go. If a driver knew I was doing 30 mph, instead of 8, that might get them to wait another few seconds and not test my crash avoidance skills...

hairnet

Put large safety warning labels on the sides of cars "WARNING: OPERATING THIS MACHINE MAY RESULT IN DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY"

CB HI

The simplest safety measure is for motorist to simply obey speed limits and pay attention. There, most problems solved.

An alternative is to include speed limit data into gps road maps and connect that to a variable speed governor such that drivers are prevented from exceeding speed limits.

Seattle Forrest

They already have that, except that the GPS can warn the driver about speeding, rather than mess with the engine. That's probably a good idea, otherwise when you're doing 75 mph on the freeway - the legal limit and the speed of traffic - but your GPS suffers a momentary lapse of reason and thinks you're several thousand miles away, on a residential street or in the middle of some wilderness area, it doesn't bring your car to a crawl and get you rear ended.

unterhausen

I agree. I think I'm fairly aware of the need to look around the a-pillar in my car, and sometimes it's a real chore. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of drivers out there that don't bother.

contango 

I think that's a large part of the issue right there. If the speed limit is 30 and they see a car coming it's reasonable to assume the car is doing 30, give or take a few. If they see a bike coming it could be doing anything from 5-10 up to 30 or higher. I imagine people who aren't keen cyclists, or who have cycled a little and found a comfortable speed to be about 10mph, would assume the bike's speed to be at the low end of the range.

Of course it's also possible that a driver doesn't want to be stuck behind a bike that cycles at 10mph or less and won't let them pass.

AEO

go look up the safety ratings for older cars and newer cars.
newer cars, with their more rounded panels, cause less severe injuries to pedestrians, compared to jagged boxes. Also has better cushioning for biological objects getting struck also lower bumper seems to help too.
compare:
https://www.euroncap.com/tests/honda_civic_2006/270.aspx
https://www.euroncap.com/tests/bmw_3_..._2005/225.aspx

zeppinger

Make cars smaller and much much slower.

Require huge labels on the sides of every car with TERRIBLE pictures of car wrecks on them just like those pictures on cigarette cartons of infected lungs and mouths.

Require very expensive and thorough drivers training.

AlmostTrick

Replace the nut behind the steering wheel? .

Seriously, it's almost totally the driver. As long as it's in decent working order, no car old or new is likely to harm cyclists or peds if it is driven properly.

HiYoSilver

It's not the vehicle, it's the driver. It's especially the lack of financial penalty for collisions. They are not accidents, they are bad driving. Impose a $2,000 penalty for any collision, a $5,000 penalty for any bodily injury collision and a $100,000 penalty for any collision with death. Do that and behavior would change. Make these penalties separate from insurance deductibles, make it illegal to deal with these penalties via insurance policies. They must be paid within 30 days by the driver, if not enforcement via lien on wages and IRS lost of deductions and credits until penalty is paid. This would make cars safer. People would scream bloody murder about the costs and give all sorts of bogus reasons why they are special and can't be expected to drive safely.

I would expect another side effect of this is that collisions will drop to almost nothing.

nicomachus

I have the feeling we'd see a lot more hit-and-runs if we go this route.

CB HI

Get a better GPS unit.

KD5NRH

Ban automatic transmissions; if you lack the intelligence and coordination to drive a stick, you have no business guiding a 2-ton missile at all.

Granted, there would still be idiots, but IMO, that would eliminate at least a third of them, and render another third or so unable to text/eat/drink/whatever while driving.

CB HI

^^
And add an engine cut off if the driver takes the second hand off the wheel.

B. Carfree

Ban synchro transmissions and power steering too. If you can't figure out how to double clutch and lack the strength to drive a '55 Mack truck, give up the mobile couch. (Yes, I am kidding, sort of.)

It is sad that we have all these engineering improvements like ABS, AWD, awesome tires that almost never get flats, suspension systems that smooth out even the worst roadways, airbags, near universal seat-belt use, and yet we have seen almost no decrease in the CARnage on our roads. It really does seem like the easier driving gets the lazier the motoring public gets and the worse they drive.

prathmann

Risk compensation is a very real phenomenon that shows up in a wide variety of activities. It's been specifically studied with regard to ABS: in a fleet of otherwise identical taxicabs, the ones with ABS brakes were driven faster, braked later and harder, and turned quicker than the ones with regular brakes. Drivers who feel safer as a result of the seatbelts, airbags, smooth suspensions, and even better sound insulation will tend to drive faster and with less care than they would otherwise.

It's been suggested that cars would be driven much more carefully if the airbag in the steering wheel were replaced by a large spike aimed directly at the driver's chest.

ctyler

Might as well ask if bicycle manufacturers can do to make bicycles safer for drivers of cars.

twinquad

According to FARS, the fatality rate (fatalities per vehicle miles traveled) has decreased by 35% from 1994-2009. Can you clarify why this should not be considered an improvement?

mnemia

Car manufacturers HAVE put a little effort in recent years into making cars safer for pedestrians that get hit. They try to design cars so that pedestrians get thrown up over top rather than falling under the wheels. I don't know if they do any testing and design specifically to help with car-bicycle collisions, though. Seems doubtful.

Also, there is the problem that the car companies are making whole classes of passenger vehicles (SUVs and huge pickups) that have been proven statistically to be much more dangerous to anything smaller, including normal cars. The fatality rate for people in cars hit by SUVs is much higher than the fatality rate for people in cars hit by other cars. And while I don't have the figures in front of me, I'd imagine that SUVs are also more dangerous to pedestrians or bicyclists that get hit by them, simply because they are higher off the ground and therefore more likely to roll over one. So, we already know that the car companies view safety to others as a tertiary concern at most, following marketing and safety for the occupants. Why would they care about pedestrian safety when they are heavily marketing an entire class of vehicles that kill lots more other people just so that the buyers can "feel" more secure/manly/etc? This focus on the vehicle occupants' safety to the exclusion of others will not change unless the government forces them to.

Pat

Well, I just don't see how an auto can be made safer assuming a similar weight and speed. Kinetic Energy still equals 1/2 mass times velocity squared.

Augmenting the guidance systems would help. I have looked at statistical figures on fatalities. It looks as if males have far higher fatality rates than females. Male drivers currently suffer twice the fatalities per mile that females have. Maybe we have a case of testosterone poisoning. A decent safety precaution might be mandatory castration of all male drivers. I doubt that one would be very popular though.

HiYoSilver

Not if you also included a $10,000 reporting reward. With all the cellphones and camera out there, many would jump at the opportunity for extra income.

mnemia

There is much more to pedestrian safety in a collision than just kinetic energy. The shape and configuration of the vehicle make a difference. The ground clearance makes a difference (again, going under a moving car is more likely to be fatal). The materials used make a difference (the materials could absorb some of the energy depending on how they're designed to crush). And of course things like side and rear visibility, window transparency, and level of control and "road feel" could make a difference in preventing collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists in the first place. Not to mention all the distractions and comfort being built into vehicles these days: the "rolling living room" feeling is good for car marketing but very bad for safety.

But again, Americans don't care about buying cars that are less likely to kill other people. So the car companies won't put much effort into that unless forced to by regulation. Safety for OTHERS is not a feature that the car companies have decided is very marketable.

slowandsteady

What about the disabled? I have been driving a stick since 1991, but I severely injured my left leg last year and could only drive an automatic until recently.

Seattle Forrest

... or a better idea.