fool crunch

[cobram at juno.com]

Brett Dikeman <brett at cloud9.net> writes:

> Right, I forgot that uncontrolled sample sizes of one are more  
> reliable than scientific process.
 
You bet!  I'll take me driving my "unsafe" (the numbers don't lie
according to your logic) V8Q home under it's own power with little more
than cosmetic damage, me unscathed, than being the other guy whose ultra
safe modern techno wonder looked like a grizzly took a can opener to it. 
Other driver didn't look as bad as his car, but had a few broken bits.

> >  Current crash tests are highly open to interpretation
> 
> What reputable people or organizations have questioned crash testing 
> methodology?  

Automotive engineers.  I deal with these guys all the time in my
business, and currently there is no one number or target to shoot for
when it comes to safety design.  But then again, what the hell do they
know, they only design and manufacture the things.  Audi and a few others
prove the point, they do their own in house testing, tests devised by
automotive engineers instead of government bureaucrats, lawyers and
insurance companies.  Hmm, wonder which one best replicates field
events??  The engineers interpret thousands of points of data from these
staged crash tests, then they get all the real world crash data they can
get their hands on...hmmm, wonder why they bother with that real world
crap when they have "scientific process" data at their disposal?

> Society has been crash-testing vehicles for more than 
> half a decade, and it's not even remotely disputed that this has led 
> to a constant improvement in vehicle safety and crash survivability, 

I don't recall saying it didn't.  I do believe it's been a bit more than
5 years though.  There are still tradeoffs, there is no free lunch.  Like
Tony said, take away the $4700+ worth of airbags in a new car and lets
see how the actual structure does.  

The best scenario of course is Huw's, pay attention and avoid the
accident in the first place.  In my encounter it would have been
difficult to for see, I really wasn't expecting someone to blow through a
red light going the wrong way on a main avenue.  I sometimes wonder
whether all these safety designs aren't thwarting Darwin a bit too much,
and the computerized gismos giving idiot drivers a sense of infallibility
behind the wheel.
  
BCNU,
http://www.geocities.com/cobramsri/
"God's a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything."