Don't Desert Hubble

jeff findley wrote in message ...


The law making US public is very risk averse.


Actually, its *lawyers* who are making us more risk averse. The
underlying supposition within NASA is that our advanced technology
will make exploration easier, but I believe that the advanced number
of lawyers will make it more difficult.

For proof, simply read about the obstacles that X Prize teams face.

(dave schneider) writes:

And one only has to note that more people die in automobiles than in
planes, that more people are maimed in automobiles than in combat,
that many of the victims are small children, and that driving
conditions are often worse than they were in the 1960's (higher
traffic density, longer commutes, more construction projects and more
worn out infrastructure), and I'm really amazed at the bravery of
people who take classic cars onto the freeway.

In addition to seat belts, they also tend to lack collapsible steering
columns and padded instrument panels. Not only were you not
restrained in even a minor crash, but you would slam into the hard
dash or steering column.

Safety in automobiles didn't become a real priority until well after
the Apollo program was underway. See Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any
Speed", originally published in 1965. Action came in 1966 with the
passing of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
and the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The Apollo 1 fire was in January
of 1967. Subsequent investigations found many safety issues in the
Block 1 Apollos that needed to be fixed.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"jeff findley" wrote ...
In addition to seat belts, they also tend to lack collapsible steering
columns and padded instrument panels. Not only were you not
restrained in even a minor crash, but you would slam into the hard
dash or steering column.

Safety in automobiles didn't become a real priority until well after
the Apollo program was underway. See Ralph Nader's "Unsafe at Any
Speed", originally published in 1965. Action came in 1966 with the
passing of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
and the Highway Safety Act of 1966.

I understand that the US car safety developments went along a rather
different path to the UK. For example wearing seatbelts is the law
in the UK - air bags are primarily designed to provide additional
protection for someone wearing a seatbelt.

In contrast (OSIMVR) US airbags are 'overpowered' to better
protect people _not_ wearing seatbelts and have been associated
with injuries such as damage to hearing.

"Paul Blay" writes:
I understand that the US car safety developments went along a rather
different path to the UK. For example wearing seatbelts is the law
in the UK - air bags are primarily designed to provide additional
protection for someone wearing a seatbelt.

In contrast (OSIMVR) US airbags are 'overpowered' to better
protect people _not_ wearing seatbelts and have been associated
with injuries such as damage to hearing.

While this was true in the past, it's largely changed now. All states
in the US have seat belt laws (details and enforcement rules vary
state to state) and newer airbags are either "depowered" or have more
than one firing strength for different situations.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

"jeff findley" wrote ...
"Paul Blay" writes:
In contrast (OSIMVR) US airbags are 'overpowered' to better
protect people _not_ wearing seatbelts and have been associated
with injuries such as damage to hearing.

While this was true in the past, it's largely changed now. All states
in the US have seat belt laws (details and enforcement rules vary
state to state) and newer airbags are either "depowered" or have more
than one firing strength for different situations.

Hmm, interesting.

How are you doing on bull bars (cow catchers) over there?

These charming devices are typically fitted to four wheel cars that never
see a hint of countryside so they a) look nice and b) can fatally mow
down pedestrians without getting the headlights or bumpers damaged.

I think the current state is that if they are already banned for sale fitted
on new cars - but I'm not sure as to whether it is legal to fit them after
car purchase or not.

A randomme google search found a fascinating glimpse into the workings
of the House of Lords on this subject here
http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/60117-08.htm

"Paul Blay" writes:

"jeff findley" wrote ...
"Paul Blay" writes:
In contrast (OSIMVR) US airbags are 'overpowered' to better
protect people _not_ wearing seatbelts and have been associated
with injuries such as damage to hearing.

While this was true in the past, it's largely changed now. All states
in the US have seat belt laws (details and enforcement rules vary
state to state) and newer airbags are either "depowered" or have more
than one firing strength for different situations.

Hmm, interesting.

How are you doing on bull bars (cow catchers) over there?

I've no idea, but I see quite a few of them. They're among one of the
many, largely useless, "mods" done by owners of SUV's in the US.
Leave it to Americans to take a largely useless vehicle (most SUV's
*never* see off-road use in the US) and make it heavier, less
efficient, and more dangerous to pedestrians.

Of course, I drive around in an old, full size '93 Chevy G20 (3/4 ton)
conversion van. It's got a 33 gallon gas tank and gets 14mpg in mixed
city/highway driving. It's big enough for my family of five to take
"anywhere". Our other car is a much more sensible 2004 Pontiac Vibe
(a twin of the Toyota Corolla Matrix), but it's just not big enough
even for trips to the hardware store with the wife and three kids, so
the "big Van" gets driven quite a bit.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Paul Blay wrote:


How are you doing on bull bars (cow catchers) over there?

Here they're typically called "brush guards."

These charming devices are typically fitted to four wheel cars that never
see a hint of countryside so they a) look nice and b) can fatally mow
down pedestrians without getting the headlights or bumpers damaged.

a) Correct

b) Umm . . . no, they're usually much more aesthetic than functional
(although there are exceptions, of course) and,due to the way most of them
mount to the frame or worse, bumper, anything striking them much higher
than the mounting points will bend them back quite easily, often damaging
the car quite sufficiently in the process. Hence the term "brush guards"
because anything much more sturdy than a very young sapling will ruin most
of them.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote:


How are you doing on bull bars (cow catchers) over there?

Here they're typically called "brush guards."

There they are, from the following description, apparently completely different
devices.

These charming devices are typically fitted to four wheel cars that never
see a hint of countryside so they a) look nice and b) can fatally mow
down pedestrians without getting the headlights or bumpers damaged.

a) Correct

b) Umm . . . no, they're usually much more aesthetic than functional
(although there are exceptions, of course) and,due to the way most of them
mount to the frame or worse, bumper, anything striking them much higher
than the mounting points will bend them back quite easily, often damaging
the car quite sufficiently in the process. Hence the term "brush guards"
because anything much more sturdy than a very young sapling will ruin most
of them.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/60117-08.htm

"The TRL* has publicly stated that its best estimate is that something like 35 deaths
per year and 350 serious injuries are caused directly by bull bars."

"Studies in Germany indicate that whereas most children would survive an
impact with a vehicle at 20 miles an hour, life threatening injuries are sustained
at just 12 miles an hour when bull bars are fitted."

* Transport Research Laboratory

In message , Paul Blay
writes
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote ...
Paul Blay wrote:


How are you doing on bull bars (cow catchers) over there?

Here they're typically called "brush guards."

There they are, from the following description, apparently completely
different
devices.

These charming devices are typically fitted to four wheel cars that never
see a hint of countryside so they a) look nice and b) can fatally mow
down pedestrians without getting the headlights or bumpers damaged.

a) Correct

b) Umm . . . no, they're usually much more aesthetic than functional
(although there are exceptions, of course) and,due to the way most of them
mount to the frame or worse, bumper, anything striking them much higher
than the mounting points will bend them back quite easily, often damaging
the car quite sufficiently in the process. Hence the term "brush guards"
because anything much more sturdy than a very young sapling will ruin most
of them.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery...596/ldhansrd/v
o960117/text/60117-08.htm

"The TRL* has publicly stated that its best estimate is that something
like 35 deaths
per year and 350 serious injuries are caused directly by bull bars."

"Studies in Germany indicate that whereas most children would survive an
impact with a vehicle at 20 miles an hour, life threatening injuries
are sustained
at just 12 miles an hour when bull bars are fitted."


I should know more about what happens in "my" country, but did they ever
get around to banning them, or did they cave in to the road lobby as
usual?
I'm not hopeful, because killing a child apparently isn't a crime if
you're a motorist.
--
Save the Hubble Space Telescope!
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In article , Herb Schaltegger wrote:

These charming devices are typically fitted to four wheel cars that never
see a hint of countryside so they a) look nice and b) can fatally mow
down pedestrians without getting the headlights or bumpers damaged.

a) Correct

I am reminded of the story of the first cow catcher... on a very early
steam locomotive, built by a US blacksmith from parts shipped across the
Atlantic. Whilst he had perfectly good instructions, he'd never actually
seen one, and was moved to add a few improvements of his own... among
them, a grille at the front.

The validity of this is debatable, of course, but it seems quite
plausible (and they've been around long enough!)

b) Umm . . . no, they're usually much more aesthetic than functional
(although there are exceptions, of course) and,due to the way most of them
mount to the frame or worse, bumper, anything striking them much higher
than the mounting points will bend them back quite easily, often damaging
the car quite sufficiently in the process. Hence the term "brush guards"
because anything much more sturdy than a very young sapling will ruin most
of them.

Oh, no doubt they will be ruined. If one hits me, though, I'm going to
be a deal more ruined. ("so, you can take the impact distributed over
about a foot of the lower abdomen, or you can take it on three single
points..."). I have a vested interest in making sure that these idiots
[1] given the keys to quarter-tons of speeding metal don't provide
themselves with cosmetic - or un-necessary - "safety equipment" that has
limited use to them but less limited detriments to the rest of us. One
of those summing-effects-over-the-population thing.

(I've seen analyses that suggest they're a greater hazard to cyclists,
as well; the sizing is about right to "entangle" a bike if it hits at
the wrong angle, which is thoroughly bad for all participants - the
bike, the rider, the car. All this is reading and so forth; I've never
heavily studied the issue, and IANA engineer or trauma medico...)

[1] I use the term advisedly; the three times I've almost been seriously
injured by near-misses that stick in my mind involved, respectively, a
driver failing to be able to differentiate between a pedestrian crossing
signal and a traffic light; a driver *overtaking, round a blind corner,
on a hill*; and the inspired gentleman who blazed through a traffic
crossing, came within a pace of me in the middle of the road, and failed
all the time to notice the nice clearly marked poliscar on the facing
side paying somewhat interested attention... lights change, hang a
u-turn, pull up beside him (now stopped in traffic further down)... ah,
a sweet moment. Um. This turned into a rant, didn't it? Sorry. I'm happy
with the good drivers, but sadly the rest still drive...

--
-Andrew Gray