The OP chart showed that minivans were safest, but is it because they
have better drivers, inadequate engine size, better crumple zones, or
higher driver sitting height?
A large portion of the fatal accidents don't involve another vehicle.
IIRC, the larger vehicles have a lower probability of a death in such
One criticism of trucks and SUVs is rollover accidents. What factors
are important in reducing the chance of a rollover?
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?
It is clear from the web site posted by the OP:
that in the real world, many small cars are as safe or safer than SUVs
and pickups. The Accord and Camry had lower driver death rates than
Suburbans and Tahoes. Civics and Corollas were safer than any of the
"Big Three" pickups. The most dangerous vehicle on the chart, the
Chevy S-10 is hardly the lightest. While the safest vehicles were
minivans, the Camry was close behind as were Accord and Avalon.
Interestingly, the Camry was slightly safer than the Avalon.
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
or the Smart Car that was run over by a Camry? LOL
er, listen "dummy", your so-called "third crash" is predicated by the
deceleration rate. deceleration rate is determined by energy
absorption. energy absorption is predicated by deformation. thus you
want a car which bends, not some hunking great lump of detroit crap that
remains rigidly undeformed. duh.
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
Is that the same hat that made people want to regulate hedge funds and
credit debt swaps? Face it Mike, the days of the unregulated cowboy
mentality are coming to an end. You may have noticed a recent change
in management in DC.
And I am still waiting to find out if you favor government bailouts
fro GM, Chrysler and Ford (when they come begging.) I am assuming
that you oppose such big government meddling in the free market and
you would prefer that GM was in liquidation right now. Right?
bankruptcy is not liquidation.
but you're dead right - gm should have the plug pulled on their life
support. they have all the tools they need - including a full lineup of
cheaper more fuel efficient vehicles they make in europe - to get back
and survive if we stop giving them handouts.
only thing they seem to lack is willpower. and frankly, you can't
really blame them - making money from showing up in washington and
whining is a /lot/ easier than having to get up early in the morning and
go bash metal for 8 hours a day.
Some ARE liquidations,some are not.(reorganizations)
GM making cars in Europe and Australia to bring into the US isn't going to
help them in the US,because GM needs to make cars HERE in the US,employing
US workers,who would then have money to buy new cars.
No job,no new car,or many other purchases.
At least Honda and other Japanese makers actually make cars here in the
US,using(paying) US workers.
liquidation is liquidation, /not/ bankruptcy. admittedly, bankruptcy
law has different chapters which includes liquidation, but practitioners
don't use the words interchangeably.
that is my point - they /can/ and /should/ make them here. they have
all the designs, tooling, labor, r&d, testing EVERYTHING already done
for their euro operations. all they need to do is retool domestic
operations. all this whining about "oh, it'll take us time and money to
redesign" is complete and utter BULLSHIT.
yet another reason to pull the plug on detroit. /we/ taught the
japanese how to make cars, but apparently we can't be bothered to learn
our own lessons because whining in washington gives a much better return
on investment. politicians have significant culpability in this debacle
- as long as they respond to lobbying dollars, and lobbying pays back
about 1000:1 [which it commonly does - at taxpayer expense] - we'll
never wean corporate america off the lobbying welfare teat.
"bankruptcies" DO use the word for both reorgs and liquidations.
See the very recent Ritz Camera bankruptcy;they're -liquidating- 300 of 700
(TODAY,FYI! there's a list of stores online.)
It DOES take money and time to retool/reconfigure a production line.
stamping dies are different,castings are different,etc.
I don't disagree with this.
(*corporate* lobbying AND "sweetheart deals" like BHOblama got for his
wife's job and the property his Chicago house is on.)
IMO,people should be able to group together and lobby Congress;it's part of
the legal difference for a company is that with a liquidation means the
company shuts down and all assets are sold. bankruptcy, chapter 11,
means relief from debt and intention to continue in some modified form.
yes, but they've had two years already - they've simply FAILED to make a
freakin' decision! and again, they do NOT have to design and test -
they already have all the patterns ready to roll.
yeah, any person should be able to show up and make their point. but
when money changes hands, that's a fundamental perversion of the point.
i know - i've been in on stuff like this. you show up, a
"contribution" is made, and you get what you want. freakin'
ridiculously easy. and a fantastic system for those with money. but
it's freakin' sucky system for those with only principles.
example: elsewhere in the world, auditors have unlimited personal
liability for accounts they certify. here, auditors have limited
liability. so, at the end of the day, wtf do they care if the accounts
they sign and on which shareholders, pension funds, etc., are bullshit?
the result is that company accounts are unreliable and opaque. that
hurts the nation as we're seeing right now. but have you seen any
accountants, apart from madoff's, finding themselves in the spotlight
for presiding over what is effectively massive fraud? no, and the
reason is that they show up in d.c., hand over a few more dollars, host
a few more parties, and quietly lobby for what they want - immunity from
having the buck stop on their desk. it's absolute bullshit and we all
pay for it. reality is, they are the only people with the expertise to
do that job - which is theoretically why auditors exist in the first
place - they are very well compensated for it, and the principle is that
someone outside a corporation can certify whether accounts are accurate.
without that being reliable, corporations may as well certify their
own accounts and let's all stop the charade. right now, the charade is
that accountant audit is reliable. it isn't because they have no skin
in the game. that needs to end. and the politicians that accept
auditor dollars for enabling that charade need to be fired too.
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.
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.
To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.