Are Old Cars Really “Rock Solid”?

If you think the good old cars were safer in a crash, take a look a tthis video from the NRMA

Do you think old cars are safe? Watch this

It’s one of the most persistent myths in motoring: old cars are as solid as rocks and can crush new cars like beer cans.

The misconception arises from the recent development of the crumple zone, where designated parts of modern cars lose their shape under even minor impacts.

But what appears to be a weakness is actually a strength – crumple zones absorb energy and effectively sacrifice themselves for the sake of the passenger compartment, the safety and rigidity of which is constantly increasing with every new model.

It’s one of the fundamental design principles promoted by organisations like ANCAP and its international car safety partners, including the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in the United States.

But despite decades of innovation and improvement through rigorous testing, the myth of the tough old car persisted – so the IIHS created this truly shocking video to disprove it:

The vehicles involved are a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu (sold in Australia by Holden since 2013) and a 1959 Chevrolet Bel Air, an iconic sedan featured locally in the original Mad Max movie.

The cars are crashed into each other in a 40 per cent offset collision at 64km/h, which is what ANCAP’s frontal offset collision test seeks to replicate – most recently and notoriously when the new Kia Carnival was scored only four stars.

The Malibu, which was rated five stars by ANCAP in 2013, behaves as you’d expect with the front of the car being crushed while the passenger compartment remains intact.

By comparison, what happens to the Bel Air is nothing short of terrifying. Even the dryly technical IIHS description of the impact captures the gut-wrenching terror of what would surely be the driver’s final seconds of life:

Dummy movement wasn’t well controlled, and there was far too much upward and rearward movement of the steering wheel. The dummy’s head struck the steering wheel rim and hub and then the roof and unpadded metal instrument panel to the left of the steering wheel.

During rebound, the dummy’s head remained in contact with the roof and slid rearward and somewhat inward. The windshield was completely dislodged from the car and the driver door opened during the crash, both presenting a risk of ejection. In addition, the front bench seat was torn away from the floor on the driver side.

In other words, it’s hard to say whether the driver would’ve been killed first by brain damage, a broken neck, multiple organ failure or blood loss from leg amputation.

In terms of the car’s structure, the impact pushes the engine into the footwells while the A-frame and chassis rail simply disintegrate back beyond the line of the roof.

“The Bel Air collapsed,” said David Zuby, the senior vice president for the IIHS’s vehicle research centre.

“The area in which the driver was sitting collapsed completely around him.”

The test was to mark the 50th anniversary in 2009 of the IIHS, a group funded by the US insurance industry.

The idea was to show how much automotive safety had progressed in five decades, particularly since the IIHS – in partnership with ANCAP and other national road safety bodies – started crash testing in earnest in 1992.

And while the test is now six years old, its message is as pressing as ever: buy the newest, safest car that you can afford and drive as carefully as you can.

Were you expecting this crash test to deliver this result? Let us know what you think.

To read more NRMA Advocacy content, click here.

More Double Standards

The US is currently going through the legal consequences of gay marriage in litigious society. You may have heard of christian bakers and florists being hounded,bullied, fined and persecuted because they refuse to participate in gay weddings. In each case the business people involved have been happy to serve people regardless of their sexuality, but because of their faith will not provide flowers or wedding cakes that endorse an event of a gay wedding.

Lately there was outrage over a law passed in Indiana that protects the rights of religious people to not be prosecuted or sued for merely following through their beliefs. Ironically a dozen other stated have passed identical laws without the same outrage.

Some commentators have wondered about the outrage over christians refusing to participate in gay weddings (or other events for that matter). We know that Muslims share the same belief about homosexuality that christians do because just about every Muslim country in the world has banned homosexuality with some quite severe penalties.

So if a gay guy goes into a Muslim bakery and asks them to bake a cake for a gay wedding then you can expect rejection. So a guy did this several times over with a hidden camera, with the expected result. But there’s no outrage from the media, Hollywood, Discirimmation Commisars or even the gay lobby.

Do Muslims get a free pass on every issue? Or is thereal agenda of all of the leftist lobby groups just to oppose christians?

An Atheist Does A Church Crawl- And Likes It.

This is a very interesting review of three churches by a well-known atheist. His comments on prayer and communion are particularly revealing.

From Christianity Today:

A well-known atheist visited three churches in one day… this is what he made of it

Sanderson Jones, a former stand-up comedian who leads the Sunday Assembly – also known as the ‘atheist church’ – spent Sunday attending three London churches and tweeting about his experience.What started as a visit to his friend Dave Tomlison’s church became an impromptu tour of London Christianity. The three churches he visited were St Luke’s, Holloway, where Tomlinson (author of ‘How to be a Bad Christian’) is vicar, Hillsong in central London, and St Mary’s Bryanston Square.Contrary to popular belief, Jones said he found them welcoming places, and said churches should realise that there is much they are doing well.”I think churches should recognise that they are already doing so much right,” Jones says, referring to the idea of having people welcoming on the front door, and people knowing where and when to set up for coffee after church. “I went to the American Humanist Association and they had a special lecture on why it’s important to be welcoming. It’s just the most basic things which you’ll take for granted in Churchland, which are in fact really powerful.”

Read the full article here

Why You Need Maths (and Maths Teachers)

One of the complaints that Maths teachers hear more than any other subject is “But we will never use that in real life.” Nobody ever says that about Shakespeare or quantum physics, which is strange.

So here’s an example where a bit of thinking about maths could save a motza in real life.

A number of online betting companies are currently offering huge prizes for correctly guessing the final make-up of the AFL ladder- that is getting all the teams in the right position at the end of the season. One ad that I saw is offering a prize of $100 million for a $5 bet.  Wow! What a deal!

Hold on, let’s consider the odds. We will assume that at the beginning of the season all teams have an equal probability of standing in any position on the ladder. Although some teams are more likely to fill the top 4 or the bottom 4 you really have no way of knowing in advance the possible effects of injuries or even disciplinary action by the AFL over drug use or salary cap infringements.

There are 18 teams in the AFL. That means that the number of ways that the ladder can stand at the end of the season are:

18x17x16x15x14x13x12x11x10x9x8x5x4x3x2x1= 6400000000000000 (rounded off, but the odd digit here makes no difference). Remember those classes on combinations and permutations?

That means if you place one bet you have a 1 in 6400000000000000 chance of winning.

And the odds being offered are 100 million to 5 or 20 million (20000000) to 1.

So let’s knock off a few zeroes to find out what the margin is for the bookmaker on this competition:  6400000000000000 to 20000000 or 320,000,000 to 1.

In other words the scale is stacked 320,000,000 times in favour of the bookie.

To put that in words:

  • the odds of winning are astronomically remote 1 in 6.4 x10^15
  • the payout is so ridiculously stacked in favour of the bookie that even if every combination is covered by a $5 bet, they pay out the $100 million but rake in 320 million x $5 or 1600 million
  • to make sure that their payout is capped they limit the number of bets a single person can make and also stipulate that if more than one person picks the final result, they share the prize.
  • Even if all 20 million (give or take) people in Australia take up the opportunity and put on the maximum number of bets (say 20 each) that is still only 400 million bets and the probability of the bookies paying out is still only 1 in 15 million.

That is why you need to pay attention to your maths teacher. The bookie did and that’s why he drives a Lexus when you drive an old Ford.

Reflection on Mark 16:1-8

Scripture

The angel said, “Don’t be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He isn’t here! He is risen from the dead! Look, this is where they laid His body.”

Observation
The two Marys go out after Sabbath ends on Saturday evening and purchase spices to anoint Jesus’ body.

They go to the Tomb at sunrise on Sunday and discover that someone has rolled the stone from the entrance of the tomb. Inside, they discover a young man clothed in white. He tells them Jesus is not there, He has risen from the dead. They are to go and tell the disciples to go to Galilee where they will see Him.

Application
Jesus is alive!

Sins are forgiven!

Death is conquered!

The Kingdom of God is here!

The reality of the resurrection is our sign that Jesus us who He says He is.

The war with God is over, if only we will surrender to Him and bow our lives to Jesus.

Prayer
How awesome is the message of Easter. Lord you have defeated sin and overcome death. Praise to you Lord Jesus Christ! Amen.

35 Years of Satellite Temperature Measurement

It’s interesting to see how satellite measurement of earth temperatures over the last 35 years compares with IPCC predictions. The satellite measurements are important because they are entirely free of human interference in “adjustments”, “homogenisation” and other statistical manipulation that so-called climatologists engage in to support the carbon monster myth.

To summarise the graph, actual warming since 1980 is just 0.2 degrees while the climate models wrongly predicted an average temperature rise of  1 degree.

And we still spend billlions of dollars a year on this nonsense!

Jo Nova- Welcome to the CO2 Disaster

Jo Nova slices a UNSW press release pointing out despite ongoing deforestation in the tropics and “climate change” the amount of vegetation globally is increasing. They ascribe this to the scientific principle of “good luck” (that would have had you laughed out of a 1st Year physics class 30 years ago), although they do give grudging acknowledgement of the effects of increased CO2 and warmer temperatures.

Welcome to the CO2 disaster — 4 billion tons more plants, more greenery

During the recent warmest decades on record, Earth suffered under the highest CO2 levels of the last 800,000 years. Life responded to this devastating situation by — flourishing. There are now some 4 billion tons more living matter on the planet than there was in 1993. What a calamity. (And what a lot of carbon credits.)

It has, naturally, got nothing to do with warmth andaerial fertilizer. The researchers tell us it due to that force of nature known as “good luck”. Remember, human CO2 emissions were pollution that was going to afflict life on Earth. After twenty years of predicting the loss of forests and species, it turned out that biology bloomed instead. Notch up another model “success”. The press release headline:Good luck reverses global forest loss.(What else would we expect from UNSW?)

To those who know basic biology — and that almost half the dry weight of plants is carbon, sucked straight out of the air — this is not so much good luck as one entirely foreseeable and foreseenconsequence of rising CO2. Acquiring carbon is often a plant’s hardest task. When the sun comes up, a cornfield begins sucking, andby lunch timeits already got all it can get, so growth slows til night returns to pump up the CO2 levels again. Pulling out all that plant fertilizer from under Middle Eastern deserts and spreading it around where the plants could get it has a predictable effect on plant life (though it’s fair to ask if our emissionsactually contributeverymuch).

Remember in post-modern climate science, your air-conditionercauses snowstorms,but if CO2 rises and plants grow — that’s “luck”.

Read the rest here

Jared Wilson: 10 Reasons Big Easter Giveaways Are Unwise

Apparently cash give-aways at Easter are a thing in America. The folly of this is the focus on getting people to church at any price rather than getting them to Christ.

We are nearing the day many Christians look forward to all year. Yes, there’s the somber reflection and penitence of the Passion week, culminating in the resurrection of Jesus to celebrate on Easter Sunday, but there’s also some fabulous cash and prizes. Every year some churches seek to outdo themselves — and their local competition — by luring unbelievers (and I suppose interested believers) to their Easter service(s) with the promise of big shows and in some cases big giveaways. One guy in Texas made national news a couple of years ago for giving away new cars. More and more churches each year are dropping prize-filled Easter eggs out of helicopters to gathered crowds below. Local churches with more modest budgets sometimes promise door prizes like iPods or iPads or gift certificates to local restaurants.

I’m not against “Easter egg hunts” and kids having fun and all that, but I think the sort of large-scale, giveaway promotion that takes over this time of year in the church calendar is profoundly unwise and in many cases very, very silly. I want to offer ten general reasons why, but first some caveats: I’m not talking about a church giving out gifts to visitors. Gift cards, books, etc. to guests can be a sweet form of church hospitality. What I’m criticizing is the advertised promise of “cash and prizes” to attract people to the church service. Secondly, I know the folks doing these sorts of things are, for the most part, sincere believers who want people to know Jesus. But I don’t think good intentions authorizes bad methods. So:

Ten reasons luring people in with cash and prizes is not a good idea.

1. It creates buzz about cash and prizes, not the Easter event.When the media takes notice, nobody wants to interview these pastors about the resurrection. They want them to talk about the loot.

2. It identifies the church not with the resurrection, but with giving toys away.It makes us look like entertainment centers or providers of goods and services, not people of the Way who are centered on Christ.

3. Contrary to some offered justifications, giving prizes away is not parallel to Jesus’ providing for the crowds.Jesus healed people and fed them. This is not the same as giving un-poor people an iPod.

4. It appeals to greed and consumerism.There is no biblical precedent for appealing to one’s sin before telling them to repent of it. This is a nonsensical appeal. We have no biblical precedent for appealing to the flesh to win souls.

5. Yes, Jesus said he would make us fishers of men, but extrapolating from this to devise all means of bait is not only unwarranted, it’s exegetically ignorant.The metaphor Jesus is offering here is just of people moving from the business of fishing to the business of the kingdom. There is likely no methodology being demonstrated in Jesus’ metaphor. (But the most common one would have been throwing out nets anyway, not baiting a hook.)

6. It is dishonest “bait and switch” methodology.Sure, the people coming for the goodies know they’re coming to church. But it’s still a disingenuous offer. The message of the gospel is not made for Trojan horses.

7. It demonstrates distrust in the compelling news that a man came back from the dead!!I mean, if nobody’s buying that amazing news, we can’t sell it to them with cheap gadgets.

8. It demonstrates distrust in the power of the gospel when we think we have to put it inside something more appealing to be effective.What the giveaways really communicate is that we think the gospel needs our help, and that our own community is not attractive enough in and of itself in its living out the implications of the gospel.

9. The emerging data from years of research into this kind of practice of marketing-as-evangelism shows the kind of disciples it produces are not strong.I have no doubt these churches are going to see many “decisions” Easter weekend. We’ll see the running tally heralded on Twitter. As questionable a practice as that can be, I’d beextrainterested in how discipled these folks are in a year or two years or three. Hype hasalwaysproduced “decisions.” Would anyone argue that after 30 years or so of the attractional approach to evangelism the evangelical church is better off, more Christ-centered, more biblically mature?

10. What you win them with is what you win them to.

Full article here