I thought Smart Cars were suppose to be safe.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by Demonhawk

Those look like the stock wheels on a chevy malibu.

Besides you can't expect much to survive between two loaded trucks if they have any sort of significant speed.

I haven't found a Malibu wheel that looks even remotely close to that, other than having 5 spokes...

cfg83 - The HHR's wheel is missing the lip detail, as MetroMPG suggested, but it's close.

I'm going to stay with the Ford Escape idea until we can find a wheel that fits better (It's not VolksWagen either, already checked) because well, we can't just challenge stuff without evidence to the contrary, and though the wheel doesn't look precisely like an Escape wheel, it also doesn't look entirely different (a la "Smart" idea). This same pic went through another forum with people claiming that it was a Prius... In fact, I think it was the Chrysler MiniVan Fan Club.

[shovel]

I for one think the post title is kinda stupid really, regardless of the car.

"i thought they were supposed to be safe" implies that there has EVER been ANY passenger car that guarantees your safety in the event of two, 20 ton commercial trucks tailgating each other with you in between.

Nothing in life is a guarantee of safety, and you can die in ANY car. Death and taxes are your guarantees... the rest is all up to chance and choice. I just find myself literally annoyed at the implication of the topic title that somehow it's disappointing to the OP that a "safe" car would be crushed in that circumstance.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by shovel

I for one think the post title is kinda stupid really, regardless of the car.

"i thought they were supposed to be safe" implies that there has EVER been ANY passenger car that guarantees your safety in the event of two, 20 ton commercial trucks tailgating each other with you in between.

Nothing in life is a guarantee of safety, and you can die in ANY car. Death and taxes are your guarantees... the rest is all up to chance and choice. I just find myself literally annoyed at the implication of the topic title that somehow it's disappointing to the OP that a "safe" car would be crushed in that circumstance.

I just chose to ignore that particular feeling by telling myself that safety, like almost everything in the world, is relative.

I'm sure the OP meant nothing by it, other than circumstantial hilarity at the expense of the apparent lack of safety of "whatever" vehicle was involved, given the obvious extreme circumstances.

[MazdaMatt]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Or always try to leave room ahead for an evasive maneuver and use your rear view mirror when slowing & stopped. Rear crash avoidance is an option!

Do all of you still feel safe sitting at a light with your engine off?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

Do all of you still feel safe sitting at a light with your engine off?

For that matter, do you still feel safe sitting in a parking space along side the road with your engine off, or should you have started the engine with remote start before getting into the car?

[cfg83]

MazdaMatt -

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

Do all of you still feel safe sitting at a light with your engine off?

Two weeks ago my co-worker got rear-ended while sitting at a stop light with the engine on. Categorically the fault of the rear-ender, who I think *was* on the phone. This is the second time this has happened to him, so he doesn't feel safe. You can prevent 90%, but that extra 10% is our of your hands.

CarloSW2

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

Do all of you still feel safe sitting at a light with your engine off?

I would not feel safe if I was not aware of what is going on around me at all times while I'm operating my car. Whether the engine is running or not doesn't matter much to me.

[Frank Lee]

I chastised the sender of this junk when I got it a couple of days before this thread.

It falls squarely into the category of neo-con spam.

I'm sure you've all gotten an avalanche of this sort of **** over the years.

It's all the same. Attempt to mislead/deceive by presenting something along with fundamentally flawed "facts", along with fundamentally flawed "conclusions". These can be outright lies and fabrications and/or, a bit sneakier, lies of omission.

At any rate, I find it interesting that after all these years, I can't recall getting garbage of this nature from the "Lib" side.

Oh yes, you sure wouldn't think the simple physics of a car/truck crash is political; it shouldn't be. But there is always that agenda that goes along with neocon spam distortions; in this case, it is the anti-small car/plant your ass in a giant SUV agenda.

What does the originator of this hope to gain by saying it's a Smart car, when it ain't?

I've told many people over the years that when I get that junk from them, it stops with me.

Why propogate it?

What do you get out of spreading lies?

Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong??? I always "snopes 'em" or otherwise blow that junk out of the water.

Man, if I was wrong as often as they are, I'd be quite unhappy. And ashamed.

[Demonhawk]

Originally Posted by Christ

I haven't found a Malibu wheel that looks even remotely close to that, other than having 5 spokes...

cfg83 - The HHR's wheel is missing the lip detail, as MetroMPG suggested, but it's close.

I'm going to stay with the Ford Escape idea until we can find a wheel that fits better (It's not VolksWagen either, already checked) because well, we can't just challenge stuff without evidence to the contrary, and though the wheel doesn't look precisely like an Escape wheel, it also doesn't look entirely different (a la "Smart" idea). This same pic went through another forum with people claiming that it was a Prius... In fact, I think it was the Chrysler MiniVan Fan Club.

If you look closely at the wheels in the photo there appears to be a shallow indentation down the middle of the lower 3 spokes of the wheel. Now look at this stock photo of a 2004 chevy malibu:



Looking at the wheels on the chevy malibu you can see the indentations down the middle. If you look at the front wheel on the stock photo you can see the very topmost spoke appears to be completely smooth because of the lighting. I think that the wheel is very much similar in the accident photo. I may just be crazy though, lol

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I chastised the sender of this junk when I got it a couple of days before this thread.

It falls squarely into the category of neo-con spam.

I'm sure you've all gotten an avalanche of this sort of **** over the years.

It's all the same. Attempt to mislead/deceive by presenting something along with fundamentally flawed "facts", along with fundamentally flawed "conclusions". These can be outright lies and fabrications and/or, a bit sneakier, lies of omission.

At any rate, I find it interesting that after all these years, I can't recall getting garbage of this nature from the "Lib" side.

Oh yes, you sure wouldn't think the simple physics of a car/truck crash is political; it shouldn't be. But there is always that agenda that goes along with neocon spam distortions; in this case, it is the anti-small car/plant your ass in a giant SUV agenda.

What does the originator of this hope to gain by saying it's a Smart car, when it ain't?

I've told many people over the years that when I get that junk from them, it stops with me.

Why propogate it?

What do you get out of spreading lies?

Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong??? I always "snopes 'em" or otherwise blow that junk out of the water.

Man, if I was wrong as often as they are, I'd be quite unhappy. And ashamed.

My favorite ones are the ones that say, "I verified this on Snopes, and it's true!" That's a sure sign that it's wrong and sure enough, Snopes denies it.

I'm to the point now where I'm going to start bcc'ing everybody that was on the original thread when I reply.