zlacker

>And yet, we're static in that most of our crash tests are done the same way they have for years

Exactly.

Modern cars are optimized for "the tests" occasionally to the point of absurdity. As in certain systems get de-tuned (so to speak) so they are completely and totally used up at whatever the max test speed is because that's what makes the car look best in the benchmarks.

If we modernized the tests high speed crashes would be more survivable and low speed crashes would be less costly.

It's not all government's fault though. Society has a very unhealthy relationship with risk. If you make a quip about how crumple zones shouldn't be tuned to activate in parking lot collisions you are instantly inundated with idiots that don't understand that a stiff neck in a 10mph hit could be what makes a 60mph hit survivable at all.

>>throwa+(OP)
> If you make a quip about how crumple zones shouldn't be tuned to activate in parking lot collisions you are instantly inundated with idiots that don't understand that a stiff neck in a 10mph hit could be what makes a 60mph hit survivable at all.

Or they're pedestrians who don't want to be cut in half in a parking lot. Car-on-car isn't the only thing in consideration here.

>>ceejay+E
A crumple zone capable of affecting the deceleration of a 3000+lb car while complying with bumper strength requirements (though today's standards are much relaxed from those decades ago) isn't going to protect a sack of meat from a car. The bulbous front end plastics that take up a lot of space without much underlying structure, flimsty upper radiator core support and thin easily bent hoods are where the pedestrian safety comes from.

>>ceejay+E
As you alluded to in the other comment, these would be safety factors not regarding the structure of the car (which should be focused on decelerating the car) but instead on mechanisms that alert the driver / automatically stop the car when it is going to hit a pedestrian.