|
Post by PK on Mar 24, 2014 20:02:03 GMT
We all know how much they like crashing cars, and it isn’t too often that Buster and his family can get back to their roots these days, so what about some of the untested car safety myths we hashed to death on the old Disco site? Most of them probably don’t need testing to know the answer (or have been tested by others), but since when do the Mythbusters let that stop them from having some fun?
Those that come to mind are:
-The danger of hydroplaning while on cruise control. I know the usual version revolves around the absurd idea of a car suddenly taking flight from over acceleration, but what about the core idea that you are more likely to hydroplane while on cruise control than off it?
-You can lose your arm or hand if you hang it out the window. This one is always specific to hitting a sign of some sort, but how great is the danger? A few years ago, a local girl lost her arm in a similar way when the car her boyfriend was driving hit a patch of spilled fuel and slid into the side of a cliff. Not a sign, but it demonstrates that there is a real danger. Testing would be pretty simple, I’d think.
-A passenger can break or even lose his legs if an airbag goes off while he has his feet on the dash or out the window. This one seems like an obvious “duh” (at least as far as broken legs), but that wouldn’t be the first time they tested something obvious just for the sake good TV. This one also seems easy to test.
-And what I think might be the most myth-worthy: pavement is always slickest during the first rain after a long dry spell. Most drivers would agree, but is it really because the oil dripped from cars is floating up to the surface of the road, or is it something else? Maybe something like: You get used to driving a bit more aggressively when the roads are dry, and forget to ease up during that first rain. Testing would require a stretch of road that hadn’t seen rain in a while (easy enough in a N. California summer, where rainfall from June-Sept is often zilch) but it would have to be an actively used section of road. The runway at ANAS wouldn’t cut it, as it wouldn’t have the fluids dripped from cars that form the usual explanation.
Any others you recall? Or car safety myths that weren’t on the old site? How about motorcycle safety myths (not being a rider, I didn’t pay much attention to those)?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 24, 2014 21:24:57 GMT
I've heard from 5 different paramedics and even a police crash investigator that at highway speeds (65-80 mph), the force of a head on collision is so violent that in most cases it won't matter if you're wearing your seatbelt or not and whether or not you have airbags. Supposedly, the force is so great that you're just as likely to break your neck and die with seatbelts and airbags as you are without them. This includes injuries that may not kill you instantly, but are so violent that you die from them shortly after the crash (within 10-15 minutes), unless you're REALLY lucky.
The claim is that seatbelts and airbags are likely to save you if you're going slower than 60 mph, but that car manufacturers and testing facilities knowingly botched up the numbers for greater speeds during testing back in the day to get more people to wear their seatbelts and buy cars with airbags installed. Of course today all new cars come with airbags and wearing a seatbelt is required by law in most countries, so it would seem they were succesful in their "scam" if that's truly what it was.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2014 1:14:05 GMT
I've heard from 5 different paramedics and even a police crash investigator that at highway speeds (65-80 mph), the force of a head on collision is so violent that in most cases it won't matter if you're wearing your seatbelt or not and whether or not you have airbags. Supposedly, the force is so great that you're just as likely to break your neck and die with seatbelts and airbags as you are without them. This includes injuries that may not kill you instantly, but are so violent that you die from them shortly after the crash (within 10-15 minutes), unless you're REALLY lucky. The claim is that seatbelts and airbags are likely to save you if you're going slower than 60 mph, but that car manufacturers and testing facilities knowingly botched up the numbers for greater speeds during testing back in the day to get more people to wear their seatbelts and buy cars with airbags installed. Of course today all new cars come with airbags and wearing a seatbelt is required by law in most countries, so it would seem they were succesful in their "scam" if that's truly what it was. a 60 MPH impact is very likely to kill a person IF the impact is aligned in a worst case scenario. however, my most recent extrication was a 60 MPH offset head on impact. (worst case scenario) and other than having to cut both drivers out of their cars, both were conscious and alert for the operation. yes, injuries escalate with the force of the collision, even with safety equipment - but they escalate faster without it.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 25, 2014 11:44:45 GMT
I find it unlikely that car manufactures wanted to install seat belts let alone air bags, since this adds to the cost of car production as well as the cost and difficulty of designing cars.
Historically car makers have had to be forced to include safety devices, with a couple of exceptions where the devices are/were related to racing cars - such as traction control and APS.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2014 13:46:51 GMT
I find it unlikely that car manufactures wanted to install seat belts let alone air bags, since this adds to the cost of car production as well as the cost and difficulty of designing cars. Historically car makers have had to be forced to include safety devices, with a couple of exceptions where the devices are/were related to racing cars - such as traction control and APS. Indeed: car manufacturers fought tooth and nail against seat belts - they claimed they would make people think their cars were unsafe.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 25, 2014 13:49:45 GMT
What about the dangers of having unbalanced wheels/brakes if you have to stop suddenly?
I read, somewhere, that a lot of accidents were caused when people hit the brakes and drifted into opposing lanes due to unbalanced brakes.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2014 14:22:46 GMT
What about the dangers of having unbalanced wheels/brakes if you have to stop suddenly? I read, somewhere, that a lot of accidents were caused when people hit the brakes and drifted into opposing lanes due to unbalanced brakes. or oversized wheels without upgraded brakes...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2014 14:31:00 GMT
they could do a myth about proper tire inflation. I can see two different tests they can do - they can do a lateral friction test and a braking test.
for lateral friction, they simply paint a guide line on the pavement (circular) and drive around in the circle at increasing speeds until they cannot maintain the circle. start with properly inflated tires, and then repeat with progressively underinflated and overinflated tires. (they should be able to make index marks on the steering wheel to show the steering input, as well)
for braking they do the same - except a pedal-to-the-floor panic stop instead of a circle. - with a cone or buster used to mark the previous stop points. (why you do the optimum pressure test first)
for extra science content, they could do some sort of tire print method to show the difference in contact area between properly and improperly inflated tires
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 25, 2014 15:06:41 GMT
They might be able to cover under/over inflated tires as part of the drifting idea. Logic suggests that braking hard when your front wheels have different pressures is going to make you drift. Thinking on this, from a show prospective looking at safety issues at highway speeds might be ideal fodder. My thinking is that crashes would be more spectacular, and any effects would be easier to see on camera. This might not hold quite as well for lower speed 'issues', where any effects may appear to be marginal on film even if in the real world they could get you killed. For example an SUV with unbalanced brakes might well drift at 30 or 40 MPH, but at 60+ is not only going to drift a lot more sharply but quite possibly roll over. Tests at this speed are also something that I don't *think* are usually covered on TV. But MB have enough experience in fitting RC controls to vehicles that they could do such things almost without trying. What about the old myth that larger and/or older cars are safer to have a high speed crash in than newer and smaller cars? Some of this may be down to a misconception when it comes to modern safety design. Modern vehicles are designed so that they absorb the energy from an impact by deforming, which gives people the impression that the damage is worse and you are less likely to survive. That kind of testing could be carried at at several speeds, since people also tend to forget that smaller cars are really not designed specifically for highway driving in the first place. Nice idea here PK, thanks for posting
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2014 16:36:53 GMT
They might be able to cover under/over inflated tires as part of the drifting idea. Logic suggests that braking hard when your front wheels have different pressures is going to make you drift. Thinking on this, from a show prospective looking at safety issues at highway speeds might be ideal fodder. My thinking is that crashes would be more spectacular, and any effects would be easier to see on camera. This might not hold quite as well for lower speed 'issues', where any effects may appear to be marginal on film even if in the real world they could get you killed. For example an SUV with unbalanced brakes might well drift at 30 or 40 MPH, but at 60+ is not only going to drift a lot more sharply but quite possibly roll over. Tests at this speed are also something that I don't *think* are usually covered on TV. But MB have enough experience in fitting RC controls to vehicles that they could do such things almost without trying. What about the old myth that larger and/or older cars are safer to have a high speed crash in than newer and smaller cars? Some of this may be down to a misconception when it comes to modern safety design. Modern vehicles are designed so that they absorb the energy from an impact by deforming, which gives people the impression that the damage is worse and you are less likely to survive. That kind of testing could be carried at at several speeds, since people also tend to forget that smaller cars are really not designed specifically for highway driving in the first place. Nice idea here PK, thanks for posting right, there. I recall the early days of "that that honda car is gonna get skwished like a bug" when I saw the aftermath of a collision between a Honda and a local transit bus. the hood of the honda was essentially mashed to the firewall. the windshield wasn't even cracked. compare this to an old Caddy I saw once that had hit something hard - the hood was essentially intact, but the frame was bent in the center of the car - under the driver's seat. Highway speed myths might be a little bit of a challenge due to the need for a run off area. another idea that might be cool to see them come up with a test rig for is sidewall damage from underinflation, or under-rated tires. the first work van the previous company I worked for was only a 3/4 ton model, and we could not get tires any better than 6 ply for the stock wheels. add this to the fact that (I didn't realize it on the first couple sets of tires) the tire center chronically underinflated truck tires. the rear tires would suffer sidewall failure at about 50% tread wear. fortunately, I never had a blowout - but there were two times I ended the workday and found I had lost a rear tire. I think the final set - after checking the pressure and adding the other 20PSI necessary to bring it up to proper pressure, I got them clear to 25% tread remaining before the sidewalls started cracking.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 25, 2014 17:16:39 GMT
The wear on tires could probably be done with a rig they can get going and leave for a long period. Unfortunately they might not have the space to keep such a rig for any length of time, after all it could take days before the tires failed. The difficulty in being able to predict how long things would need to stay running would most likely make this less attractive as a myth.
Space for high speed 'highway' myths would not be a problem, as they could use the runway they frequent.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 25, 2014 17:24:01 GMT
The wear on tires could probably be done with a rig they can get going and leave for a long period. Unfortunately they might not have the space to keep such a rig for any length of time, after all it could take days before the tires failed. The difficulty in being able to predict how long things would need to stay running would most likely make this less attractive as a myth. Space for high speed 'highway' myths would not be a problem, as they could use the runway they frequent. they could do short form tests using thermal imagers, but yes, it could be months for a successful test-to-failure operation.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 1, 2014 9:44:27 GMT
Anything safety related that is something of a tangent? I'm thinking along the lines of driving in heels or driving while needing to pee. Pure safety myths are interesting, but this is Mythbusters and the ideas posted so far would only torture Buster.
We could do with a couple of things that the cast themselves could do safely - which none of the above could be - and even better would make them wish they'd stayed in bed.
Yes, I'm occasionally evil...or at least unpleasant.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 2, 2014 8:33:52 GMT
Seat belt pre-tensioners.... Life savers. These are the bits that when the car senses a crash tightens the seat belt to push you back in your seat.... Why?... To prevent you leaning over and head-butting the dashboard?...
The bit about having a seat belt over 60 mph being a waste of time... Busted. The modern crash resistant frames on NCap rated cars, set belt and the presumption you WILL wear one saves lives, and is proven. I have seen people walk away from 70mph crashes on the road, and far higher speed crashes on track, over 150mph at one instance, completely unharmed, all down to the crumple zones on the car and the "harness" seat belts they use....
Well, if you MUST drive your yank-tank with crumple zone being anything you hit, go ahead, but please dont use this excuse as an excuse to not wear a belt?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 2, 2014 14:53:47 GMT
Seat belt pre-tensioners.... Life savers. These are the bits that when the car senses a crash tightens the seat belt to push you back in your seat.... Why?... To prevent you leaning over and head-butting the dashboard?... The bit about having a seat belt over 60 mph being a waste of time... Busted. The modern crash resistant frames on NCap rated cars, set belt and the presumption you WILL wear one saves lives, and is proven. I have seen people walk away from 70mph crashes on the road, and far higher speed crashes on track, over 150mph at one instance, completely unharmed, all down to the crumple zones on the car and the "harness" seat belts they use.... Well, if you MUST drive your yank-tank with crumple zone being anything you hit, go ahead, but please dont use this excuse as an excuse to not wear a belt?.... the other reason for pretensioners is that the sooner they can start decelerating your body, the lower the rate of deceleration and the lower the peak force applied. that is one area of defense for the mile-long hood on the yank tanks - except the old ones don't use that space as crumple zone. (interestingly, the hood on my dad's old 79 pickup had a weak point formed into the structure, so the hood would fold in half in a collision, rather than breaking loose and hitting the windshield)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 3, 2014 9:31:58 GMT
Mile-long hoods are a throw-back to the idea of STRENGTH protects.... Modern cars put the strength in the passenger compartment, to prevent intrusion, but allow anything attached to that passenger cell to crumple up, thus absorbing the forces at work. That may include doors with side impact protection... We also get side curtain air-bags that protect the head from collision with doors and posts.
I dont have all that extra air-bags on mine, but then again, what I have is enough, as long as I dont presume its immortal, and drive like a twit.
The Wagon I drive?... I get the impression I could headbut a mountain at 70 and walk away if I tried.... Its just I dont want to try that. Plus its limited to 55 anyway.
On that score.... I have been invited to go play with a de-restricted racing truck. This is one that they use for track racing..... So.... Ya think I may accept the invite?...
They know my limitations, this is an "Experience" drive, a few laps of the test track at my own pace, I wont actually be racing anyone else.... unless I actually want to.... I will have the racing instructor alongside to tell me what to do.I never kissed an apex at 90 in a truck before?....
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 3, 2014 9:48:31 GMT
What about;
Driving without adjusting mirrors, or with broken mirrors? People often wonder why they get ticketed for having a broken wing mirror, so why not show why?
Driving without adjusting the seat - as in you hop into a car that someone who is significantly taller/shorter than yourself had been driving without taking the time to adjust the seat. (This is often seen on TV shows where someone, usually a man, hops into the driving seat of a (considerably smaller) woman's car and goes off to save the day. (Because women can't drive as well as a man, nor are they capable of saving the day...at least not in Hollywood.)
Both of these should be simple and easy things the MB's could test on their own, and without having to wreck any cars in the process (that is, this would be cheap and simple)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 3, 2014 9:51:14 GMT
In that case, I witnessed "Little old lady" who's driving position required that to see forwards, she was looking THROUGH the steering wheel......
Just how is that safe?....
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 3, 2014 14:53:13 GMT
Mile-long hoods are a throw-back to the idea of STRENGTH protects.... Modern cars put the strength in the passenger compartment, to prevent intrusion, but allow anything attached to that passenger cell to crumple up, thus absorbing the forces at work. That may include doors with side impact protection... We also get side curtain air-bags that protect the head from collision with doors and posts. I dont have all that extra air-bags on mine, but then again, what I have is enough, as long as I dont presume its immortal, and drive like a twit. The Wagon I drive?... I get the impression I could headbut a mountain at 70 and walk away if I tried.... Its just I dont want to try that. Plus its limited to 55 anyway. On that score.... I have been invited to go play with a de-restricted racing truck. This is one that they use for track racing..... So.... Ya think I may accept the invite?... They know my limitations, this is an "Experience" drive, a few laps of the test track at my own pace, I wont actually be racing anyone else.... unless I actually want to.... I will have the racing instructor alongside to tell me what to do.I never kissed an apex at 90 in a truck before?.... I sure as heck would. actually, mile long hoods are a remnant of the days when you had to have a big box of holes in there to make enough horsepowers to go as fast as you wanted to. (and a remnant of the days when it was fashionable to have a mile long hood on your sporty car to make it look more like a race car)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 3, 2014 14:55:02 GMT
In that case, I witnessed "Little old lady" who's driving position required that to see forwards, she was looking THROUGH the steering wheel...... Just how is that safe?.... one of my fellow firefighters who came from California told me a story of witnessing a person of diminutive stature driving. when she felt a bang, she would use the steering wheel to haul herself upwards enough to see over the dashboard...
|
|