Comments on: If you’ve ever said you wouldn’t be caught dead in a GM…

By: Genegenie

Genegenie — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:24:27 +0000

The reason they used dead bodies for crash tests is,Management could stuff them full of cash and important documents and security wouldn’t notice when they took them back out through the gate.

By: Stephan Wilkinson

Stephan Wilkinson — Fri, 09 May 2008 12:23:39 +0000

Mary Roach writes funny books about strange, unexplored areas of science, and “Stiffs” is about cadavers ine very way, shape and form. Her newest book is fascinating: “Bonk,” an examination of sex research.

By: menno

menno — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:54:12 +0000

I read decades ago that Renault also used cadavers, and had done for years.

It must work, since Renault cars are now amongst the safest on the roads.

Did anyone else see that British TV crash of a Renault supermini class car vs. a 10-12 year old Volvo 940 “tank” station wagon / estate car on You Tube? Here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

By the way – the Volvo DOES have an engine in it. Volvo designed the engine to slide below the firewall in a major accident, and it did exactly as it was supposed to.

By: netrun

netrun — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:41:11 +0000

That book “Stiffs” sounds like a winner. Finally, the perfect Mother’s Day gift!

By: NickR

NickR — Fri, 09 May 2008 10:26:08 +0000

I dare them to show this on ‘The World’s Dirtiest Jobs’. Yech.

By: Alexdi

Alexdi — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:48:45 +0000

Wow. You really do hate that company.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:13:46 +0000

I have said “I wouldn’t be caught dead driving a piece of junk” numerous times. So technically, you could say I wouldn’t be caught dead in a GM product.

;-)

By: SAAB95JD

SAAB95JD — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:07:52 +0000

Actually, the use of cadavers in modern testing is well known. It was even a large part of a book called “Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers” by Mary Roach. Quite informative.

By: USAFMech

USAFMech — Fri, 09 May 2008 03:53:43 +0000

“Maybe they were just Buick customers that were a little too old…..”

If Buick customers were any older, they’d be dust. What would that tell us?

By: Megan Benoit

Megan Benoit — Fri, 09 May 2008 01:38:18 +0000

Wolven: Maybe we should go volunteer force — “If you survive the crash, you get a reduced sentence!”

The more i think about it, the more it seems both make sense… cadavers will show the physical affects of the crash, while the dummies will be able to measure the forces properly. And think about it, who wants to strap a dead child into a car and crash it? No one minds a child-sized crash dummy. Either way, it’s a bit morbid, even if it is scientifically useful. I’d just rather see my body get used for something else. Like crash testing an R8…

By: Wolven

Wolven — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:48:25 +0000

While I can see that using cadavers would be useful, due to the effects of rigor mortis and other physiological changes after death, I think it would be even better to use convicted murderers… Could kill two birds with one stone, so to speak… :)

By: hwyhobo

hwyhobo — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:43:52 +0000

If I recall correctly, Daimler did it many years ago (there was a short-lived uproar over this), so apparently there must be a pretty good reason for this if companies are willing to risk PR issues like this one.

By: Trollhattan Saab

Trollhattan Saab — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:35:20 +0000

^ Sorry for the typos. Apparently I didn’t write my own comment and therefore can’t edit it.

By: Trollhattan Saab

Trollhattan Saab — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:32:51 +0000

I’ve been covering this one for a few days now and got word from GM today that they don’t do any of this testing directly themselves, rather they have contribute to various scientific centeres that do this sort of thing.

I also had a commenter at my site who seems to know a fair bit about this stuff write in and state, as few here have stated, this is nothing new. The main reason being that whilst dummies give good scientific readings etc, they don’t tell you about broken bones and other stuff thet you can learn from cadaver tests. Even computer modelling done on the best parameters in the world needs to be tested.

It’s got taboo value, shock value and obviously it’s got comedy value (do they name all the test subjects Bernie?) but apparently it’s all part of the standard menu.

By: Stephan Wilkinson

Stephan Wilkinson — Thu, 08 May 2008 23:07:19 +0000

Read Mary Roach’s recent book “Stiff” and you’ll learn about all the things your body can be used for if you donate it without restrictions, and yes, crash-test-dummy usage is one of them–nothing new here. You can also be used for ballistics tests, forensics decay testing and a number of other things you don’t want to think about.

And you thought you were going to be Joe’s liver.

By: hltguy

hltguy — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:27:27 +0000

and the cadavers are eligible for zero percent interest loans at their local GM dealer…..

By: Stein X Leikanger

Stein X Leikanger — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:21:36 +0000

@eamiller

Yes, and dummies were developed because they’re actually better, allowing for exact telemetry measuring stress forces with greater precision.

By: eamiller

eamiller — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:18:35 +0000

I don’t know why this is so newsworthy. Anyone interested in the history of crash testing knows that cadavers have been used in place of dummies since the beginning. Crash test dummies are good, but they are far from perfect human stand-ins. The joints and skin are very close approximations, but are such none the less.

By: Stein X Leikanger

Stein X Leikanger — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:14:13 +0000

Searching Swedish words, plus the spokesman for the traffic authority’s name, turns up some references outside the local, actually. Two of the major, national newspapers have the story. There is no confirmation that Saab was directly involved, but GM is said to have performed such tests.
Heidelberg University in Germany has also used cadavers for crash tests.

The Swedish insurance company Folksam and Saab have had a decades long collaboration where Saab engineers have been allowed to study automobiles where fatal or serious injury occurred, and where they have also conferred with medical staff, coroners, etc., in order to gather as much information as possible about how to prevent injuries.

The database contains information on thousands of such automobile accidents.

Don’t think this refers to that, though.

By: Skooter

Skooter — Thu, 08 May 2008 22:00:41 +0000

Megan- big fan of GM and the G5. Excellent contribution here. Isn’t this a bit of a reach?

By: Mj0lnir

Mj0lnir — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:59:27 +0000

Lumbergh21-

No, but it might give better slow-mo evidence of how a human body reacts during a crash, and it’s probably cheaper to buy a dead american than build a 250 pound, anatomically correct dummy.

It probably also does a better job demonstrating penetrating, cutting, and burning injuries that a plastic dummy outfitted with accelerometers can’t show you.

As a bonus, it’s easier to strap a cadaver into a Cobalt than a dead pig. Or so I’ve heard.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:54:27 +0000

This can’t be real. As pointed out already, it woudln’t serve the prupose of using real crash test dummies, measuring the forces that the body is subjected to under given circumstances.

By: gawdodirt

gawdodirt — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:39:29 +0000

At least THEY are testing real world.

That math stuff goes bad fast. Ask a Crown Victoria owner.

By: JK43123

JK43123 — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:23:33 +0000

Maybe they were just Buick customers that were a little too old…..

John

By: g48135

g48135 — Thu, 08 May 2008 21:13:18 +0000

There’s a very good reason that crash test dummies look the way they do.

Those blank stares…

The showing vertebrae…

The joints that seem to flop everywhere…

The “dead” weight (lol)…

Its by no means an accident (pun intended) that crash test dummies look as close as possible to dead bodies.