h a l f b a k e r yThunk.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Unsurprisingly, inexperienced drivers are involved in more accidents than experienced ones.
"Impact simulators" are Baked and WKTE. A common form is a seat mounted on inclined rails. The victim* sits in the seat and the catch holding the trolley is released. At the bottom of the ramp, the trolley
stops at a simulated speed of 15km/h. The victim is either thrown forward onto a deep, soft crash mat, or if wearing a seatbelt, experiences an abrupt but harmless stop.
The logical extension is to offer this to all new young drivers, who tend to have limited life experience generally.
A set of simulators would be engineered, using concepts from the theme park industry. The objective is for the victim to experience a non-harmful but realistic representation of various crash scenarios; head-on with "airbag" and seatbelt, spin out and hit immovable object, side impact, skid and roll.
It would be fun, but also cautionary, as long as the victim is told "That's not the real thing. The real thing is much, MUCH worse than that."
It's possible (but very unlikely) that even arrogant teenage males might be slightly chastened by the experience, altho they would never admit it.
Anyone who has gone through helicopter submergence escape training will testify to the effectiveness of the technique.
*We are not sure that this is quite the right word, but it seems appropriate.
[link]
|
| |
//The objective is for the victim to experience a
non-harmful but // Who are you, and what have you
done with [8th]? If you are holding him against his
will, we are happy to contribute towards your costs. |
|
| |
We wanted it to be harmful .... oh, we still want it so much to be harmful ... really, really bruisingly unpleasant, tendon-stretchingly painful. |
|
| |
But apparently there's this inexplicable rubbish called "Health & Safety". |
|
| |
We were told to use the term "Safe", but the most we would agree to is "non-harmful" which doesn't come close to our original intention of "low-lethality"*. |
|
| |
*which in the original draft was actually "limited lethality" |
|
| |
This is an excellent idea from you, [8th] and very humane. I'm
sure that with time I will reconcile the two. |
|
| |
We'll get you for that ... |
|
| |
// I'm sure that with time I will reconcile the two. // |
|
| |
// 25-year projection* into the future // |
|
| |
[Ian], it's just a mechanical simulator, not transwarp relativistic temporal displacement. And no, we're not going to tell your species how to that - it's so much more fun to watch you trying to sort it out for yourselves. |
|
| |
//it's so much more fun to watch you trying to sort it
out for yourselves.// We did. But due to calibration
errors in the prototype the discovery won't have
happened until 2043. |
|
| |
No, they charge you a fortune for the replacement filters. Ripoff, we say. |
|
| |
It's using the polar bears that causes the expense. |
|
| |