←back to thread

307 points MBCook | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
legitster ◴[] No.42150811[source]
In a big picture, this makes sense. You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy, very fast, and loaded with features that reward distracted driving. In the US at least, the top killer of drivers are trees on the side of the road.
replies(9): >>42150846 #>>42151064 #>>42151101 #>>42151122 #>>42151123 #>>42151373 #>>42151792 #>>42152029 #>>42153004 #
littlestymaar ◴[] No.42151064[source]
> You can load the cars with safety features, but it doesn't change the fact that these cars are very heavy

Being heavy is actually a safety feature of sort (but just for the people inside the car, it increases overall fatality).

replies(3): >>42151124 #>>42151336 #>>42151650 #
Gigachad ◴[] No.42151124[source]
Trees are anchored to the ground. Being heavier just reduces your ability to stop.
replies(2): >>42151265 #>>42151374 #
rich_sasha ◴[] No.42151265{3}[source]
Maybe that's good when hitting a tree? Slower deceleration, less force.
replies(1): >>42151376 #
jkaptur ◴[] No.42151376{4}[source]
I think they meant that it's more difficult to stop before beginning to impact the tree.
replies(1): >>42151843 #
rich_sasha ◴[] No.42151843{5}[source]
Still. If I'm going to hit a tree, I'd rather drive a tank than a motorbike.
replies(1): >>42151950 #
1. JasonSage ◴[] No.42151950{6}[source]
Cars have crumple zones which a motorbike does not.

A lighter car requires less work from the crumple zone to decelerate the car into non-fatal territory than a heavy car.