What does a car crash-proof human look like? Odd. Very odd


Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/07/21/what-does-a-car-crash-proof-hu.html




So, basically:


Studies have shown that there’s a very strong correlation between levels of urban sprawl (and therefore the amount of time that people spend sitting in their cars) and obesity.

What if this is actually a protective adaptation? Maybe the extra flesh acts as padding in the event of an accident. Are we slowly evolving into Homo sapiens aurigans?


Still, I’ll stick with the body I have.


I don’t know, the “cute effect” is growing on me.


He also comes equipped with a dozen nipples so he can nurse his litter of young. The kids come in litters for redundancy, so running one over is less of a problem. Males lactate to combat sexism, I suppose.


I choose to ignore the over the top lactation capabilities. Oh, LUNCH TIME!


Hey! Uncle Larry!


Car crash proof, you say? Let me test that.

I’m going to need two cars, a couple of rocket engines, a long, straight stretch of road…


This assumes the use of materials/tissues currently found in the body, and not say, diamond lattice nets that harden and redistribute force, “cartridge style” kinetic absorbers etc…



This is fun & interesting (and grotesque), but isn’t it kind of wasteful? I mean, the research is backwards. They should be researching ways to make cars safer for humans that look like what they do now. But what do I know. Something good could come out of it. Better crash test dummies, to make cars look safer than they are.


If human beings valued life cars would have gone fore safety before speed in the first place.

If this were our form but our cultures remained the same vehicles would simple have fewer safety features.

We have the capability now to make cars safer. We don’t. The safety that exists now satisfies the level of concern that we have. Our level of concern would not automatically go up were we more durable.


I feel oddly safe after seeing this. :frowning:


Been There, Seen That. This guy was in my high school gym class. He was really pathetic when it came to dodge ball.



We do put a certain value on life (in fact insurance companies know what it is by country). It tends to be higher in the developed world and lower in the less developed world, which is why in the less developed world people drive around in vehicles with no airbags, suspect brakes and complete overloading, and in the developed world you get arrested for that.
Our perception of risk is very much based on experience, though. When for a lot of history your transport has basically been feet, horses/camels or boats, the expectation is a lot of risk. Cars are a lot safer per passenger mile than any of the older forms of transport as well as early aircraft. They are also an engineering trade off of cost and convenience.
Safety is also a moving target. Early Volvos were perceived as being very safe, but none of them would pass a modern NCAP test. It’s actually very difficult for us to evaluate what “safe” means. If all traffic was limited to 20mph accident deaths would be very rare. Currently in the UK you have about a 1 in 30000 chance of dying in a road accident in a given year. Let’s say that with a universal 20mph limit that was enforced, there were only 200 deaths a year - caused by people being knocked off bicycles or pushed into walls or other vehicles. How many people can evaluate the difference between 1 in 30 000 and one in 300 000?
What drives safety is, in fact, the rather mechanical value put on life by insurance companies and how much people are prepared to pay for insurance. The fewer people die or are seriously injured on roads, the lower insurance. A lot of people do not realise this, but under the pressure of competition it makes sense for insurance companies to lobby for safety, which is paid for in vehicle price and general taxation.
As with most things in economics, it turns out everything has a price.



And here I thought neckbeards led the NEET life…