Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
So hauling around all that extra "safety" gear means the cars get worse fuel economy. So the country keeps on using imported oil, which keeps putting dollars in the pockets of jihadists who use the money to develop nuclear weaponry, and keeps spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, which is likely to irretrieviably alter the climate. So you trade a miniscule decrease in your chance of dying from an auto accident for a greatly increased chance of dying from the aftereffects of a nuclear war or a changed climate? Seems like a rather shortsighted bargain to me.
|
My grandmother was seriously injured, and her husband killed on impact, when their '92 Grand Am was t-boned by a driver who ran a red light. The other vehicle intruded into the cabin. Had they been in pretty much any post-1996 vehicle (1997 is when side-impact standards came into play), they would have fared better, and with side-curtain airbags, they probably would have walked (or at least hobbled) away.
The rants I'm hearing about "feeling better" about safety sound like people who defend their smoking. "I'm 55 years old and I'm not dead yet!" Newer cars are safer and, with planning, don't have to be heavier or less efficient. (My '04 Saturn Ion has more features, interior room and horsepower than my '90 Accord, is far safer, weighs 50 pounds less and gets better mileage.) Hell, even the current year Honda Civic has the same weight and horsepower, about the same interior room, and gets better mileage even with a half dozen airbags.