Testing Shows Automotive Glassbreakers Can't Break Modern Automotive Glass : hackernews

[–] Devial@discuss.online 12 points 3 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

This article feels weirdly opposed to these things on principle, purely because it's unlikely that they'll be useful, but why the fuck does that matter ?

It's not like they're expensive, and there's literally zero downside to having them in your car. Literal worst case scenario is that they simply do nothing. And in the event that they DO become useful, as incredibly unlikely as that might be, they can be a literal life saver.

Also, you don't just have to use them if YOU get into a crash. You can use them to render aid if someone else gets in a crash, and is stuck in their vehicle and they're in acute danger (otherwise, never move crash victims, wait for the paramedics to stabilise their spine)

By their some idiotic logic they use to rail against these devices, you might as well remove lightning rods from buildings or life vests from aircraft.

Let me illustrate my point with a hypothetical:

You're stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. Your car is pinched between the guardrail and the other vehicle, so both passenger side and drivers side doors can't be opened. The passenger seat/center console has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you're unable to unbuckle. There's a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.

Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?

Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds of survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?

Question 3: Are there tools, in a similar price range, that an average joe could just as easily carry around in their car with them, which would increase the survival odds more than a regular window hammer and seatbelt cutter

In my own personal assesment, my answers to those questions are "Yes", "Significantly Better" and "I can't think of one". And that's why I have both in my car. If something that costs less than 20$ to buy, has zero downside to own/have with you, and can increase my survival odds, even if only in an extremely unlikely scenario, then personally I consider it worth buying that thing.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

there’s literally zero downside to having them in your car. Literal worst case scenario is that they simply do nothing.

That IS a major downside. Relying on something that won't work in a life-or-death situation wastes precious time. Knowing they don't work is important so better alternatives can be prepared and planned for.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Counting on a tool that isn't going to work is a major downside. Especially in the life and death situations that cause you to need one.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The alternative they're advocating for is not having one at all, so no. It not working is litearlly no different from the alternative the article suggests.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Except now you have spent money on something that doesn't work. It's not "no different", it's a waste of resources.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

They're not literally useless. A steel tipped hammer with a sharp tip is ALWAYS going to be one of the best tools to break a glass window. Even if it's not as reliable or easy as it's made seem in ads, it's still going to be better than your hands or random junk you have in the car. And that's not even mentioning that their whole criticism only applies to laminated glass windows.

Plenty of cars, especially older ones, still use tempered glass, which can easily be shattered with one of these.

And even the article doesn't argue that seat belt cutters don't work, only that you're unlikely to be in a situation where you can effectively use them.

And call me crazy, but if there's even a 1 in a million chance that a 15$ tool could save mine, or someone else's life, with literally no downside whatsoever to owning one, I personally consider that worth spending 15$ on.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Better than nothing but, according to the research, as useful as nothing. If you know in advance it will work on a particular car's glass then that's a different story. But if you give it as a gift or buy one without knowing and it turns out to be useless it grants a false sense of security. Someone may repeatedly try using it in an emergency instead of trying a different strategy.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What different strategy do you suggest to gaining egress or ingress to a car whose doors can't be opened, other than trying to smash one of the windows or windscreens ?

And like I said, the seat belt cutter fine works exactly as intended, even if it's unlikely you'll need it, when you do, it's gonna work. It's literally just a knife, that has to be used once, so it's not like it'll blunt over time.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't know yet. But now that we know alternatives to these tools are needed we can let some experts in the field figure that out. Because we now know that these are useless on laminated glass and, per the article, a third of the tools sampled didn't even work on non-laminated glass.

The article also points out how useless the seatbelt cutter is. And after hanging upside-down in my truck last December I can attest from first hand experience that the cutter would have definitely done more harm than good in my particular case.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You don't know, because there isn't one. If the doors are too deformed to be opened normally, there are only three possible axes of ingress or egress to the car. You either break a window or screen, you violently force the door open, or cut the columns and remove the roof. And since I doubt you're suggesting everyone start carrying hydraulic shears and heavy duty circular saws, in their car, window it is.

And if I'm in a situation where I have to break a car window, even if it's only a 1 in a million chance I'll ever be in that situation, I'd rather have one of those hammers than nothing.

Same thing for a seatbelt cutter. I bet if your truck had caught on fire, and the fire was about to breach the fuel tank, you would've loved a seatbelt cutter to quickly free yourself and get out.

Waiting for trained paramedics to extract crash victims is obviously ALWAYS the best options, but if there's an acute threat to the vehicle, like fire, unstable ground or sinking, you CAN'T wait. You HAVE to extract yourself or die. And like I said, in that situation I'd much rather have a hammer and seatbelt cutter than have nothing. In a situation like that, there is no "doing more bad than good". You are dead if you don't extract yourself immediately. Nothing the tools do or don't do at that point could possibly make the situation worse.

This is like arguing that people should be told to not perform chest compressions on people having heart attacks, because it's incredibly unlikely to ever be needed, and the average person won't do the compressions hard or fast enough to be effective anyway.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm still confused as to why people are defending a tool that doesn't work. Why they want people to depend on something that doesn't do what it says it does and how that's a good thing. You acknowledge it's a rare situation (one in a million) but then think a tool with a one in a million chance of doing what it advertises is going to be helpful. That's a one in a trillion chance of it actually being helpful.

I would never recommend a tool that doesn't do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Because the tool does work, that's the whole fucking point genius.

It just only works in highly specific and unlikely scenario.

I would never recommend a tool that doesn't do its job to someone and feel like I made the ethical move. Especially for a life situation. A false set of security is not security.

Your stance is literally: "if it isn't guaranteed to work in every single situation possible, then I'd rather have nothing".

I'm curious what your stance is on Aircraft carrying life vests. Those are arguably even LESS likely to safe your life than one of these tools. Should Aircraft all stop carrying life vests because of that ?

Let me give you a hypothetical: You're stuck in a car after a Passenger side T-Bone. All doors are crushed and can't be opened. The passenger seat has been crushed against, and mangled the seatbelt receptacle, so you're unable to unbuckle. There's a fire, spreading towards the fuel tank.

Question 1: Is it possible, however unlikely, for a person to be in this situation ?

Question 2: do you think a person in that situation has better, worse, or equal odds if survival if they, or a bystander, has a window hammer and seatbelt cutter on them ?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The article is about how they don't work. It's why we are talking about it. Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I'm out after the first sentence.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No it isn't. The article is about how they RARELY work, and you'd be rarely in a situation where you can effectively use them. Sarcastically calling someone genius after they've repeated the same, wrong, point for the 3rd time in a row isn't an insult dude, that's ridicolous.

Please quote the exact part of the article which states these tools will literally NEVER work, in any possible situation. Because that's what you've repeatedly claimed, and I've repeatedly repudiated. So since I apparently missed that part of the article, do please quote it to me so I can verify.

Anyway, you decided insults were the way to go so I’m out after the first sentence.

You could just admit that you're unable to answer my hypothetical without destroying your own point. Or do this. Also fine.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

according to the research

You say that like it's settled fact. Was the "research" peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? Has it been replicated?

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did you read the article? It's the entire reason this post exists. There are two citations that will answer your questions.

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes I read the blog post and the linked "research". There is no indication that it has been replicated or even academically reviewed.

The linked PDF is even missing sections 8 & 9 listed in its TOC.

[–] FauxPseudo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

There, you answered your own questions. Now we know that you are just one replication study away from either feeling justified or changing your mind.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 11 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It’s probably AI generated click bait

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Every day I grow to hate the internet just a little more for the lack of care that goes into the content

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 days ago

I feel this way about humanity in general and their lack of caring… In general. I welcome the apocalypse

[–] RunJun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Reject the shareholder Internet, that’s never what we enjoyed about the Internet anyways.

[–] Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

You're not wrong

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Firefighter EMT here. Over 15 years. Glass breaking happens pretty often and we have plenty of ways with doing that. Almost none of us carry a dedicated seatbelt cutter at the ready. If I can't get to the buckle very easily, I still just use a knife. Also works great for cutting the side airbags out of the way, which a seatbelt cutter can't do. For the seatbelts I'm just very careful with the knife, and for the airbags I cut reaching in and with the knife facing outwards and away from the patient. Trying to carry and use a seatbelt cutter just simply isn't worth the limited space I have to carry things that are quickly accessible. Too much of a one trick pony.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Knives are definitely easy. I still stand by my seatbelt cutter though; I was once in an accident, I was unconscious for a bit, concussed, airbags, smoke coming in, etc. No one was close, I was too fucked up to figure out the seatbelt, but I remembered my cutter on the door panel. Could a knife have done it? Yes. Was I in a state where I could safely handle a knife without hurting myself? Probably not. I wouldn't recommend a cutter as an emt tool, but as a driver I'll always keep mine.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not speaking from an occupants perspective. I'm only chiming to provide some added context to the articles claims of the cutters primarily only being useful for rescue personnel.

I will say that the chances where a person crashes, and no one else is around, and the vehicle is on fire or there's a reason the occupant should leave the seat after a severe crash, and the cutter would stay reachable, is very, very rare. Vehicles almost never catch on fire from crashes. Beyond that, unless you're in BFE without a phone or anyone else around, it's usually best you stay in place.

[–] Garbagio@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

Oh, yes. I know my accident was like maybe a third of a percentage point of all accidents. Even then, my car didn't fully ignite, just smoke, I just didn't know what was and wasn't going on. But you're right, the article is weird about the EMT bit.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I just have, like, six leftover CIF issued cutters. Easier to just strap them into the car.

The one time I rolled my car, I just unbuckled the belt.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

You might like this Morakniv. I got it to cut rope on the water and in case of emergency. It would zip through a seat belt. Cheap, weighs nothing.

[–] BigTrout75@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Such a genius tool to make money. Bought by many, just in case. Mostly used by thieves.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

An automatic centerpunch is a better tool for this by a long shot.

[–] OshaqHennessey@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago

It would certainly be effective once you brought it into action. The problem I had when testing this was that it's kind of small and difficult to find in a hurry with your eyes closed. It's also easy to confuse a pen or similarly shaped object for it. The escape tool is very easy to find. I've never actually tested breaking glass with either, but I've seen enough videos about car thieves to be convinced of the effectiveness of both.

[–] RePsyche@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

That actually sounds like a good suggestion. I’ve always thought I’d use the ‘turn on my back, grab steering wheel on my right and seat with my left arm, put both feet up to side window, pull back and kick the window out with both feet. Of course I haven’t tried it, but I’m pretty sure it would work. Especially if I did the center punch first. ;-)

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 4 points 2 days ago

is valued at $500 this year

LMAO, preview

[–] citizensongbird@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Have just been researching this while looking for stocking stuffers. One alternative I've seen is to smash an old sparkplug, the pieces of ceramic are oddly effective at smashing out car windows.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

That was the case when these tools were effective. Has your research shown it still holds true? I would assume the same changes that made the glassbreakers ineffective would do the same for those ceramic shards.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 1 day ago

The spark plug only works on tempered glass, on which these hammers also would also work great. The issue the article is pointing out is that many modern cars use laminated glass, not tempered, which is much harder brake, and on which the spark plug trick would porbably work even worse than one of these hammers.

Also, carrying around a tiny piece of a broken spark plug in your car, in manner where you can quickly and reliably access it in an emergency is probably difficult.

[–] hefty4871@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How often does a crash result in not being able to undo your seatbelt but be able to reach for and use a seatbelt cutter?

[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Very very few. But in the incredibly unlikely case that it DOES happen, boy am I going to be fucking glad that I have a seatbelt cutter.

Also, these devices don't have to be used on yourself. If there's acute danger to someone ELSE stuck in a crashed car (e.g. fire, sinking or unstable ground), you can use YOUR cutter to attempt to extract them from the vehicle.

[–] Landless2029@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Since Tesla cars became a thing... Too often

Hacker News