The Smart Car.. smaller isnt more dangerous

this shows a car crashing into a wall at 70 miles an hour.. I don't care what you are in.. not much is going to survive that.. However, the steel cage in the smart car can take on heavy hits in cross traffic.. thats the point..

"GoMavs" wrote in news:FgDIi.4048$io2.2159@trnddc06:

But can YOU take the "heavy hits"? THAT's the point.

You are aware that the test setup and results are influenced by politics and not "safety"?

Government crash test results do not account for heart displacement. You are aware of this, no?

You are aware that heart displacement is a prime cause of death in modern collisions?

You are aware that two of the people that died in Princess Di's car lost their lives due to torn aortae?

Does anybody care? Or does political correctness trump cognizance?

The "Smart" car is a stupid, dangerous toy.

I'll have to agree, Tegger. But I wouldn't prohibit GoMavs from buying one. It's his money, and his life. I'll spend the extra gas money and walk a little further from the inconvenient parking place, thank you.

"mack" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Nobody even mentioned forbidding him from buying whatever deathtrap he wished to ride. Read the posts.

Sure is.

What's that got to do with deadly cars?

Sure you can... It doesnt matter if youre in a tank or a small car.. if youre protected from the side hit then it all depends what your body can take... doesnt matter what youre in. if your body is attached and the vehicle is jarred, its all up to the body at that point.

In the mean time, saying the smart car is dangerous is not very smart at all.

In fact I am willing to bet the smart car will have lesser deaths per 100 vehicles than your average midside sedan.

Have you ever been in NYC? or most major cities? Most people are driving 50 mph through the city...

I tell ya what... We will see the statistics eventually and see just how dangerous that smart car is just because it is small..

but your logic is silly... you equate small cars to more deaths and thats just not true.

Can it take a Ford Excursion driven by a Soccer Mom yelling at her kids to shut up so she can talk on the phone?

That's what they said about my Corolla 1200 when dinosaurs like the Electra 225 and the Wildcat ruled the roads...

demeaning new technology is nothing new...

there were people who laughed about hybrid engines.. and some idiots still do... there were people who denied ethanol could work.. some idiots still do...

let them think what they will.. its almost pointless to point out to them that there will be less deaths in smart cars than in suv rollovers.

Time will tell!

"GoMavs" wrote in news:VmHIi.5118$ec2.359@trnddc03:

It certainly matters. You can stop the body quickly with all manner of safety cages and air bags, but you cannot reliably stop the body's internal organs in a manner that does not tear them from their moorings.

Aortal tearing is a well-known phenomenon.

Up to the organs, you mean.

If that's so, it will be due to the owner demographic. Older people buy Smarts, and older people have lower automotive death rates than younger ones.

=?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= wrote in news:28LIi.16626$Lm2.4868@trndny09:

Small cars ARE statistically less safe in collisions than large ones. Look it up.

The manufacture may choose to call a car Smart, but those that would choose to ride in one surly can not be very smart. LOL

mike

According to MSNBC, the target for the smart car will be younger college age students or young single city workers...

id say thats smart...

all you have is one liners...

I guess we can assume you are not, or were not, a physics major right? LOL

mike

No, I don't think he was a physics major, but GoMavs is certainly a shill for Mercedes-Benz. I think the Smart Car will have a number of people smarting in a couple of years, from the relatives and friends they've lost to collisions with the Iron Giants of the road.

Ahem. As I recall, we've been talking about tiny cars that get good mileage and park sideways in impossible parking places. I think my last remark, which you don't seem to understand, is fairly clear to anyone with an IQ over dull-normal. For those of us still in the dark, what I implied was that I would continue to drive a bigger car with excellent but not spectacular gas mileage, and would park in a usable parking lot a little further away than the half-size spots available to Smart cars, on the assumption that my larger car is a safer car.

Is the light bulb going on yet? (or do I have to explain that question too?)

"GoMavs" wrote in news:PhQIi.15$f%1.11@trnddc01:

That's been the target all along. But if the several year-old Canadian market is any indication, the actual buyers will be in their 50s. I cannot personally remember ever seeing Smarts driven by people with all their natural color still in their hair.

The European market is vastly different from ours, so I would expect the Smart's owner demographic to be different there as well. Cities and roads in general over there are far more crowded than our own, cars and trucks far smaller. In Europe, the Smart fits well with the existing traffic makeup.

The US and Canadian markets are virtually identical, and are vastly different from Europe. Far larger and more useful vehicles are available here for the same money as a Smart.

For North America, the Smart is too small, too limited in utility, to be much more than a fashion statement for people who already have a larger car available to them. And I imagine they're downright scary on the highway when you're next to a sleeper-cab Peterbilt with a 53' trailer out back.