https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/

On 24/1/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/

Didn't need a study to work that out. Only need to look at the past
research into car frontal design all aimed at reducing pedestrian
fatalities, then look at the *counter-trends* in commercial vehicle
design. It's going against what all the pedestrian safety research has
long suggested. It used to be the case that commercial vehicle safety
standards weren't as strict as those that applied to passenger cars -
for both occupants and pedestrians - yet both types of vehicle occupy
the same roads. Don't know if that is still the case.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 24/01/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/

And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a Mazda
6, despite the Ranger having a *much* higher bonnet:

Ranger test results:

> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d

Mazda 6 test results:

> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f

And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also both
do better in pedestrian crash testing:

Toyota Hilux:

> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396

Isuzu Dmax:

> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82

You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's not
as black and white as one might think. You could *also* argue that the
biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a pedestrian
crossing.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 24/01/2024 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>
> And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
> significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a Mazda
> 6, despite the Ranger having a *much* higher bonnet:
>
> Ranger test results:
>
>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
>
> Mazda 6 test results:
>
>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
>
> And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
> bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
> have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also both
> do better in pedestrian crash testing:
>
> Toyota Hilux:
>
>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
>
> Isuzu Dmax:
>
>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
>

There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User Protection
section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a pedestrian, the
other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus cyclist and
motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about injuries inflicted,
the last 2 aren't relevant.

So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.

Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
The Mazda falls down on that one.

Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.

Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
in your links.

ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.

> You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
> fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
> not as black and white as one might think.

Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
the way.

> You could *also* argue that the
> biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
> majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a
> pedestrian crossing.

So they get what they deserve?

ANCAP Vulnerable Road User Protection assessment protocol

https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.ancap.com.au/app/public/assets/8b217bb56e6a4c2ca87202debcbb4ffc1f018d92/original.pdf?1675051308

On 25/01/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>
>> And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
>> significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
>> Mazda 6, despite the Ranger having a *much* higher bonnet:
>>
>> Ranger test results:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
>>
>> Mazda 6 test results:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
>>
>> And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
>> bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
>> have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also
>> both do better in pedestrian crash testing:
>>
>> Toyota Hilux:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
>>
>> Isuzu Dmax:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
>>
>
> There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
> results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User Protection
> section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a pedestrian, the
> other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus cyclist and
> motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about injuries inflicted,
> the last 2 aren't relevant.

Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about a
world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from being
hit in the first place then they're not.

> So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
> 20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
> 17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
> by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.

Agreed.

> Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
> The Mazda falls down on that one.

Indeed it does.

> Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.

Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.

> Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
> to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
> Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
> in your links.

They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.

> ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
> appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
> I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.

And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to draw
reliable conclusions.

> > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
> > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
> > not as black and white as one might think.
>
> Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
> but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
> are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
> the way.

They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle I
laugh thinking about this picture here:

> https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ

If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
dwarfed by the current model F-150.

> > You could *also* argue that the
> > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
> > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a        >
> pedestrian crossing.
>
> So they get what they deserve?

Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.

Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Xeno wrote:
> On 24/1/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>
>
> Didn't need a study to work that out.

definitely. just look at the front of that thing. it would be like being
slammed against a brick wall at 100 Klmph

> Only need to look at the past research into car frontal design all
> aimed at reducing pedestrian fatalities, then look at the
> *counter-trends* in commercial vehicle design.

current vehicle design is going against what industry has been wanting
to achieve for decades.. lower emissions, better aerodynamics, lower
maintenance costs, (tyres, etc.,), better economy, lower fuel
consumption, etc., and the question now is when will this trend end?
surely they can't make these damn things much bigger? why would anyone
want one anyway? certainly not for practical reasons.

> It's going against what all the pedestrian safety research has long
> suggested. It used to be the case that commercial vehicle safety
> standards weren't as strict as those that applied to passenger cars -
> for both occupants and pedestrians - yet both types of vehicle occupy
> the same roads. Don't know if that is still the case.
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 25/1/2024 3:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>>
>>> And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
>>> significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
>>> Mazda 6, despite the Ranger having a *much* higher bonnet:
>>>
>>> Ranger test results:
>>>
>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
>>>
>>> Mazda 6 test results:
>>>
>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
>>>
>>> And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
>>> bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
>>> have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also
>>> both do better in pedestrian crash testing:
>>>
>>> Toyota Hilux:
>>>
>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
>>>
>>> Isuzu Dmax:
>>>
>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
>>>
>>
>> There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
>> results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User
>> Protection section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a
>> pedestrian, the other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus
>> cyclist and motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about
>> injuries inflicted, the last 2 aren't relevant.
>
> Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about a
> world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
> hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
> some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from being
> hit in the first place then they're not.
>
>> So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
>> 20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
>> 17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for
>> that by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota
>> 6.0. The Mazda falls down on that one.
>
> Indeed it does.
>
>> Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
>
> Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.
>
>> Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So,
>> according to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best,
>> but the Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can
>> be found in your links.
>
> They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
> going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.
>
>> ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
>> appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link
>> that I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
>
> And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
> where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to draw
> reliable conclusions.
>
>>  > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
>>  > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
>>  > not as black and white as one might think.
>>
>> Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
>> but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
>> are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is
>> on the way.
>
> They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
> In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle I
> laugh thinking about this picture here:
>
>> https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ
>
> If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
> dwarfed by the current model F-150.
>
>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a
>> > pedestrian crossing.
>>
>> So they get what they deserve?
>
> Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
> and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
>
> Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
> hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
>
>
>
Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
manufacturer.
--
Daryl

On 25/1/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 24/01/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>
>> And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
>> significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
>> Mazda 6, despite the Ranger having a *much* higher bonnet:
>>
>> Ranger test results:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
>>
>> Mazda 6 test results:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
>>
>> And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any particular
>> bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes which both also
>> have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6 and which also
>> both do better in pedestrian crash testing:
>>
>> Toyota Hilux:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
>>
>> Isuzu Dmax:
>>
>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
>>
>
> There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
> results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User Protection
> section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a pedestrian, the
> other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus cyclist and
> motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about injuries inflicted,
> the last 2 aren't relevant.
>
> So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda scores
> 20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points, the D-Max
> 17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is best for that
> by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
>
> Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota 6.0.
> The Mazda falls down on that one.
>
> Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
>
> Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So, according
> to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the best, but the
> Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these figures can be found
> in your links.
>
> ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
> appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link that
> I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
>
> > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly tall,
> > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
> > not as black and white as one might think.
>
> Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to here,
> but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram "Trucks"
> are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota Tundra is on
> the way.
>
> > You could *also* argue that the
> > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
> > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a        >
> pedestrian crossing.
>
> So they get what they deserve?

I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers and
drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take responsibility
for their own actions.
It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100% pedestrian
friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better educated
and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.

--
Daryl

On 25/01/2024 5:48 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 25/1/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a
>> > pedestrian crossing.
>>
>> So they get what they deserve?
>
> I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers and
> drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take responsibility
> for their own actions.
> It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100% pedestrian
> friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.

Agreed.

> Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better educated
> and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.

Absolutely.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/01/2024 5:51 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 25/1/2024 3:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/01/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:

>>
>>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
>>> pedestrian crossing.
>>>
>>> So they get what they deserve?
>>
>> Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,
>> and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
>>
>> Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
>> hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
>>
>>
>>
> Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
> manufacturer.

Yep.

I see it all the time. In Main St Bacchus there are 4 pedestrian
crossings spread out over a 300 mtr distance, and the number of times I
see some fucking moron trying to run across the road and get caught in
the traffic within 10 mtrs of a crossing is *staggering*. And, of
course, then they do that and fuck it all up it's everyone else's fault
but theirs.

10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.

And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 25/1/2024 4:40 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 24/1/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>
>> Didn't need a study to work that out.
>
> definitely. just look at the front of that thing. it would be like being
> slammed against a brick wall at 100 Klmph
>
>> Only need to look at the past research into car frontal design all
>> aimed at reducing pedestrian fatalities, then look at the
>> *counter-trends* in commercial vehicle design.
>
> current vehicle design is going against what industry has been wanting
> to achieve for decades.. lower emissions, better aerodynamics, lower
> maintenance costs, (tyres, etc.,), better economy, lower fuel
> consumption, etc., and the question now is when will this trend end?
> surely they can't make these damn things much bigger? why would anyone
> want one anyway? certainly not for practical reasons.

As long as *some men* are born with small dicks and huge insecurities,
there will always be a market for a *bigger* penis size compensator.
>
>> It's going against what all the pedestrian safety research has long
>> suggested. It used to be the case that commercial vehicle safety
>> standards weren't as strict as those that applied to passenger cars -
>> for both occupants and pedestrians - yet both types of vehicle occupy
>> the same roads. Don't know if that is still the case.
>>
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 25/1/2024 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 5:51 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 25/1/2024 3:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 25/01/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
>>>> pedestrian crossing.
>>>>
>>>> So they get what they deserve?
>>>
>>> Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our
>>> roads, and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
>>>
>>> Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and
>>> get hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
>> manufacturer.
>
> Yep.
>
> I see it all the time. In Main St Bacchus there are 4 pedestrian
> crossings spread out over a 300 mtr distance, and the number of times I
> see some fucking moron trying to run across the road and get caught in
> the traffic within 10 mtrs of a crossing is *staggering*. And, of
> course, then they do that and fuck it all up it's everyone else's fault
> but theirs.

What do you expect in *Boganville*?
>
> 10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
> crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
> passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
>
> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 25/1/2024 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 5:51 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 25/1/2024 3:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 25/01/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
>>>> pedestrian crossing.
>>>>
>>>> So they get what they deserve?
>>>
>>> Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our
>>> roads, and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.
>>>
>>> Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and
>>> get hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
>> manufacturer.
>
> Yep.
>
> I see it all the time. In Main St Bacchus there are 4 pedestrian
> crossings spread out over a 300 mtr distance, and the number of times I
> see some fucking moron trying to run across the road and get caught in
> the traffic within 10 mtrs of a crossing is *staggering*. And, of
> course, then they do that and fuck it all up it's everyone else's fault
> but theirs.
>
> 10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
> crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
> passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run over.
>
> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
>
>

Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke just
casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if the
traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing was a
force field.
There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he didn't
even looked in my direction.

--
Daryl

Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 24/1/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>>
>>
>> Didn't need a study to work that out.
>
> definitely. just look at the front of that thing. it would be like being
> slammed against a brick wall at 100 Klmph
>
>> Only need to look at the past research into car frontal design all
>> aimed at reducing pedestrian fatalities, then look at the
>> *counter-trends* in commercial vehicle design.
>
> current vehicle design is going against what industry has been wanting
> to achieve for decades.. lower emissions, better aerodynamics, lower
> maintenance costs, (tyres, etc.,), better economy, lower fuel
> consumption, etc., and the question now is when will this trend end?
> surely they can't make these damn things much bigger? why would anyone
> want one anyway? certainly not for practical reasons.

Maybe there's a competition in our galaxy for 'Stupidest Species'?

Daryl wrote:
> On 25/1/2024 3:38 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/01/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 24/01/2024 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 24/01/2024 5:51 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://arstechnica.com/cars/2024/01/higher-vehicle-hoods-significantly-increase-pedestrian-deaths-study-finds/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And yet, ANCAP testing shows that something like a Ford Ranger has a
>>>> significantly better Vulnerable Road User Protection score than a
>>>> Mazda 6, despite the Ranger having a *much* higher bonnet:
>>>>
>>>> Ranger test results:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/ford/ranger/58f98d
>>>>
>>>> Mazda 6 test results:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/mazda/6/ac206f
>>>>
>>>> And just for comparison, and to show that I don't have any
>>>> particular bias, here's the two next best selling dual cab utes
>>>> which both also have a significantly higher bonnet than the Mazda 6
>>>> and which also both do better in pedestrian crash testing:
>>>>
>>>> Toyota Hilux:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/toyota/hilux/cad396
>>>>
>>>> Isuzu Dmax:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings/isuzu/d-max/d9fa82
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a couple of things here, firstly a closer look at the ANCAP
>>> results. There are 5 data points in the Vulnerable Road User
>>> Protection section, the first 3 relate to the likely injury to a
>>> pedestrian, the other 2 to systems designed to avoid pedestrian (plus
>>> cyclist and motorcyclist) accidents. Since we are talking about
>>> injuries inflicted, the last 2 aren't relevant.
>>
>> Well, I don't know if I would agree with that. If you're talking about
>> a world where everyone who steps in front of a car is guaranteed to be
>> hit, then yeah they're irrelevant. But in a more perfect world where
>> some cars do better than others at preventing the pedestrian from
>> being hit in the first place then they're not.
>>
>>> So lets look at the injury scores. First head injury, the Mazda
>>> scores 20.5 points (more points are better), the Ford 16.33 points,
>>> the D-Max 17.78 points, and the Toyota 18.89 points. So the Mazda is
>>> best for that by a reasonable margin, the Ford the worst.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> Next upper leg injury Mazda 1.04, Ford 4.40, D-Max 5.01, and Toyota
>>> 6.0. The Mazda falls down on that one.
>>
>> Indeed it does.
>>
>>> Lastly lower leg injury Mazda, D-Max, Toyota all 6.0, Ford 5.26.
>>
>> Fuck all in it in fact, despite the huge difference in bonnet heights.
>>
>>> Totals Toyota 30.87, D-Max 28.79, Mazda 27.54, Ford 25.99. So,
>>> according to ANCAPs calculations, the Mazda is certainly not the
>>> best, but the Ford is the worst for inflicting injury. All these
>>> figures can be found in your links.
>>
>> They can, but the point is that not everything with a low bonnet is
>> going to leave a pedestrian better off in the event of contact.
>>
>>> ANCAPs figures are calculated probabilities of injury, they do not
>>> appear to run cars into crash test dummies. The figures in the link
>>> that I gave are from actual injuries resulting from real accidents.
>>
>> And given that real accidents do *not* take place in an environment
>> where the myriad of variables can be controlled, it's difficult to
>> draw reliable conclusions.
>>
>>>  > You could argue that the big American utes, which are incredibly
>>> tall,
>>>  > fall into a different category, but the test results show that it's
>>>  > not as black and white as one might think.
>>>
>>> Of course it's American results that may not transfer exactly to
>>> here, but the trend is pretty obvious, and lets not forget that Ram
>>> "Trucks" are becoming more common on the roads here, and the Toyota
>>> Tundra is on the way.
>>
>> They are, but the local "everyday" stuff here is a long way from that.
>> In fact, whenever I hear someone say my Ranger is a hulk of a vehicle
>> I laugh thinking about this picture here:
>>
>>> https://ibb.co/Ct3GqgQ
>>
>> If you haven't worked that out, it's a current model Ranger being
>> dwarfed by the current model F-150.
>>
>>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
>>> pedestrian crossing.

Proof?

>>> So they get what they deserve?
>>
>> Sometimes. Laziness is the biggest killer of pedestrians on our roads,

Proof?

>> and personal responsibility has to be taken into account.

lol. Coward famed for running away speaks of "personal responsibility"/

>> Put very simply, if you run across a busy road like a dickhead and get
>> hit by a car then it's nobody's fault but yours.
>>
>>
>>
> Agree, its a bit like falling off a ladder then blaming the ladder
> manufacturer.

Staggering.
Whether pedestrians are clobbered on an Xing, an unmarked bit of road or
on a rooftop bar makes no difference to the ANCAP rating.

alvey

Noddy wrote:

>
> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....

Bogan who rarely leaves Bumhole (Vic) claims to know how the rest of the
country behaves.

Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 5:48 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 25/1/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
>>> pedestrian crossing.
>>>
>>> So they get what they deserve?
>>
>> I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers and
>> drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take
>> responsibility for their own actions.
>> It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100%
>> pedestrian friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better educated
>> and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.
>
> Absolutely.

Said the person who lets his child ride passenger without wearing a
seat-belt.

On 25/01/2024 10:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 25/1/2024 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> 10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
>> crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
>> passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run
>> over.
>>
>> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
>>
>>
>
> Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
> This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke just
> casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if the
> traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing was a
> force field.
> There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
> works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
> bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he didn't
> even looked in my direction.

It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 10:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 25/1/2024 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> 10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
>>> crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
>>> passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run
>>> over.
>>>
>>> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
>> This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke
>> just casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if
>> the traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing
>> was a force field.
>> There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
>> works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
>> bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he
>> didn't even looked in my direction.
>
> It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....

Says man who claims to have had a significant number of crashes.

On 26/01/2024 5:46 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 10:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 25/1/2024 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> 10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
>>> crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
>>> passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run
>>> over.
>>>
>>> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
>> This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke
>> just casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if
>> the traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing
>> was a force field.
>> There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
>> works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
>> bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he
>> didn't even looked in my direction.
>
> It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....
>

Like your determination to keep bouncing your head and body off
immovable objects and road surfaces you mean?

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 26/01/2024 5:13 am, alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 25/01/2024 5:48 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 25/1/2024 3:15 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>>>  > You could *also* argue that the
>>>>  > biggest risk to pedestrians is *themselves*, with the overwhelming
>>>>  > majority of pedestrians hit by cars occur within 20mtrs of a >
>>>> pedestrian crossing.
>>>>
>>>> So they get what they deserve?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't say that but IMHO its unfair to always blame car makers
>>> and drivers for what happens when pedestrians etc don't take
>>> responsibility for their own actions.
>>> It simply isn't possible to design any vehicle that will 100%
>>> pedestrian friendly, the safest was is to separate cars and pedestrians.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> Pedestrians and other vulnerable road users need to be better
>>> educated and made aware that their safety is their responsibility.
>>
>> Absolutely.
>
> Said the person who lets his child ride passenger without wearing a
> seat-belt.
>

Beat me too it.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 26/1/2024 8:46 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 25/01/2024 10:12 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 25/1/2024 6:48 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> 10 mtrs. It would take them 5 seconds to walk that extra bit to a
>>> crossing where the the traffic will stop for them and give them safe
>>> passage, but nah. They're too lazy and would rather risk getting run
>>> over.
>>>
>>> And it's not just here. It happens all over the country....
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Know what you mean, I see that quite frequently.
>> This morning I was taking the Grand kids home to Gisborne, a bloke
>> just casually wandered across the road in a 100kph speed zone as if
>> the traffic didn't exist, maybe he thought that his hi vis clothing
>> was a force field.
>> There seemed to some workers on either side of the road but no road
>> works signs or reduced speed limit signs and they were around a slight
>> bend so not clearly visible until I was too close for comfort, he
>> didn't even looked in my direction.
>
> It's as if some people *want* to get killed.....
>
Well, the way you (used to?) drive, for sure you wanted to get killed.
As it was, you merely became a cripple.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)