|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven (WAS: 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. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
"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. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
"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. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
"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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
"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. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
"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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
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. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OT car safety (was ISS Safe Haven (WAS: Don't Desert Hubble)
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA Urged to Reconsider Hubble Decision | Scott M. Kozel | Space Shuttle | 116 | April 2nd 04 07:14 PM |
Taking pictures of a shuttle with hubble? | Remy Villeneuve | Space Shuttle | 16 | February 6th 04 08:48 PM |
Hubble. Alive and Well | VTrade | Space Shuttle | 12 | January 21st 04 05:57 AM |
The Death of Hubble...When Will it Come? | MasterShrink | Space Shuttle | 7 | January 21st 04 05:49 AM |
The Hubble Space Telescope... | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 118 | December 6th 03 04:41 PM |