-
Thanks, I probably should have thought that someone would have that stupid idea, but I didn't.
It's been the same since the start of motoring--blame the environment, not the driver, then try to change the environment. It never works, only causes faster driving and its consequent problems. People thinking that crashing into posts is no longer a problem will drive less carefully. Trees? Oh, you just chop them down--like in Germany in the 60s, to facilitate widening roads. The slogan then was 'every tree is a potential murderer', citing those well-known murderous intentions that trees have.
Oliver Schick-
Shouldn't this thread title be "Motor vehicle / cars being driven into buildings"? I'm sure it isn't them doing the crashing.
-
Ultimately I think it's a good idea - there's a number of reasons to do this beyond reducing the danger of an impact. However, people still describe hitting a tree as 'wrapping yourself around it'. The tree didn't do it, the fuckwit behind the wheel did.
As always, it comes down to the same old argument/debate/tussle/balance between personal freedom and protecting people from themselves and their own stupidity. I was listening to an (old - turns out its the first) episode of the freakonomics podcast about safety gear and how it changes incentives, this is exactly the same.
adroit
hamrack
A lot of (newer) lampposts are designed to break away from their bases when struck - that's why it's normally trees not lampposts that do the damage. There's some interesting info here if you want. (Of course you do - you're Oliver!)