|
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Jim Yanik wrote: > jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: > > >>fft1976@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>fft1...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of >>>>>other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 >>>>>vehicle models. >>>>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...afety-newWin.h >>>>>tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and >>>>>others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled >>>>>though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe >>>>>than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical >>>>>explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the >>>>>quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to the >>>>>poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms? >>>>>By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date >>>>>study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with >>>>>the data given per mile traveled. >>>> >>>>In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and >>>>NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did >>>>the best when you look at both ratings. >>> >>>Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that >>>driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you. >> >>really? have you seen this? >>http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/ >> >>crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with >>energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the >>vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to >>absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down. >> >> >> >>>If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably >>>more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a >>>concrete wall. >>> >>>Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration: >>>http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...uzuki_ignis_7_ >>>pics.html >> >>exactly as above. >> >>oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to >>stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road >>hazard, not decrease it. >> >>are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a HUGE >>vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the >>extra fuel consumption. >> > > > SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors. > It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must slow > down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and harder to > recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at more risk. > Nicely stated. A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the driver has capacity to do so. OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day. One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple zone!" <G> JT (Who would dearly like to challenge a "smart" car) |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote: >There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause," >but one can not escape the laws of physics! > >The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design >features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather >than the bodies of properly belted occupants. > >I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design >engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to >absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal >speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the >one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment >is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle >the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain >fewer injuries. > >In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the >safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would >you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to >believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the >smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding. > >If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. > >As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in >a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel, >or allow my family members to do so. > > > Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. Great logic. Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to prevent people like you from killing the planet. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:WvfBl.97636$4m1.3554@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net: > > > Jim Yanik wrote: >> jim beam <retard-finger@bad.example.net> wrote in >> news:UIudnYtCx7lIkEnUnZ2dnUVZ_jdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t: >> >> >>>fft1976@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>On Apr 1, 8:47�am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>fft1...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of >>>>>>other vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 >>>>>>vehicle models. >>>>>>http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...-Safety-newWin. >>>>>>h tml For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and >>>>>>others pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled >>>>>>though. What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe >>>>>>than Corolla, according to them. Is there a likely mechanical >>>>>>explanation (dual airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the >>>>>>quality is different), or is this a statistical artifact due to >>>>>>the poorer and thus younger people buying Prizms? >>>>>>By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date >>>>>>study? I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included >>>>>>with the data given per mile traveled. >>>>> >>>>>In terms of your own safety, select a vehicle based on the IIHS and >>>>>NHTSA crash test ratings. For mid-size cars, the Subaru Legacy did >>>>>the best when you look at both ratings. >>>> >>>>Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that >>>>driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you. >>> >>>really? have you seen this? >>>http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/ >>> >>>crash safety has nothing to do with weight and everything to do with >>>energy absorption and deceleration rates. the passenger cell of the >>>vehicle needs to resist deformation, and the crumple zones need to >>>absorb energy, thus keep deceleration rates down. >>> >>> >>> >>>>If you are a good driver and live in an urban area, you are probably >>>>more likely to be in an accident involving another car than a >>>>concrete wall. >>>> >>>>Relative weight does matter. Graphic illustration: >>>>http://izismile.com/2009/03/31/road_...suzuki_ignis_7 >>>>_ pics.html >>> >>>exactly as above. >>> >>>oh, and another dirty little secret - heavier vehicles are harder to >>>stop [as graphically illustrated] - thus they /increase/ the road >>>hazard, not decrease it. >>> >>>are you shilling for an oil company by any chance? oilcos have a >>>HUGE vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of >>>the extra fuel consumption. >>> >> >> >> SUVs have lower tolerance for driver errors. >> It's high center of gravity makes it prone to rollovers,and it must >> slow down more to make turns.Easier to lose control in a SUV,and >> harder to recover from it. Higher bumpers means other vehicles are at >> more risk. they also block the view ahead for regular passenger vehicles,increasing risk. >> > > > > Nicely stated. > > A small car like a Civic is much better at avoidance assuming that the > driver has capacity to do so. plus there's incentive to avoid rather than take a hit. ;-) every driver has "capacity"(ability),it's that many don't exercise the skill. > > OTOH, if all conditions were equal such as a head-on crash, I'll take > the bigger, badder, mass of iron any day. And thus LESS incentive to avoid a collision. Ordinary drivers in large cars/SUVs tend to not maneuver. > > One of my favorite utterances is, "My '55 Studebaker President state > sedan will take full advantage of the other guy's econobox's crumple > zone!" And add to -everyone's- risk in the process. (selfish,besides being wasteful and costly to everyone.) Since smaller cars have to have additional refinforcements and safety gear like air bags to partially compensate for the more dangerous large vehicles others drive,their weight goes up and their fuel economy drops too. since much of our petro is imported,larger vehicles that get lower mileage contribute to more imports,lessening our national security. It's patriotic to drive a small car! Besides being better environmentally. More oil tankers means more risk of spills. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
dgk wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> > wrote: > >> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause," >> but one can not escape the laws of physics! >> >> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best design >> features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision rather >> than the bodies of properly belted occupants. >> >> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design >> engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to >> absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal >> speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the >> one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger compartment >> is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle >> the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain >> fewer injuries. >> >> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger the >> safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one would >> you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to >> believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the >> smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding. >> >> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >> costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. >> >> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding in >> a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel, >> or allow my family members to do so. >> >> >> > > Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the > other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare > our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest > piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. > Great logic. > > Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to > prevent people like you from killing the planet. Hell, let's face it. Cars are *way* too dangerous. All the other drivers are hopeless inept. The only safe thing to do is stay away from all cars. OK, maybe a converted Sherman tank *might* be safe, until you get some nut case who figures out how to fix the main gun so that it can fire live rounds again. In the meantime, pretty much forced to get around, I'll drive something that is fun and fuel-efficient. (And keep a sharp eye out for old Shermans.) -- Darryl |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
<fft1976@gmail.com> wrote in message news:989e2f9d-4bbd-4e9c-a75b-353c8303035e@p6g2000pre.googlegroups.com... >I found this interesting study that shows the risk to drivers of >other > vehicles vs the risk to drivers for different 1995-1999 vehicle > models. > > http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/...ty-newWin.html > > For cars, it shows Camry to be the safest (with Accord and others > pretty close). The data is not normalized per mile traveled though. > > What I find odd is that Prizm is considerably less safe than > Corolla, > according to them. Is there a likely mechanical explanation (dual > airbags are standard in both, but perhaps the quality is different), > or is this a statistical artifact due to the poorer and thus younger > people buying Prizms? > > By the way, does anyone know of a similar, but more up-to-date > study? > I'd also like the probabilities of disablement included with the > data > given per mile traveled. The problem with studies like this is that they can't account for who buys the vehicles and how they drive. Ed |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
The point is dummy if you ARE involved in an accident you want to be in the
one that is offers the greatest protection to properly belted passengers, in the third collision. Many small and midget car drivers/passengers are killed in single vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the Camry that drove by the accident or the Smart Car that was run over by a Camry? LOL "Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:rjvat49ov37tgsd57p0p4iidkjlkgmh9gv@4ax.com... > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> > wrote: > >>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger >>the >>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one >>would >>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to >>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the >>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding. > > In the real world, the safest car is the one that avoids the crash > entirely. Many SUV/pickup drivers/passengers are killed in single > vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the F150 that flipped > over or the Smart Car that drove by the accident? > |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com... > On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> > wrote: > >>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause," >>but one can not escape the laws of physics! >> >>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best >>design >>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision >>rather >>than the bodies of properly belted occupants. >> >>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design >>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to >>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal >>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the >>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger >>compartment >>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle >>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain >>fewer injuries. >> >>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger >>the >>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one >>would >>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to >>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the >>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding. >> >>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. >> >>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding >>in >>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel, >>or allow my family members to do so. >> >> >> > > Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the > other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare > our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest > piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. > Great logic. > > Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to > prevent people like you from killing the planet. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
In other words, you are saying you can not afford to buy and operate one of
the larger safer vehicles right? LOL "Darryl_J" <Darryl.Johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:gr52fd$tbl$1@news.motzarella.org... > dgk wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> >> wrote: >> >>> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their >>> "cause," but one can not escape the laws of physics! >>> >>> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best >>> design features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the >>> collision rather than the bodies of properly belted occupants. >>> >>> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive >>> design engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of >>> vehicle to absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce >>> the terminal speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes >>> their skeleton, the one that kills even properly belted occupants when >>> the passenger compartment is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable >>> fact that the lager the vehicle the more likely that properly belted >>> passengers will survive or sustain fewer injuries. >>> >>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger >>> the safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which >>> one would you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you >>> choose to believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and >>> LOOK at the smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather >>> have been riding. >>> >>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD >>> vehicle costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive >>> RWD vehicle. >>> >>> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider >>> riding in a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a >>> year of fuel, or allow my family members to do so. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the >> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare >> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest >> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. >> Great logic. >> >> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to >> prevent people like you from killing the planet. > > Hell, let's face it. Cars are *way* too dangerous. All the other drivers > are hopeless inept. > > The only safe thing to do is stay away from all cars. OK, maybe a > converted Sherman tank *might* be safe, until you get some nut case who > figures out how to fix the main gun so that it can fire live rounds again. > > In the meantime, pretty much forced to get around, I'll drive something > that is fun and fuel-efficient. (And keep a sharp eye out for old > Shermans.) > > -- > Darryl |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Apr 3, 9:31 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The problem with studies like this is that they can't account for who > buys the vehicles and how they drive. Much of that information is available. Young men like sports cars, so they have higher accident rates. Corvettes are more for older guys, so Corvettes have lower accident rates. -- Ron |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote: >I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL > > I see. Ridicule instead of argue the point. Let's try again for the stupid. If everyone keeps getting bigger cars because they're safer, where does it stop? If your safer car kills me where does it stop? If your safer car burns our oil faster and endangers our economy and forces us to work with dictators, where does it stop? What part of that needs a foil hat? And I believe the helmet wars should be confined to the bicycle newsgroups anyway. >"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message >news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com.. . >> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com> >> wrote: >> >>>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause," >>>but one can not escape the laws of physics! >>> >>>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best >>>design >>>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision >>>rather >>>than the bodies of properly belted occupants. >>> >>>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design >>>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to >>>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal >>>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the >>>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger >>>compartment >>>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle >>>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain >>>fewer injuries. >>> >>>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger >>>the >>>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one >>>would >>>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to >>>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the >>>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding. >>> >>>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle >>>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle. >>> >>>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding >>>in >>>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel, >>>or allow my family members to do so. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the >> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare >> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest >> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes. >> Great logic. >> >> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to >> prevent people like you from killing the planet. > |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:46:24 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote: >In other words, you are saying you can not afford to buy and operate one of >the larger safer vehicles right? LOL > > I think big cars are helping to destroy the planet. I certainly could afford to buy and operate one, but I choose to keep my 1991 Accord because it works well, gets me where I need to go, and because I think that people who buy big cars are nasty, pushy, obnoxious, and inconsiderate of everyone else. I think it's likely that you fit in all four categories. You might occupy two slots in nasty. Also, I realize that my 1991 Accord is not particularly fuel efficient. However, I don't drive very much and all in all it would have a greater impact on the environment to junk it and buy a new car than just keep this one running. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
dgk wrote:
> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to > prevent people like you from killing the planet. This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the Republican party self-destructed. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
On Apr 3, 3:40 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in > order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too > many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or > the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the > Republican party self-destructed. People have different needs, so how would you write the regulations? What would be the purpose of those regulations? -- Ron |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 3:40 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: > >> This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in >> order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too >> many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or >> the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the >> Republican party self-destructed. > > People have different needs, so how would you write the regulations? For one thing, change the method of registration fees. I know when I was growing up in Florida, they charged the fees based on the vehicle weight not value. Not sure if it's still done this way, but in California the fees are based on value. They need to change this so there's more of an incentive to buy smaller cars. I.e. as of now, the VLF in my county is 0.65% of the value (and the value goes down each year). What they should do is to change the formula so that vehicles under a certain weight get a reduction for every pound under that weight, while vehicles over a certain weight get an increase. For example, charge an extra $1 per pound per year for every pound in excess of 3500, and refund an extra $0.50 per pound for every pound under 3500. So a Ford Crown Victoria with a curb weight of 4127 pounds, would pay an extra $627 per year in fees, while a 2723 pound Toyota Corolla would get a reduction of $388.50 (actually getting a refund). A Toyota Camry at 3263 pounds get a reduction of $118.50. A Ford Explorer at 4460 pounds would pay an extra $960 per year. 3500 pounds is just an example, maybe it should be set at 3250, which is around what the most popular mid-size cars weigh. It's got to be a significant penalty to get people to change their behavior, not just $100-200. Or instead of basing it on weight, base it on MPG, i.e. for every mpg under 25 mpg city charge an extra $50/year, and for every mpg under 30 highway charge an extra $50 per year. So , a Crown Victoria at 26/18 would pay an extra $550 per year. A Toyota Camry I4 at 31/21 would pay an extra $150 per year, while a Camry Hybrid at 34/33 would get a $600 credit, and a Prius Hybrid at 45/48 would get a $1900 per year credit. > What would be the purpose of those regulations? To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. |
Re: Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)
fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 9:14�pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> I'll try to explain this in layman's terms: >>> If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head- >>> on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their >>> combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at >>> 10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph >>> in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph. >> give me a break!!! �what matters is what happens to the occupants >> acceleration vectors [deceleration] and whether the passenger cell >> intrudes into their space. �occupant reactions are not simple m1v1 = m2v2. > > Do you disagree specifically with anything I wrote? You were saying > that crash testing into a cement wall shows how safe a vehicle is. I > wrote that this is not the whole picture, and weight counts (a lot). 1. weight doesn't mean when a vehicle collides with a solid object. and a vehicle with a high roll propensity or that's hard to stop is much more likely to do that. 2. yet again, what matters in a collision with another vehicle is how the occupants collide with the rest of the car. to minimize injury, they want a vehicle whose passenger cell remains intact and whose exterior absorbs the blow. 3. i've avoided collisions in my civic that i couldn't in larger cars because it's light and agile and stops quickly. and frankly i reverted to an 89 civic from a 2000 because the 2000 was so much heavier it handled like crap. the damned thing wouldn't stop fast either. > > I suspect you are one of those big ass SUV drivers who wants everyone > else to drive compact cars. You'll obviously be safer than if everyone > drives and SUV, but we won't be. deliberate suggestio falsi. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands