Quote:
I've yet to see any statistic from you or anyone else that proves one needs a big car to survive deer or other big game (i.e. moose) collisions.
You accepted that theory gladly ...
|
Ironically, we do agree. You assumed I would disagree and assumed that I accepted an imagined "theory", yet you never read my actual comments without a presupposed bias. Thus you never considered that I would ultimately be in agreement with you on that singular point.
I do agree, that the manner in which a car is equipped for safety will be more likely to
save the occupant's life in a severe crash, regardless of the size of the vehicle. OTOH, in a minor collision it may "total" a small vehicle, whereas it might cause only cause relatively minor damage to a larger one, (meaning the larger vehicle would sustain the damage and still be serviceable).
In the case of an impact from a minor collision where the vehicle becomes "totalled" that benefits the auto industry. In the case of a larger and older vehicle still being serviceable after a collision, despite the body damage, it benefits the person of lesser means who may not easily afford the replacement of it.