Small can be safe

[bbjsw10]

An article was on my home page this morning from Yahoo Autos. Safest Vehicles for Downsizing- Yahoo! Autos Article Page

It seems to be popping up a lot lately.

[ConnClark]

Small and light will never be safe. Its just a matter of physics.

Current safety standards are deficient. In crash tests cars are evaluated by crashing into a deformable object of similar weight and size. Cars should be evaluated in crash tests by crashing into objects of typical size and weight. Furthermore an additional crash test should be done against a solid non deformable anchored object (the tree test).

crumple zones are very important and having more mass in the vehicle structure softens the impact for the passengers.

[bbjsw10]

That picture is gruesome. The more people downsize the safer it will be.

I agree on more mass softens the impact, but so do advanced airbags, seatbelts, collapsible steering columns. We don't need 3 ton SUV's in every parking spot at grocery store. And that same SUV will stand no chance against a Semi. There is always something bigger than you on road.

God decides who lives/dies not your car.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by bbjsw10

That picture is gruesome. The more people downsize the safer it will be.

I agree on more mass softens the impact, but so do advanced airbags, seatbelts, collapsible steering columns.

Its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end. All other things equal, you will stand a better chance going 60 to 0 by stopping in three feet than you will in two feet. Larger crumple zones are safer than smaller ones.

We don't need 3 ton SUV's in every parking spot at grocery store. And that same SUV will stand no chance against a Semi. There is always something bigger than you on road.

The odds of running into a semi, bus, or train are less than running into a semi, bus, train, or SUV. If you drive an SUV at least your vehicle has passed a crash test of colliding with something as big as an SUV. I agree we don't need a an SUV in every parking space at a grocery store. However if someone wants to drive an SUV to the grocery store they are free to do so.

I disagree with promoting something as safe by evaluating it with a flawed test

God decides who lives/dies not your car.

If you believe this why are you promoting "Safe" cars?

[Yaristock]

Because if God decides to let you live; do you want to be a vegetable? Sometimes I feel as if we take advantage of our choices and our freewill. Sometimes it makes me miss the Soviet Union. The world today has so many choices that it makes people indecisive in all of life's decisions. I'm not saying do away with free will, per se, but teach people early in life that indecision can lead to horrible consequences. Like buying a Chevy SUV for your partner one child and yourself because its 'safe'. Safe for who you or the car you creamed when you ran the light?

[ConnClark]

Do you oppose teaching personal responsibility? People are responsible for their choices and decisions. They are responsible for how their decisions affect others, however they are also responsible to protect themselves from irresponsible people.

[Yaristock]

Personal responsibility has already been lost in this world. Example the hundreds of people now currently suing Ford because Ford did not disclose to them that the Explorer is prone to roll overs.(With the exception of Firestone's bad tires) Whose fault is that? Common sense says that a top heavy vehicle will cause a roll-over. Or what about this? Can't find a link, but the guy that bought a Ford Taurus and used the A/C continuously and did not cycle the air from inside and out. Thus cause mold to develop inside the air vents. He contracted Legionnaire's disease. Whose fault is that. He blames Ford for not telling him this can happen and for not treating the system with antibaterial coatings. Ford didn't leave the a/c on recirculation.

[bbjsw10]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

If you believe this why are you promoting "Safe" cars?

And yes I do believe that I drive a 2 dr Metro. Which is my choice to, did not say "Hey everyone you must drive a small car because I said so."

I did not write that article Yahoo did, I just wanted to post it on here.

And you are arguing facts that are right there in the article I posted. Light means higher risk of death. I just posted to let others see and decide on their own. Like I stated earlier the more light cars on the road the better every one of them replacing an SUV lowers the chances of hitting an SUV.

Just like the lottery the more people playing the worse your odds of winning. 1 in 10 cars I see are SUV's and I wish it was more like 1 in 50. I almost always only see 1 person inside of this large vehicle as well. Usually a smaller woman, they just like it because of size and that is it.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by Yaristock

Example the hundreds of people now currently suing Ford because Ford did not disclose to them that the Explorer is prone to roll overs

lets look at that example. Ford passed a flawed government test that allowed them to drop tire pressures to an unsafe level to pass the test. This portrayed the explorer to be safer than it really is.

Now lets see ..... Compact cars are allowed to pass an unrealistic crash test and claim they are safer than they really are.


You are saying people who knowingly buy a top heavy vehicle have no reason to gripe when it rolls over on them.

So then people who buy a small car should have no reason to gripe when they are hit by an SUV.

[bbjsw10]

AAAhhhh here we go again.