科学与数学danluu.com
汽车在未针对优化的碰撞测试中表现如何？
How well do cars do in crash tests they're not optimized for?
2020 — 2024，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
Dan Luu 梳理了 IIHS 等机构的小重叠面碰撞测试等结果，比较各品牌和车型在被专门优化过的测试与没被优化的测试中的表现，说明车厂会针对具体测试规程做针对性设计（例如本田只加强了驾驶员侧），因此官方清一色的"五星"评级未必反映真实的相对安全性。文章还讨论了不同年代车型安全性的可比性问题。
为什么经久不衰：它揭示了一个远超汽车领域的普遍现象：一旦指标变成考核目标，就会被针对性地优化，因此今天读来对任何依赖基准测试做判断的人都仍有警示价值。
HN 评论精选
公开的汽车安全数据混乱且评级普遍满分，普通消费者难以据此判断真实风险
整个汽车安全话题非常令人困惑。车祸是美国 20-40 岁人群的前一、二位死因，在欧洲大概少一些但仍是主要死因之一。我想知道自己怎么才能更安全：哪个品牌/车型更好？坐哪个座位更安全？夜间驾驶、雨天驾驶风险高多少？在双向单车道超车有多危险？无红绿灯的十字路口、转弯、市区、高速或小路，哪个最危险？我找不到任何有意义的研究。各国政府机构都有评级，但基本上所有车都是最高分，这让我很难相信。
laegooose查看英文原文
The whole car safety topic is very confusing. Car accidents is top1-top2 death reason in US for people in 20-40 age group [1]. Probably less in Europe but still one of the leading ones. I was thinking about how I can make myself safer. Which car brand/model is better? Which seat is better for passenger? How much riskier it is to drive during the night? In the rain? How dangerous is it to overtake on road with 1 lane in each direction? What is most dangerous: crossroad with no traffic lights? Turns? City? Highways or smaller roads? I was not able to find any meaningful research. There are ratings by different government agencies (US, UK, Australia etc), but basically all cars have highest rating which I find hard to believe.
对本田只优化驾驶员侧的说法存疑，希望看到更多细节或合理的工程解释
"所有这些车型在驾驶员侧小重叠面测试中都拿到 Good，说明本田在加强驾驶员侧以通过测试时，并没有把同样的改动应用到副驾驶侧。"这对本田来说尤其令人担忧。我想知道是否有更多细节，或者除了应试优化之外是否还有合理解释（例如防火墙前部件的布置天然更有利于驾驶员侧的小重叠面防护，或方向盘气囊天然比仪表台气囊表现更好）。
ericpauley查看英文原文
> All of those models scored Good on the driver side small overlap test, indicating that when Honda increased the safety on the driver's side to score Good on the driver's side test, they didn't apply the same changes to the passenger side. This is an especially concerning observation for Honda. I'm curious if there's any more detail on this or if there's a plausible reason aside from gaming the benchmarks (e.g., the positioning of firewall-forward components might naturally favor small-overlap protection on the driver's side, or a steering-wheel mounted airbag would naturally perform better than dash-mounted).
批评文章数据过时、缺乏引用，品牌排序与实际测试结果不符
这篇文章似乎严重过时，而且没有引用具体碰撞数据来说明它为何这样给车分组。比如他把宝马和奔驰排在沃尔沃之后一点，至少在小重叠面前碰测试上这完全不对。小重叠面前碰测试是 2012 年才引入的。2013 款本田雅阁在该测试中表现优异，而宝马和奔驰又过了好几年才勉强通过；据我记忆，2013 款雅阁至少应该和沃尔沃同级。我有一辆 2013 款斯巴鲁，也在小重叠面前碰测试中拿了五星，比宝马奔驰早了好几年。如果你还记得这些测试刚推出、你正在看车的那段时间，就会觉得整篇文章有点不对劲。特斯拉据我所知在这两项测试里几乎从没拿过五星以外的成绩，不知道这个结论从哪来的。如果文章能链接到具体碰撞数据来支持其说法会好得多，IIHS 的这类数据都是公开的，买车时很值得看。真正明显在"钻旧标准空子"、随后在新测试中表现最惨的，是宝马、奔驰和丰田/雷克萨斯。
ben7799查看英文原文
This article seems to be ultra out of date and it doesn't cite the specific crash data showing why they grouped cars the way they did. For example he's grouping BMW and Mercedes right below Volvo.. at least in the case of the Frontal Small Overlap test that doesn't seem right at all. The Small Overlap Frontal test was introduced in 2012. The Honda Accord in 2013 was acing that test, BMW and Mercedes were failing it miserably for a few more years. The 2013 Accord IIRC should have been rated at least as high as the Volvos. I have a 2013 Subaru, it got 5 stars in the frontal small overlap test as well, years ahead of the BMWs and Mercedes. Something is just off about the whole thing if you remember back to when these tests were introduced and you were looking at buying a car. Tesla pretty much never got anything but 5 stars in these 2 tests IIRC, not sure where that came from. The article would have been much better if it linked to the specific crash data to support the claims. IIHS has all that data publicly available IIRC. It is good stuff to look at when buying a car. BMW, Mercedes, and Toyota/Lexus were the real outliers who had appeared to try to "game" the old benchmarks and then failed these new tests the most spectacularly.
想知道如何跨年代比较安全性，并推荐了 IIHS 死亡率数据和老车对撞新车视频
有人知道如何客观比较不同年代车型的安全评级吗？评级标准会定期变化，安全性能进步很大。我很好奇从 2010 款换到 2015 或 2018 款能降低多少风险。下面提到的 IIHS 驾驶员死亡率数据可能是最好的来源，想知道还有没有别的。另外，[2] 是一个很有意思的碰撞测试：1998 款卡罗拉对撞 2015 款 Auris（换标的卡罗拉）。
DavidPeiffer查看英文原文
Does anyone know of a way to objectively compare safety ratings between different eras of cars? The standards for safety ratings change periodically, and great strides have been made in safety. I'm curious how much risk I'd remove by upgrading from a 2010 to a 2015 or 2018. Driver death data [1] mentioned below may be the best source, just curious if there are any others. Also, [2] is a really interesting crash test between a 1998 Corolla and a 2015 Auris (rebranded Corolla). [1] https://www.iihs.org/ratings/driver-death-rates-by-make-and-model [2] https://youtu.be/IVEjsvip8kc
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如果月球只有 1 像素：一个极其精确的太阳系模型（2014）
If the moon were only 1 pixel: A tediously accurate solar system model (2014)
一个网页版太阳系模型，以“如果月亮只有 1 像素”的真实比例呈现：你必须一路横向滚动，才能体会行星之间空旷到何等程度。
科学与数学上首页 7 次 · 2014–2025joshworth.com编辑精选沉浸式线性代数（2016）
Immersive Linear Algebra (2016)
《Immersive Linear Algebra》是一本完全免费、开放在线的线性代数“超文本教科书”，其最大特色是大量可交互的图形：读者可以直接拖动、操作图中的向量、矩阵和变换…
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2015–2024immersivemath.com编辑精选如何将贝果切成两个相连的半环（2009）
How to Slice a Bagel into Two Linked Halves (2009)
数学家 George Hart 的经典教程，演示如何用一刀把贝果切成两个相互扣住的环，并附上切割步骤与数学原理。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2022georgehart.com“犹太问题”：一组用于歧视的数学题
Jewish problems
一篇 arXiv 论文，整理并讨论苏联时期犹太学生在申请大学数学系时被问到的特殊数学难题：这些题往往有简单解法却极难想到，被用作面试中拒绝犹太考生的手段。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2011–2021arxiv.org你的身体并非为长久而造：人类死亡率数据的一课
Your body wasn’t built to last: a lesson from human mortality rates
文章从人类死亡率随年龄变化的统计规律出发，解释身体并非为长久使用而设计：年轻时死亡风险较低，之后随年龄近似指数上升，像复杂系统在不断累积损伤。
科学与数学上首页 5 次 · 2009–2018gravityandlevity.wordpress.com