[HN Gopher] Testing shows automotive glassbreakers can't break m...
___________________________________________________________________
Testing shows automotive glassbreakers can't break modern
automotive glass
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 167 points
Date : 2025-11-29 15:43 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.core77.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.core77.com)
| silexia wrote:
| Useful tech post!
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| Not sure about the "car falls into the lake" scenario, but I know
| some women who carry these for fear of a crazed Uber driver who
| might lock them in the car.
| ronsor wrote:
| The crazy Uber drivers would replace their windows with
| plexiglass if that caught on.
| chdjdbdbfjf wrote:
| Your threat model is incoherent.
| AngryData wrote:
| You are assuming a crazed uber driver is smart and
| knowledgeable enough to do that, but 90% of people driving
| ubers to start with are doing so because they don't have
| those kind of skills or knowledge.
| DANmode wrote:
| Well, this is a whole different kind of ignorant.
| ronsor wrote:
| I think the crazy kidnappers might have another reason for
| doing it other than lacking skills.
| Meekro wrote:
| You can just unlock the door and exit the car in that case--
| there's no way to "lock someone in" unless you've modified the
| lock somehow. And if someone did that, they probably reinforced
| the glass too.
| avhon1 wrote:
| Child safety locks do this. They prevent the rear doors from
| being unlocked and opened from the inside.
| nine_k wrote:
| I wonder why is this not part of the standard safety tests. It
| can be done before a crash test, for instance.
| happyopossum wrote:
| What exactly are you proposing gets tested? The windows are
| _supposed_ to be hard to break so people don't fly out of
| them...
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| Hard enough to not fly out accidentally but weak enough that
| people can break them on purpose so they're not trapped
| inside.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| I think there's an impossibly thin line between making
| glass that's easy to break through on purpose, but hard for
| a high speed head to break through in an accident.
| stavros wrote:
| I'm fairly sure that the two lines are way past each
| other, on the wrong side. The force with which you'll be
| flung against the glass is much higher than what you can
| punch.
| _aavaa_ wrote:
| This isn't about punching, it's about using one of those
| handheld devices with a pointed metal tip.
| AngryData wrote:
| Most tempered glass does it just fine and has for
| decades.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| It's worse than impossibly thin. It's a massive gray area
| of acceptable solutions where no matter where in the area
| you choose some bike shedding jerk will be able to
| construe it as though you chose wrong.
| esseph wrote:
| We have airbags, what if there was a low cost manual way to
| trigger a window break, potentially even without vehicle
| power?
| torstenvl wrote:
| That's what seat belts are for. Making unbreakable glass is
| morally repugnant.
| dpark wrote:
| This law is intended to protect belted occupants as well.
| The target here is rollover crashes where belted occupants
| may still be jostled partially free from the belt and be
| partially ejected.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Not relevant. Safety designs that kill people are
| indefensible.
| dpark wrote:
| This is literally the logic anti-seatbelt folks use. "I
| don't wear a seatbelt because if I'm in a crash, the
| seatbelt could end up trapping me in a fire."
|
| Safety design very often involves trade offs. The chances
| you get partially ejected and killed during a rollover
| are meaningfully higher than the chances you die because
| you can't break the glass to get out. Do you even keep a
| glass breaker in your car or do you imagine after
| surviving a wreck that's trapped you inside your car that
| you will have the strength to just punch through a glass
| window?
| walletdrainer wrote:
| > Safety designs that kill people are indefensible.
|
| Then it logically follows that either the only defensible
| approach is to not have any safety solutions, or that
| there simply isn't a defensible approach.
|
| The tradeoffs are unavoidable, a seatbelt or airbag might
| very well kill someone despite saving countless lives.
| Even tech like lane departure warnings will almost
| inevitably distract and kill _someone_.
| tekla wrote:
| I'm going to guess that you don't work on safety
| engineering. All safety designs have tradeoffs. Airbags
| can kill you but we still use them because the probable
| benefits outweigh the risks.
| torstenvl wrote:
| Airbags do not kill people. There were fewer than 300
| airbag-related deaths of the course of two decades, and
| the _vast_ majority of those deaths were caused by not
| wearing a seatbelt.
| dpark wrote:
| And in that time how many deaths were attributed to
| laminate glass?
| vkou wrote:
| > Airbags do not kill people.
|
| > fewer than 300 airbag-related deaths
|
| So, they _do_ kill people.
|
| They kill people at a low enough rate that make them both
| worth installing, and mandating, compared to the
| alternatives.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Frontal airbags, generally speaking, make people who
| would've died survive and make people who would've walked
| away with nothing look like they went a few rounds with a
| professional boxer. It's a flattening effect.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Wait till someone tells this guy about the trolley
| problem.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Exiting through a window is probably not a common case. Or even
| entering from outside to retrieve a person.
|
| I think likely much better would be to mandate solution that
| forces doors to fully unlock in case of a crash or large water
| ingress.
| stavros wrote:
| The problem isn't that doors don't unlock, it's that you
| can't open the door against the massive water pressure, or
| against the door crumpling in itself and ruining the
| mechanism.
| thefourthchime wrote:
| The article glides over the fact that FMVSS 226 is a performance
| standard, not a materials mandate. Manufacturers can stick with
| tempered glass if they beef up the side curtain airbags enough to
| prevent ejection, which is exactly what happens on a lot of base
| models and rear windows to keep BOM costs down. The list of
| brands using laminated glass is accurate, but it applies mostly
| to their premium trims or front rows only.
|
| There is also the issue of fleet turnover. With the average age
| of US vehicles pushing 13 years, the install base is still
| overwhelmingly tempered glass. Writing off the tool entirely
| because new luxury cars have moved on ignores the reality of what
| people are actually driving. You are statistically much more
| likely to be trapped in a 2012 Civic than a 2025 S-Class.
| bayindirh wrote:
| > The article glides over the fact that FMVSS 226 is a
| performance standard, not a materials mandate.
|
| Nope. The article states the following just after the table:
|
| > It's true that not all automakers have switched over to
| laminated glass for the side windows; the FMVSS 226 law
| stipulates that you can get around it if you install elaborate
| side airbags that also prevent ejection.
| alwa wrote:
| As the grandparent points out, although the article says
| that, the actual regulation does not. The regulation says you
| have to prevent side ejections, it doesn't say how. You can
| read it yourself:
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/571.226
|
| > _Ejection mitigation countermeasure means a device or
| devices, except seat belts, integrated into the vehicle that
| reduce the likelihood of occupant ejection through a side
| window opening, and that requires no action by the occupant
| for activation._
|
| Lamination and side airbags seem to be the way it's usually
| done today, but nothing prevents a better way.
| nrklvklfl wrote:
| How?
| alwa wrote:
| One way (which the regulation mentions) is by not having
| a window next to a given seat in the first place
|
| Another might be the bars or steel mesh that they weld
| over the windows in prisoner transport vehicles
| sndean wrote:
| The smartest thing to do would be to check your car's windows
| for any indication (the AAA report, page 19, cited in the
| article has examples) of whether they're laminated or tempered.
| AFAICT, whether my new-ish Subaru Ascent's windows are
| laminated depends on location (front or rear) and installation
| differs between the Ascent trims. Best to check for your
| specific car and where you're likeliest to be sitting.
| alistairSH wrote:
| It did cover that. And half the tools couldn't break the
| tempered glass either.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| > You are statistically much more likely to be trapped in a
| 2012 Civic than a 2025 S-Class.
|
| This is probably also very much true on a per mile basis.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| If you can afford an 2025 S-class you can afford to fly for
| medium distance travel, you probably aren't slogging out a
| long commute because you live in one of those rich inner
| suburbs. You leave the house at reasonable hours and get home
| at reasonable hours, etc, etc.
|
| There's all sorts of stuff that's just a proxy for
| generalized correlation with wealth and wealthy lifestyles.
| porphyra wrote:
| oh just get Franz von Holzhausen to throw a ball bearing at it
| superkuh wrote:
| The problem isnot cracking the glass. The problem is breaking
| it apart enough to get through. Your reference joke is not
| quite appropriate to this context.
| nine_k wrote:
| Have a crowbar handy. It's known to be useful in a variety of
| situations, including a literal space alien assault.
| excalibur wrote:
| We're gonna need a source on that one.
| p1mrx wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(game_engine)
| windowsrookie wrote:
| But also don't leave it loose in your vehicle. A crowbar
| hitting your head in a car accident does not sound like a good
| time.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| Better than a gnome rattling around in the car.
| drob518 wrote:
| True. But I fail to see the relevance.
| caphector wrote:
| https://half-life.fandom.com/wiki/Garden_Gnome
|
| It's another Half-Life reference
| mikestew wrote:
| I assume this is the relevance:
|
| https://left4dead.fandom.com/wiki/Gnome_Chompski
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| As others mentioned, it is an achievement from Half Life
| episode 2. Player has to carry a garden gnome to the end
| of the game. Which is not too bad, minus the extensive
| driving sections (sometimes under fire) where the gnome
| is bouncing around the vehicle.
|
| It is a fun feather in your cap, but definitely not
| suitable for a first run through of the game.
| drob518 wrote:
| Ah, thank you. I'll admit to never having played it.
| Aloha wrote:
| I carry a small hatchet in the trunk of my car with the spare
| tire just for this reason.
| drob518 wrote:
| A small charge of C4 works wonders. Just be sure to lay your
| head over in the passenger seat before detonation.
| roflchoppa wrote:
| Whats weird is that I know of at least 8 "modern cars" 2018+ that
| all have had cracked windshields.
|
| 3 of them are mine, my 2002 car has taken huge rocks like a
| champ...
|
| Its big glass im telling you, esp because the recalibration stuff
| for Assistive Steering is like 7-800 bucks.
| daemonologist wrote:
| > the recalibration stuff for Assistive Steering is like 7-800
| bucks
|
| Yeesh at that point I'd just be buying a Comma.
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| Usually the glass companies force you to pay it. For
| "safety". It's just a "you have a nice car so we're gonna
| charge you more" fee.
|
| I'll probably be doing my own windshield on my Tesla to avoid
| this. Safelight has decent prices but whacks you with a huge
| fee for pressing "calibrate" in the service menu, which is
| user accessible.
| tforcram wrote:
| Similar experience with a 2010 Honda Odyssey, drove it for 10
| years and never saw a crack even though I'm sure it took a
| beating.
|
| Then we got a 2022 Passport and I swear every single trip has a
| new crack or chip. I was surprisingly fortunate to be talked
| into the windshield warranty as the sales guy has been through
| this exact thing and replacing these windshields with assistive
| tech is expensive. That warranty has already paid for itself
| and more including once full windshield replacement.
| cobertos wrote:
| Huh, odd. I have a car with assistive controls and they also
| tried to talk me into this warranty but I declined. They
| mentioned replacement would require extra money.
|
| I did end up getting a windshield replacement shortly after
| purchase (like 6 months into ownership a rock came out of a
| truck and hit my windshield). I got it replaced for the
| normal $100-$200 not from the dealership and the vision
| system has had no issues.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| The table from the report shows that the tools do crack the
| window but don't break it. Which is probably the main
| difference between old glass and the newer layered glass? If
| you crack an outer layer it is no longer usable, but you can't
| escape through it.
| inkyoto wrote:
| Laminated glass does not prevent routine stone chip events - if
| a tiny fragment of the stone becomes wedged in the outer ply or
| at the laminate interface at a tension point and, coupled with
| the temperature difference (inside the cabin vs ambient), cabin
| pressure and body flex that often place higher tensile stress
| lower on the windscreen, the crack can start propagating very
| quickly.
|
| That was my experience earlier in the year: I was driving
| alongside a large fuel tanker on a city road when a tiny stone
| chip, probably thrown up from under the tanker's tyres, struck
| the front windscreen. It took about an 1 1/2 hour for the
| initially invisible crack to spread into an irreparable 30 cm
| one - effectively right in front of my eyes - and the
| windscreen had to be replaced. Lesson learned: do not drive
| anywhere near large trucks or fuel tankers or maintain a larger
| distance.
|
| But the laminated glass will prevent the structural collapse of
| the windshield and will also prevent the occupants from being
| showered with glass shards. It is also more likely that the
| windshield will withstand an impact from a large stone, leaving
| a localised and static crack that can be repaired with resin.
| simoncion wrote:
| > ...and will also prevent the occupants from being showered
| with glass shards.
|
| Hasn't it been the case for a long time now that glass in
| automobiles is coated so that it breaks into small,
| generally-square fragments, rather than shards?
|
| I've never smashed a window myself, but every couple of
| months, I see the remains of a window smashing on the
| sidewalk... it's _always_ a pile of small, generally-square
| fragments.
|
| My memory tells me that this design was mandated long ago
| _because_ folks would get shards embedded in them effectively
| forever. One of my parents related a story that one of the
| parents up the tree would irregularly have to extract
| migrating glass shards breaking through the skin of his face
| that had been embedded during an automobile accident many
| years prior. But, perhaps that story is bullshit and
| completely fabricated, IDK.
| recursivecaveat wrote:
| That's tempered glass which breaks into the safer
| fragments. Still not completely safe obviously, especially
| if stuff is getting thrown around violently in an accident.
| The bigger safety case for laminated glass though is since
| it sticks together your body or limbs can't fly out through
| it in a rollover accident (even if belted can happen on the
| sides). There's also some fringe benefits: noise isolation,
| UV protection, and supposedly more annoying for thieves.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| Much like cell phone screens, altering the glass to make
| catastrophic failures less likely makes cracking more likely.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| Hey, it could be worse. I had the windshield on my newish
| S-class start smoking and quickly crack after.
| sizzzzlerz wrote:
| What are the police to do when some insane sovcit refuses to exit
| the car over a speeding ticket? Those windows aren't going to
| break themselves.
| stavros wrote:
| The fact that you're trying to optimize for "police serving
| speeding tickets to insane sovcits" over "getting flung out of
| the car in an accident and being crushed by the car" makes me
| glad you don't design cars.
| AngryData wrote:
| Why should they exit a car over a speeding ticket? A speeding
| ticket is not a jail sentence and does not warrant an arrest.
| In fact unless a driver is actively trying to harm somebody or
| has an active arrest warrant there is no reason whatsoever for
| them to leave their car or allow cops to remove people from
| cars.
| nerdsniper wrote:
| In some states, it is the law that officers can order you to
| step out of the vehicle during any valid traffic stop,
| regardless if it is criminal or civil.
|
| In some states it is the law that if you are from out of
| state and get a speeding ticket, you either have to pay the
| officer in cash while you are stopped or they can take you to
| jail until money is posted or it is your court date.
|
| This happened to a friend of mine from Wisconsin, visiting me
| in Michigan about ten years ago. I was shocked to learn this
| was actual Mochigan law, and could hardly believe it even
| after verifying it. He felt very "lucky" to have had several
| hundred dollars in cash to simply hand over to the officer.
| Michigan only just rescinded those laws in 2019:
| https://landline.media/michigan-laws-end-roadside-cash-
| payme...
| Spivak wrote:
| I can't wait for police badges to double as contactless
| payment terminals.
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Our (Poland) police does have payment terminals...
| potato3732842 wrote:
| New Mexico has it.
|
| It's actually great. Their tickets are (or were) cheap
| and not reported to insurance if paid on the spot.
|
| Far superior to the "pretend it's more than 1% about
| safety and peddle it to the worst kind of people"
| approach that most other states take with speeding
| enforcement IMO.
| ufmace wrote:
| You don't necessarily have to if you're just getting a
| speeding ticket. But in order to write a speeding ticket, you
| have to hand over a valid Driver's License so they know who
| to ticket. Exactly what should they do if the driver refuses
| to provide their Driver's License?
| Arrowmaster wrote:
| In the sovereign citizen cases they are talking about, the
| typical case is that the vehicle is not registered/doesn't
| have plates and the driver refuses to identify themselves.
| They only barely lower the window if at all. They usually go
| back and forth a few times until the police tell them they
| are under arrest for multiple reasons relating to driving
| without a license and failure to identify.
|
| The glass breaking happens after multiple offices have
| arrived for backup as the person usually gets dragged from
| the car screaming. The videos are extremely entertaining to
| watch.
|
| The combination of unregistered vehicle, failure to prove the
| driver has a license, and the drivers insisting they should
| be allowed to drive away is absolutely a combination where
| arrest is legal.
| monster_truck wrote:
| None of these glass breakers are any good at what they're
| supposed to do anyways, I'd wager all of their websites delinate
| that they are for tempered glass only. What you want is porcelain
| or ceramic.
|
| Unfortunately, afaik, porclean/cermaic glass breakers are illegal
| in most states. They are "Burglary Tools".
|
| Nothing wrong with keeping a box of spark plugs in your center
| console though
| mikkupikku wrote:
| That old spark plug thing was from when cars had tempered side
| windows, wasn't it? I don't see how those would be particularly
| effective at dealing with lamination.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Would a spark plug work on laminated glass?
| Johnny555 wrote:
| A ceramic glass breaker isn't going to be any better than the
| metal tools on laminated glass, breaking the glass is only half
| the battle, you've still got to get through the intact glass
| pane held in place by the plastic laminate.
|
| >Nothing wrong with keeping a box of spark plugs in your center
| console though
|
| But then you've got to keep a tool to break the spark plug to
| give you a sharp ceramic shard to get through the glass.
| drob518 wrote:
| Exactly. It's the plastic middle layer that screws you.
| sebazzz wrote:
| Does a knife help there?
| walletdrainer wrote:
| Sure, it'll probably be pretty slow though. Ideally you'd
| have a serrated blade
| loeg wrote:
| Broken spark plugs are also known as "ninja rocks," for what
| it's worth. Also considered illegal burglary tools in some
| states.
| mikestew wrote:
| I fail to see how any of your suggestions are going to do any
| better on laminated glass. Breaking the glass isn't the problem
| here, it's the lamination.
| The_President wrote:
| Or when in something with windows like a Cybertruck maybe a 45
| Meekro wrote:
| Just imagining firing that in a car is making my ears ring.
| m463 wrote:
| > None of these glass breakers are any good
|
| ...unless you're demonstrating unbreakable cybertruck glass to
| the world.
| adiabatichottub wrote:
| Thieves in my city use the kind of automatic center punch that
| you can buy at any hardware store.
| croes wrote:
| So no fast rescue of children and dogs in cars in the summer heat
| anymore
| bombcar wrote:
| You can just carry the Ripper.
|
| https://www.aoe.net/product/the-ripper-window-glass-cutter/
| eurleif wrote:
| Expensive, and pretty bulky to carry around along with an
| impact driver. There are less expensive, more compact hand-
| operated tools, e.g.:
|
| https://www.lifelinerescuetools.com/products/lifeline-escape...
|
| https://www.ajaxrescuetools.com/prod-20-1-127-28/extrication...
| jonah wrote:
| I've used one (in training). Works great, nice clean cuts, but
| still a little slow. Quicker to just use an axe which, if
| you're a firefighter, you have handy. (Carefully chop around
| the perimeter of the windshield or side window. Use gentle
| blows to minimize dispersion of broken glass within the cabin.)
| inejge wrote:
| Okay now I'm imagining a classical ballet recreation of the
| "Heeere's Johnny" scene. With firemen.
| drob518 wrote:
| Simple. Just make sure you test your glass breaker on your car
| side window before you drive off the road or bridge into a deep
| lake.
| mikkupikku wrote:
| > _" The fantasy being peddled by the toolmakers is: You will
| crash, remain conscious, find that your car has burst into flame
| or is slowly sinking in water, find that you cannot undo your
| seatbelt, yet are still able to reach for this specialty tool,
| slice through your seatbelt, then smash the window open and climb
| free to safety."_
|
| Uh huh... Now consider this scenario; you lose control and crash
| into a tree. You are _out_ and your car catches fire. Who gets to
| the scene first? Firefighters, or probably just whichever randos
| happened to be right there when it happened? Probably the later.
| Probably for the best if one of them is able to break your window
| and pull you out.
| stavros wrote:
| Yes, which is why the article reaches that exact conclusion.
| tharwan wrote:
| Victorinox tried to address this with this tool, not sure how
| successful https://www.victorinox.com/en-DE/Products/Swiss-Army-
| Knife%E...
| rsyring wrote:
| 404 from US IP address.
|
| Rescue tool?
|
| https://www.victorinox.com/en-US/Products/Swiss-Army-Knife%E...
| mikestew wrote:
| 404. This one, perhaps?
|
| https://www.victorinox.com/en-DE/Products/Swiss-Army-Knife%E...
| jerlam wrote:
| There is a video of this tool being used to cut windshield
| (laminated) glass. It is not remotely practical:
|
| https://youtu.be/LEHl6_ye9as?si=68rwouxAHWcurZ5O&t=73
| sho_hn wrote:
| Because it's slow to use? The video does show it working
| fine. For the "someone locked me in the car" use case it
| seems OK?
| Izkata wrote:
| I think it's fine for the "sinking in a lake" case too? The
| water pressure prevents the door from opening, and my
| understanding was you want the car to fill with water fast
| enough you can take a breath, let the pressure equalize,
| then open the door. You're likely not going to get out
| through a broken window while the water is pouring in
| through it (I guess if you're fast enough to still be above
| the water line), so by the time that stops it doesn't seem
| like there'd be much difference between opening the door
| and maneuvering through the much smaller window.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC68mflUEwc
| axiolite wrote:
| Seems like they did it the by-the-book way for the
| commercial, rather than the panicked-escape real-world way...
| i.e. I'd do one vertical cut in the middle, then I'd be
| frantically pulling the glass shards out by hand (or claw
| hammer if available).
|
| It's a shame AAA's testing wasn't more extensive. They should
| have determined the best tool for a quick exit... Crowbar,
| wood saw, large serrated knife, or can opener for example.
|
| Multitools with glass breakers seem likely to be more durable
| and not fall apart like the cheap plastic hammers. e.g.
| Leatherman SIGNAL and $35 clones like B0BRRXVW9T. They also
| have knife blades, saw blades, pliers, and can openers for a
| good selection of alternative options to test out.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Here's that YouTube link without the tracking parameter:
|
| https://youtu.be/LEHl6_ye9as?t=73
| csours wrote:
| Disclosure: I work for a car company, not on this.
|
| If you want to be prepared for automotive incidents:
|
| 1. Check your mood and intoxication level before and while
| driving. Mood is more important than everything besides drugs and
| alcohol.
|
| 2. Left turns (or across traffic as applicable) are dangerous.
| Take extra care while turning left (or across traffic).
|
| 3. Using screens at night is bad for everyone, but especially
| above the age of 40, both focus and iris (light balance) response
| take longer. Using a screen changes your focus and blows out your
| night vision.
|
| 4. If your car has pushbutton electronic door openers, PRACTICE
| opening the door without battery power.
| underlipton wrote:
| >3. Using screens at night is bad for everyone, but especially
| above the age of 40, both focus and iris (light balance)
| response take longer. Using a screen changes your focus and
| blows out your night vision.
|
| On that note, if anyone with Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, et al. would
| like to revisit the way their apps handle ride assignment -
| specifically, the way platforms generally refuse to assign
| orders when the car is stationary, but then inundate
| contractors with notifications that must be responded to
| immediately when the car is in motion - it'd be much
| appreciated.
| modzu wrote:
| if you coudlld just remove the screens except for nav/media
| thatd be great
| conductr wrote:
| I've had 3 different 2013 model cars by different
| manufacturers, it was a great year for "just the right amount
| of tech" in a vehicle
| walletdrainer wrote:
| Pretty sure almost any car shop can manage that for cheap. At
| the most basic level you could just wrap the bits you don't
| want visible
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| One of my pet peeves about screen UIs is that they're worse
| than they need to be for night use. Modern dark themes are
| blue-heavy, which negatively impacts both pupil response and
| bleaching more than colors of the same luminance with more
| green and red.
| ansgri wrote:
| There should be two dark modes: a simple dark mode, like most
| dark themes today, to work in dimmed lighting, and an actual
| night mode, designed to be legible but not mess with
| adaptation in total darkness. I don't know the research on
| this (and I'm sure military and aviation have lots of data
| here), but intuitively it should use mostly thin red and
| green lines.
| trinix912 wrote:
| Some cars (Honda Civic) had this feature where you could
| change the theme of the UI and it had 3-4 presets (blue,
| red, amber, green IIRC). That was before those screens were
| just a built-in Android tablet and sadly it didn't carry
| over.
|
| But you're right and it's the reason most german cars had
| red illuminated gauge clusters until a few years ago.
| kotaKat wrote:
| Give me back the Saab Night Panel. All I want is my speedo.
|
| https://i0.wp.com/saabblog.net/wp-
| content/uploads/2024/08/Ni...
| fhars wrote:
| Like nightmode in Stellarium: https://www.stellarium-
| labs.com/blog/nightmode/
| PunchyHamster wrote:
| Funnily enough the first comment in the article is "oh yeah, if
| you're in Tesla good fucking luck, their doors fail and the
| releases are incredibly hard to find in emergency"
| dunham wrote:
| I didn't find them hard to find (in the front seat). When I
| first got my car it kept complaining because I instinctively
| reached for that lever instead of the button. The computer
| claimed I could break the window if I kept using the manual
| lever, and I had to figure out where the button was.
|
| Not saying the car is great, just that I found the door lever
| easily. I'd still rather have real controls (and a real
| sensor) for the wipers and the reliance on software and
| software updates makes me very nervous. You can't even open
| the glove box without a voice command or touch screen (as far
| as I can tell).
| codazoda wrote:
| Same. I've only ridden in one, but the owner wasn't super
| happy when I instinctively pulled the manual lever to open
| the door.
| imtringued wrote:
| There is no wrong way to open the door. Any suffering on
| the owner's part is caused by the manufacturer building
| the car that way. A car like that clearly isn't meant to
| carry untrained passengers. If the car owner insists on
| buying an unsuitable car, then that's on the owner. It's
| no different from buying a two seat sports car as a
| family of four.
| michaelt wrote:
| A better design would be for the 'button' to be a normal
| lever in the normal location, and the emergency manual
| release to be triggered by pulling that lever extra hard.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| We could simplify this further!
| QuiEgo wrote:
| The front ones seem easy enough, the rear ones are a lot
| harder
|
| https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/2020_2024_modely/en_us/GU.
| ..
| karlgkk wrote:
| The front ones vary and certain models are atrociously
| designed. If you get in an accident and have a concussion,
| and adrenaline, add a 10x difficulty factor
|
| This is almost certainly what killed those kids in piedmont
| dan353hehe wrote:
| whoa.
|
| > Not all Model Y vehicles are equipped with a manual
| release for the rear doors.
|
| How is that even allowed?
| culi wrote:
| I think that's exactly what they recently got sued for.
| Car caught fire, electrical stopped working (and
| therefore the doors stopped working) and a teen burned
| inside
| conductr wrote:
| It's wild how my car won't let me change basic settings
| while vehicle is in drive (too much menu nav as to be
| distraction & I've had cars that would only let me edit
| the navigation destination while in park) yet - this
| exists as well
| potato3732842 wrote:
| You're forgetting the "people who don't care, they just
| want to be seen looking like they care so they make a
| bunch of noise" factor.
|
| Once you multiply the safety problem by the this factor
| it all makes sense.
|
| A small non-problem that every screeching jerk will be
| exposed to is a bigger actual problem more likely to get
| addressed than a potential real problem that will mostly
| go unnoticed.
|
| Also rear doors are kinda optional. They still make 2door
| 2-row cars. Heck, they made 2-door 2-row SUVs pretty
| recently. And child safety locks are a thing. So there is
| an argument to be made there (not that I think it holds
| up on modern stuff).
| DougBTX wrote:
| Spicy:
|
| > Use caution when using the manual door release; the
| window will not automatically lower when the door is opened
| and damage to the window or vehicle trim may occur.
|
| Manually opening the rear doors is a destructive operation!
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Is it actually "destructive" or is it more of a "cramming
| the door seal over the window and flexing the widow
| assembly in a way that would result in more failure under
| warranty than they want if done regularly" type thing.
| themafia wrote:
| > If your car has pushbutton electronic door openers, PRACTICE
| opening the door without battery power.
|
| Please stop building cars with this "feature." We honestly
| should make them illegal.
| qwertytyyuu wrote:
| I think the removal of standard manual doors is the actual
| crime
| RedShift1 wrote:
| And we as consumers should also take responsibility and
| simply not buy these vehicles.
| yurishimo wrote:
| The good news is that at least as it pertains to getting
| rid of physical controls, automakers have largely learned
| their lesson and are trying to go back as fast as
| reasonably possible (while also trying to balance
| recouping the tooling costs from fewer buttons). VW was
| heavily heavily criticized and is bringing it all back.
|
| I'm confident that if consumer sentiment starts to skew
| one way regarding electronic door handles, we will also
| see a reversal. What is unfortunate now is that other
| automakers are following the lead that Tesla set. Tesla
| essentially proved one type of electronic door and it is
| engineered in such a way to be cheap and reliable enough.
| I'm confident that if engineers are given the space to
| really innovate and explore ideas, they can find
| something that is both better mechanically while
| remaining highly aerodynamic.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| At least Tesla does have a very easily accessible button
| to manually open the door
| butvacuum wrote:
| Didn't they only add those after losing a lawsuit?
|
| And, I swear I heard about another one for cyber trucks,
| but with the vitriol surrounding them I'm not even going
| to try and find it.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| I have no idea, don't own a Tesla and haven't been in one
| that often.
|
| Looks like some models might have the manual door release
| switch easily accessible in the front but not in the
| back, about what you'd expect from Tesla.
|
| At least the fact that they have a decent solution shows
| that there's no reason this has to be a problem for
| electric doors.
| toast0 wrote:
| It's not a bad feature. My fancy car has them, and it can
| watch for traffic and stop/slow you opening the door if
| there's a car coming up that maybe you didn't see (or look
| for).
|
| And on mine, the same handle that you push to open with
| electricity will also open manually if you pull it twice.
| Which is handy, because the 12v battery failed in the first
| year. Feels like 12v batteries are a lot less reliable
| lately.
|
| Getting in from the outside with the manual handle isn't so
| obvious, it's kind of hidden at the back of the handle.
| yonisto wrote:
| What do you mean by mood?
| literalAardvark wrote:
| To quote Groundhog Day, "Don't drive angry".
|
| Any mood intense enough is extremely distracting and
| dangerous for driving, whether anger, infatuation, mourning,
| etc.
|
| Because of this some countries have psychological testing to
| check your emotional stability when you get your license
| renewed, but realistically your emotions will be compromised
| for short durations much more often than that.
|
| The test is a long term ( 15-30 minutes ) strict focus test.
| You don't have time to fully check everything you do on it,
| so you do your best and the psychologist verifies both that
| you have a sufficient ability to focus as a % of tasks
| reasonably responded to, and that you don't have large
| "emotional gaps" in your responses where your mind wandered
| to your bonnie for 45 seconds and you didn't interact with
| the tasks much or at all.
| Timon3 wrote:
| Regarding screens: also make sure to configure the brightness
| correctly! I was recently driving with a relative in their new
| car at night, and the screen for navigation etc. was bright
| enough that I could see noticeably less than I'm used to. Turns
| out the screen does have separate brightness settings for day &
| night, but the night setting was at 4/10 per default (compared
| to 6/10 for the day setting). After lowering it to 1/10 the
| screen is still easily readable, and suddenly it's easy to see
| dark stuff again!
| jjmarr wrote:
| Can I still remove the headrest and use it to break glass?
| Izkata wrote:
| This is apparently a mix of myth and misleading information:
| They can't be used to directly break the glass like these
| devices were designed to, they were never designed for this
| purpose as people claim, and even the "lever it between the
| glass and door" method only works with tempered glass and not
| the laminated glass that's used in newer cars.
|
| Plus not all headrests can be removed anyway.
| zoklet-enjoyer wrote:
| Oh cool. I bought the same model as that image for my
| girlfriend's kid yesterday
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| "It's easy to convince EDC people to buy EDC things. But how do
| you convince non-EDC folks to buy your product?"
|
| Am I the only one who doesn't know what EDC is?
| esprehn wrote:
| I didn't know either, Google of just "EDC" figured it out
| though:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_carry
| Suppafly wrote:
| Every Day Carry. Nerds on reddit pump each other up to carry a
| bunch of nominally practical stuff around every day like pocket
| knives and glass breaking tools and seat belt cutters and such.
| JSR_FDED wrote:
| Hilarious! Thank you!
| fainpul wrote:
| EDC is when you carry 3 different sized pocket knives, a
| flashlight, a watch, a weird high tech pen, a card holder, a
| gun - and everything is color matched and presented nicely in a
| photograph you post on reddit.
| atarian wrote:
| I bought a fire extinguisher recently but I've never used one. I
| have a faint idea of how it works and what kind of result I'd get
| based on what I've seen on TV. But if a serious fire ever breaks
| out I don't even know if I'd even remember to grab and use it.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| If you are looking to practice, the MythBusters said a fire
| extinguisher was an excellent way to quickly cool a case of
| beer. So, you can make it a $30 party trick and a teaching
| moment.
| avhon1 wrote:
| They were using carbon dioxide fire extinguishers, which are
| expensive (a couple hundred dollars, see [1] ) and not common
| in homes.
|
| [1] https://fireextinguisherdepot.com/carbon-dioxide-fire-
| exting...
| Telaneo wrote:
| If you have an old one that you want to get rid of, it's a good
| idea to set up a controlled fire and try out your extinguisher
| on it. That way you can get some experience.
|
| Really though, it mostly is just pull pin -> aim low (at the
| base and source of the fire) -> squeeze until extinguished.
| Sweep the nozzle from side to side to get proper coverage.
|
| They're intended to be used by anyone with no training, so
| there's not much to go wrong (assuming you haven't bought the
| wrong type and use it on an oil fire, although most of the ones
| I see for sale for consumers are the powder kind, which work on
| anything. The water ones are the worst, and I've never seen
| one).
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| and it needs to be remembered not to hold the nozzle - aim
| with the whole extinguisher
|
| nozzle gets veeery cold as gas expands, so you can get frost
| burns
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I've seen a video of someone pointing an extinguisher the
| wrong way and blasting themself in the face! In their
| defense, they were under some stress.
| -warren wrote:
| In fire school we learned PASS -- pin, aim, squeeze, sweep.
| Even well-trained professionals need simple mnemonic devices.
|
| Also, we never used a seatbelt ripper -- they don't work. All
| first responders carrier trauma shears. Those _do_ work and
| have multiple purposes.
| whartung wrote:
| As someone who has found themselves in a situation out in the
| wild with a fire and a fire extinguisher (neither of which were
| mine), with no direct extinguisher experience, you can take
| some solace in that they work very easily. They're not some
| wild hose that going to send you around the room. There's very
| little force. And you can simply fire it in bursts. It takes no
| time to get a feel for it and use it with precision.
|
| If you find yourself with a fire and an extinguisher, do not
| hesitate to pull the pin, and go to it. You'll figure it out.
| In the end, you can't really make the situation worse.
| phantasmish wrote:
| My son picked up and used one effectively having about the same
| level of experience you do (none, but he knew the basic idea
| and had read the label). Can't remember if he was 7 or 8 at the
| time, but either way I'm pretty sure you'll be ok.
|
| I mean, still doesn't hurt to get more familiar, but...
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| In a "serious" fire you should ignore the fire extinguisher get
| everyone out of the building.
|
| Fire extinguishers are for small fires! If a little oil in your
| frying pan catches on fire and you don't have a lid readily
| available to smother it, use a fire extinguisher. But if your
| smoke alarm wakes you up and you discover your whole kitchen on
| fire, get out. The fire extinguisher will not help in that
| situation, and it may cause you to waste time. (Tip: If and
| only if the fire extinguisher is _easily available_ , carry it
| with you as you exit. You might need it to use it clear a path
| to get out.)
| trinix912 wrote:
| > If a little oil in your frying pan catches on fire and you
| don't have a lid readily available to smother it, use a fire
| extinguisher.
|
| We were told to just toss a large cloth on the fire in such
| cases.
| az09mugen wrote:
| That's right, the best is to have a watered dishcloth that
| will suffocate the fire, hence stopping it. The fire
| extinguisher may be a bad idea because the pressure will
| spread burning oil around across the kitchen and the water
| is definitively the worse idea because it will
| counterintuitively make a bigger flame and also spread
| burning oil.
| ThePowerOfFuet wrote:
| Watered dishcloth? Water is the absolute last thing you
| want near very hot oil, never mind burning oil.
| az09mugen wrote:
| You're right, the best is a metal lid.
| dogman1050 wrote:
| When it happened here, I instinctively threw the flaming
| pan out the adjacent open door into the yard. We ate
| something else that day.
| owenversteeg wrote:
| That works, but be sure to use a wool or cotton cloth.
|
| -----
|
| The proper method to deal with an oil fire: turn off the
| heat and smother the fire with a metal lid, metal baking
| sheet, or wool/cotton cloth. Do not use a fire blanket made
| of polyester or nylon; it will melt and burn producing
| toxic smoke. Do not use flour or any other
| flammable/explosive powder. Do not use water, as the liquid
| water will get into the oil and expand 1600 times its
| original size as it turns to steam; this rapid expansion
| will fling burning oil everywhere. If you do use an
| extinguisher, be careful not to spread the burning oil.
|
| For small NON-OIL, non-electrical fires, smothering with a
| wet non-synthetic cloth is the best way to stop the fire.
| RichardLake wrote:
| Check the class of the fire extinguisher and if it is suited
| for liquid fires before using it on a oil fire.
| bluGill wrote:
| A fire extinguisher is to clear a safe path to the exit if
| the fire blocks it. never put them by the exit door as I see
| so many people do (in their garrage)
|
| they can also be used on small fires but only if there is a
| safe escape route. (This is probably the most common use but
| not the primary use)
| bell-cot wrote:
| 99% of the benefit of putting the extinguisher by the exit
| door is that it helps draw panicking people to the exit
| door. Which gives them another saving throw against Heroic
| Idiocy, at +4 - "Should I grab this totally unfamiliar
| little fire extinguisher and carry it back toward the big
| scary fire, to do something I've never even tried doing? Or
| should I just run out the handy exit door that I'm right
| next to?"
| dpifke wrote:
| If you're in the U.S., you might check if your local fire
| department has a CERT[0] training course. (I did it many years
| ago in San Francisco; they call it NERT for some reason.)
|
| It'll give you a chance to practice putting out an actual fire,
| refresh first aid skills, learn the incident command system,
| learn basic search and rescue, and other preparedness skills to
| help yourself, your family, and neighbors in an emergency (in
| that order).
|
| [0]: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/individuals-
| communit...
| adiabatichottub wrote:
| A couple years ago somebody parked a stolen car in front of our
| building, stuffed a rag in the fuel filler, and lit it. I must
| have pulled up just a couple minutes after they had left.
| Grabbed the fire extinguisher I kept under the seat and put it
| out. I had that extinguisher around for about 5 years. You
| never know when you'll need it.
| pants2 wrote:
| When I was young we'd find expired fire extinguishers and go
| blast each other with em. Very easy to use. Good times. Hope
| they're not toxic...
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Water extinguishers are almost completely useless.
|
| I once had a go at putting out a fire in a waste paper bin with
| a water extinguisher, as part of a fire safety course. The
| burning paper just floated on the water as the bin filled up.
|
| CO2 extinguishers are more effective. But I believe you have to
| be careful where you hold it or your skin may freeze onto it.
|
| Get a fire blanket for your kitchen.
| michaelt wrote:
| The time you want water is when something that water can soak
| into is on fire. Sofas, curtains, bedding, bookshelves,
| carpets, filing cabinets full of paper, etc.
|
| The water soaks in and prevents the fire re-igniting. 30
| years ago, workplaces contained a lot more filing cabinets
| and bookshelves, and smoking was more common.
|
| CO2 is non-conductive, and less messy. It's also great at
| flowing around things, making it good for spraying through
| vents into electrical cabinets and car engines. Downside is
| the CO2 dissipates within a few seconds, so if the material
| is prone to re-igniting it's not such a good choice.
|
| Dry powder is in between - the powder stays around, but
| doesn't soak in. It's a good choice if you're only going to
| get one extinguisher.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Water extinguishers are incredibly useful for putting out
| small incidental fires that can result from hot work without
| making a big mess. The kind of stuff you'd just move outside
| or let burn out rather than discharge a powder extinguisher
| over.
|
| Nobody is whipping out a dry-chem extinguisher because the
| leaves under the workbench caught on fire from welding
| sparks.
| avhon1 wrote:
| Water mist fire extinguishers are nice. They are much more
| able to cool lightweight, flammable objects, and pose less
| risk of causing electrical arcs.
| maxglute wrote:
| Man there needs to be some sort of amusement park where you try
| out common emergency safety mechanisms.
|
| I've never broke / pulled a fire alarm, I'm sure I can, but let
| me.
|
| ALSO EVERY AIRPORT SHOULD HAVE MOCK EMERGENCY AIRPLANE DOORS FOR
| PEOPLE TO TRY OUT.
| RedShift1 wrote:
| That is a great idea. Would be fun to play on for the kids too.
| fastasucan wrote:
| Lets not teach kids to open plane doors for fun.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| No, this is backwards. Fun is trying new things (I think
| it's evolutionary mechanism that ensure kids are learning
| by default), and once the thing has been tried, it's not
| new anymore, so won't be tried again. Best thing we can
| actually do is to channel that, as OP proposed.
|
| If only we had cheap, multi-use inflatable exit ramps that
| deflate, fold and stow themselves after use. Which is not a
| thing, apparently.
| fastasucan wrote:
| >and once the thing has been tried, it's not new anymore,
| so won't be tried again
|
| There must be something in the water here, because kids
| here do it over and over again, usually ending up they
| getting hurt/nearly hurt or told to stop.
| whatevaa wrote:
| Yeah, no, that's not how it works. Need to do it many
| times before something is not fun. Just look at computer
| games.
| throw_a_grenade wrote:
| Well, the way my parents discouraged me from smoking was,
| they brought a pack of cigarettes home and let me have
| one. Was awful, never wanted to try it again. That was an
| important life lesson for me.
| fainpul wrote:
| You can't open the emergency doors while the cabin pressure
| is higher than outside pressure, if that's what you're
| worried about. And I think they don't let kids sit at the
| emergency exit either, because the person sitting there
| needs to be physically capable to remove the door, which
| has some weight to it.
| fastasucan wrote:
| I just dont want my kids to think its ok to play with the
| doors on a plane.
| thih9 wrote:
| I don't think anyone wants to send that message.
|
| I guess the point is to teach how to use these mechanisms
| - so that there is no confusion in case an actual
| emergency happens.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Then don't let them. Take responsibility for your
| children :)
| thih9 wrote:
| But what if it improves everyone's safety?
| acomjean wrote:
| Opening doors isn't fun. School busses would be un workable
| with that back door if it was.
| Stevvo wrote:
| Safety mechanisms are often inherently unsafe, because they are
| safer than the alternative, so you don't want people playing
| with them. e.g. You cat cut yourself on the glass of a fire
| alarm, or break an ankle on an emergency exit slide.
| dejj wrote:
| Valid. Maybe something can be learned from using them more
| frequently, either by the maker or by the user.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Safety mechanisms are not inherently unsafe. A very small
| minority that leverage fast-deploying mechanics are, however
| the majority of safety is neutral. Life vests, eye
| protection, fall harness, emergency brake, electrical gloves,
| etc don't actively harm the person.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| That is a great idea. Lots of people learn CPR. Perhaps there
| is a market for a school that teaches basic, hands-on safety
| skills.
|
| -How to put out a cooker fire with a fire blanket.
|
| -How to use a fire extinguisher.
|
| -How to cut a seat belt.
|
| -How to break a window.
|
| etc
|
| Could be quite a fun day out. I would definitely pay for
| something like that for me and my family.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Your local boy scouts almost certainly have a working
| relationship with their local fire department that results in
| the FD taking them to wherever they train once every couple
| years and going through all those motions and more.
|
| A 5lb dry extinguisher in the right hands can put out one of
| those oval stock tanks full of burning diesel, twice.
| mcpherrinm wrote:
| We had (optional) safety training when I worked at Square,
| which included CPR training, going over office evacuation
| procedures, etc. One of the most fun parts was they had a
| virtual fire extinguisher training, which involved basically
| a video game fire extinguisher controller to put out a fire
| on a tv. It's definitely not as exciting as using a real fire
| extinguisher training, but can also be done in an office
| meeting room.
| stouset wrote:
| I'm still upset they didn't let us start fires in the
| meeting rooms to practice using real extinguishers.
|
| Miss working with you!
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Virtual training is better than nothing. But I don't think
| it really compares doing IRL.
| nohuck13 wrote:
| "ALSO EVERY AIRPORT SHOULD HAVE MOCK EMERGENCY AIRPLANE DOORS
| FOR PEOPLE TO TRY OUT."
|
| I would pay money for this in the safety amusement park, but in
| real life way more people would get hurt operating the fake one
| at the airport than we'd help in real emergencies. Plane
| crashes where the emergency exit gets operated are so rare they
| effectively don't happen.
| walletdrainer wrote:
| I had the opportunity to deploy (and use!) a slide at a
| Lufthansa event, super cool experience but given that just
| the slide deployment probably cost them over $30k I can't
| really see it being a common thing.
|
| Of course just opening an exit door replica you could do for
| ~free
| reisse wrote:
| I think mock slide deployment could be made much cheaper
| than 30k - e. g. high-volume compressors can be used
| instead of gas canisters, the materials can be cheaper
| because there is no weight or temperature requirements,
| etc.
| butvacuum wrote:
| And no bills from the coast guard. (All these devices
| have distress beacons that activate automatically)
| walletdrainer wrote:
| Fair, since it doesn't actually need to work well enough
| for emergencies you're presumably looking at bouncy
| castle levels of spending.
| fhdkweig wrote:
| Paying to break things is a valid business plan. In Tokyo,
| stressed business men can pay to break dishes by throwing
| them against a wall.
|
| https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/dishing-out-
| anti-s...
| tclancy wrote:
| Ah, you have intrusive thoughts as well. I mention it only to
| say that someone at my local grocery does not, based on the
| fact they thought to type up, print and post a sign saying
| PLEASE DO NOT POKE THE WATERMELONS thinking that would lead to
| a decrease in watermelon finger strikes.
| butvacuum wrote:
| Sounds like they're having issues with people thinking you
| can poke, prod, or drum on watermelons to check "ripeness"
| but it got lost in translation to "non-confromtstional."
| tclancy wrote:
| Maybe? I am well aware/ don't care about watermelon
| ripeness because I find watermelon to be a complete waste
| of time 90% of the time. But now I want to poke them.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| Yes! I did a fire training course back in the old days when it
| involved a real fire extinguisher rather than just PowerPoint
| and it was interesting how many of us failed to put out a small
| fire in a cardboard box. You really do have to get close enough
| to aim at the base of the fire if you hope to achieve anything.
|
| Also, if you fail to extinguish a fire with the first fire
| extinguisher, it's usually game over. It'll be much worse by
| the time you get back with another one.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Also a lot of people dramatically overestimate the abilities
| of a fire extinguisher.
|
| A regular extinguisher will put out a bit of burning paper or
| your cats tail on fire, but when a set of curtains is on fire
| you should probably just evacuate.
| harimau777 wrote:
| The local fire department did training at a previous place I
| worked where we each put out a fire with a refillable fire
| extengishable that squirted water instead of chemicals. I'm
| sure it wasn't a perfect simulation, but that strikes me as a
| reasonable middle ground for training non-firefighters.
| xnyan wrote:
| I think the mock exit door would only be interesting with the
| corresponding emergency slide. The only problem is that in
| almost all cases where the emergency slide has been deployed
| and used, at least some passengers have been injured beyond a
| minor scrape - think severe sprains and tears, a broken bone,
| etc.
|
| The purpose of the slide is to 1) empty the plane _very_
| quickly 2) without causing a life threatening injury. Most
| people are not going to be injured using it, but some will and
| it's not really worth the small chance your leg gets fucked up
| forever from being ejected the wrong way.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| This is an obvious and simple idea and definitely should be
| driven by the FAA. Also, make sure the door goes somewhere cold
| like a freezer. Too many passengers dress for their destination
| airport and not their destination climate.
| patrulek wrote:
| If you cant break something, steal it.
| ziofill wrote:
| So the spark plug ceramic trick only works on older cars?
| dcanelhas wrote:
| In 15 years: Testing shows that automotive shaped charge
| glassbreakers can't penetrate the armor on most modern automotive
| glass.
|
| Was drone-proofing civilian cars a mistake?
| TomMasz wrote:
| Firefighters and other emergency service personnel _can_ get
| through laminated glass, but it takes much more time and effort,
| as well as tools you 're not likely to have in your car.
| starwatch wrote:
| For anyone looking for an in-vehicle EDC to solve this problem
| I'd recommend a Keetch tool. I used them in the fire service with
| great success on the laminated glass of a windscreen. I assume
| it'd work equally well on a laminated side window glass - though
| I've not tried. Nice thing is that the sharp spike on it would
| work quite well on tempered glass too (though we had proper glass
| breakers for that).
| ginkgotree wrote:
| I just keep a tomahawk axe in my car. That works.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-11-30 23:02 UTC)