If cars could brake instantly

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Hypothetically speaking, if your car could slow to a stop in no time....

Accidents where people get rear ended would almost be gone because you would not need to worry about braking distance.

Would that get rid of a good chunk of the accidents that happen daily?

Of course some accidents would still occur like people falling asleep at the wheel, drunk drivers, idiotic people who hit parked cars, etc etc...

 

[Anubis]

women would manage to f it up somehow

 

[waggy]

sure it may reduce many crashes. but case's of whiplash are going to go up!

 

[BigJ]

For all the nitpickers, make sure to add that your body is not impacted by the instantaneous stop.

 

[spidey07]

Sure, the accidents would be severely minimized. But every time your instabrakes were activated they would have to pull your dead body out of the car.

Effectively your body and brain would turn to mush.

 

[sswingle]

If you go from 65+ to 0 in a second, I dont care what kind of brakes the guy behind you has...

 

[crystal]

No - more injuries will occur.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I think a number of them would still happen. In 3 out of the 4 times that I've had to file an insurance claim brakes were never used. Apparently my first two cars were invisible.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Anubis
women would manage to f it up somehow

That building came out of nowhere!

 

[Crusty]

You can't decrease stupid people's reaction time. It will always be too slow.

 

[BlackTigers]

Eh, I don't think so. You go to stop at a redlight, hit the brakes a split second before the guy behind you, and you're going to be eating bumper.

 

[D1gger]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
I think a number of them would still happen. In 3 out of the 4 times that I've had to file an insurance claim brakes were never used. Apparently my first two cars were invisible.

There is much truth in your statement.:thumbsup:

 

[warmodder]

No. That's kind of why cars aren't build out of giant hulking pieces of indestructible metal because in an accident the cars wouldn't be damaged but you would be.

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: BlackTigers91
Eh, I don't think so. You go to stop at a redlight, hit the brakes a split second before the guy behind you, and you're going to be eating bumper.

Winnar

 

[sygyzy]

If we could instantly heal, would it eliminate a good number of hospital visits?

 

[imported_Baloo]

It may reduce the number of crashes, but increase fatalities big time from those bodies hitting the dash when the car abruptly stops. A body in motion remains in motion until it smashes into the dashboard.

 

[GoatMonkey]

It would have to have some kind of radar to check the distance to the guy in front of you. Nobody can react that fast. Not to mention a nice inertial dampener system from Star Trek would be required also.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: BlackTigers91
Eh, I don't think so. You go to stop at a redlight, hit the brakes a split second before the guy behind you, and you're going to be eating bumper.

Winnar seconded.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I'd rather hit a brick wall than stomp on an insta brake. I'd probably stand better chances.

 

[FoBoT]

Newton, meet DLeRium
DLeRium, meet Mr. Newton

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

you can't do that

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Baloo
It may reduce the number of crashes, but increase fatalities big time from those bodies hitting the dash when the car abruptly stops. A body in motion remains in motion until it smashes into the dashboard.

It would NOT reduce the number of crashes, it would increase them.

The first person in line would see a threat and stop instantly (assuming proper inertiics to compensate for the acceleration and prevent death). The second person in line, cruising along at a merry 60 mph (that's 88 feet per second), reacts VERY quickly and hits the brakes in .4 seconds...well, they just travelled 35 feet. I certainly hope they were leaving LOTS of following distance...few people do.

If they weren't as Johny-on-the-spot about braking, they would travel even further. Taking a full second between seeing an event, identifying it as a threat, and moving to the brake pedal and pressing it isn't so uncommon. That's 88 feet. Not to mention that they might not realize the person in front of them stopped completely, which means they would slow down at first, then realize their error, panic, and brake harder. Almost no one tries for a complete panic stop at the first sign of a slowdown.

Originally posted by: FoBoT
Newton, meet DLeRium
DLeRium, meet Mr. Newton

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

you can't do that

"If", "If", hypothetical!

Besides, people generally think of "an instant" as a finite, if tiny length of time...so this would be possible with enough force. Add some sort of sci-fi inertial compensator, and it might work.
But then everyone would be getting rear-ended due to human reaction time.

 

[foghorn67]

The car stops, but you wouldn't.

 

[StageLeft]

I cannot wait until we all abdicate our ability to drive and give it to computers. People are grossly incompetent behind the wheel and we need to defer to computers, which will make all traffic move much quicker, much more efficiently (saving on fuel), much safer, and is just better in all ways.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: crystal
No - more injuries will occur.

Heh. Correct. An instantaneous stop IS a crash. The OP needs to brush up on his basic physics.
A car crash consists of 3 separate series of impacts. The car hits something, the occupants hit something inside the car, the internal organs of the occupants collide with each other inside their bodies.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I cannot wait until we all abdicate our ability to drive and give it to computers. People are grossly incompetent behind the wheel and we need to defer to computers, which will make all traffic move much quicker, much more efficiently (saving on fuel), much safer, and is just better in all ways.

Perhaps when we make a computer more intelligent than a human, I will agree with this.

I do agree that we need better computerized traffic management.