• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fat People Are More at Risk in Car Crashes

Now we'll probably see a suit from fat asses suing makers for not making cars more safe for them. It's discrimination that they makers don't. It's their fault!
 


<< People weighing between 220 and 262 pounds were almost 2 1/2 times as likely to die in a vehicle smash as those weighing less than 60 kilograms. >>



I like the mixing of metric and standard measurements.

It would seem to me that a fatter person has more mass slamming into the interior of the car than a thin person, therefore causing greater injury, in addition to the fact that larger people are also closer to the dash than thinner people.

 
You'd think the additional impact caused by the larger mass would be offset by the extra padding.

Russ, NCNE
 
Does the converse hold true then? (Thin people are less at risk.) If so, I might just be invulnerable! 🙂

ZV
 
the study sounds bogus...

basic physics require momentum to be conserved, so if you crash into a brick wall in "zero" time, the momentum of the car will be transferred to your body. Fatter people weigh more, so they would go flying through the winshield at a slower velocity relative to skinny people.

I would rather be a 6 ft. 240 jock than a 6 ft 150 tootpick if I am going to be in a crash.
I will take a 17.5 inch neck over a 14.5 neck any day of the week.
 


<< It would seem to me that a fatter person has more mass slamming into the interior of the car than a thin person, therefore causing greater injury, in addition to the fact that larger people are also closer to the dash than thinner people. >>



That's my thought too, more kinetic energy, less space to absorb it in.

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Mister T

I think you're looking at it backwards. The amount of energy an object carries is related to two factors: It's velocity, & it's mass. Presuming the velocity to be constant, the only variable factor is mass. Mass affects kinetic energy linearly, that is an object with double the mass has double the kinetic energy.

The purpose of an airbag is to absorb that energy without impaling the individual on the steering column. The more energy there is, the greater the distance required to absorb it without harming the individual (you can stop something in a shorter distance by applying a greater force, but if their head gets smashed by the airbag it's kinda pointless to have avoided impaling them).

Viper GTS
 


<< You'd think the additional impact caused by the larger mass would be offset by the extra padding.

Russ, NCNE >>


LOL !!
 
Plus they make their cars heavier than normal people do, creating a greater risk for the people they hit! They're a danger to themselves and others... kill the fatties!
 
viper, your right... my bad.

no momentum is transferred... your body already has kinetic energy.
Ever since I got out of college, I have been getting dumber and dumber.... lol
 


<< Ever since I got out of college, I have been getting dumber and dumber.... lol >>



I know that feeling. It's been over three years since I've had physics or chemistry, & although I can remember the concepts pretty easily my problem solving ability is practically nil. All the "Physics help needed!" threads prove that to me.
rolleye.gif


Thankfully if I ever need it again it should be relatively easy to dust it off.
 
Well this is interesting but it's not like fat people care anyway. If they did this isn't likely to be the straw that broke the camel's back and finally made a 220-262 pound whale decide it's finally time to stop eating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top