How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by Sohcahtoa82 on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @03:47PM (#23694031)

I don't have statistics to back it up, but I would be willing to bet money that at least 95% of crashes are from negligence with slightly less than 5% being from a sudden unexpected mechanical failure (Such as a tire exploding), with less than 1% being something you could truly call an "accident".

The usual counter-argument is that the use of the word "accident" is a statement of intent, and outside of extreme road rage scenarios, nobody intends to cause a crash. However, the creation of an unsafe situation, such as texting while driving, is often absolutely deliberate.

Didn't check your blind spot before making a lane change? That's not an accident, that's negligence.

TBH, I'm not even sure if any crashes could really qualify as an "accident".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by elihu on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @07:17PM (#23695920)

People don't have perfect reflexes, physical coordination, and situational awareness. Someone could be checking their blind spot at the exact moment the person in front of them slams on their brakes. Someone could move their foot over from the gas and for no particular reason completely miss the brake pedal, or sneeze at the exact wrong time, or be stung by a hornet they didn't know was in the car, or simply not react fast enough.

Humans are fallible and make unintentional mistakes. It's surprising that humans are as good at driving as we are and that most of us aren't making catastrophic mistakes on a regular basis.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by throwaway0a5e on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @10:38PM (#23697154)

>less than 5% being from a sudden unexpected mechanical failure

Less than that. There have been many studies done about the efficacy of vehicle "safety" inspections on making roads safer and they range from "no effect" to "positive effect about as big as the noise threshold". There was some Danish meta-study I thought I had bookmarked but can't seem to find that spells it all out.

That said, I 200% disagree with the overall opinion of your comment. Typical human behavior is not negligence. Systems should take into account normal, error making, humans and not expect perfect "behave like a computer humans". Behaving normally, even if that means not checking your blind spot as well as you should 1/100 times is not negligence. Furthermore there's only so much situational awareness a person with two eyes facing the same way can have. As another commenter points out you're gonna be in for a near miss at best if the time you're checking your blind spot is the same time traffic in front of you starts coming to an emergency stop.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized ... by catalogia on Tuesday June 30, 2020 @07:53PM (#23696195)

> TBH, I'm not even sure if any crashes could really qualify as an "accident".

There are some. One that comes to mind is a freak rock falling off a truck in the opposing lane coming through your windshield. Possible negligence on the part of whoever loaded the truck, but for the victim it may as well be a lightning strike on a clear sunny day. Falling trees or things like that could do it too.

However, I think "car crashes aren't accidents" is probably close enough to the truth that it makes sense to use as a mantra in drivers ed (as my drivers ed teacher did.)

[ Parent | on HN ]