You can lead a horse to water ...( Friend buying a Jeep )

[ksa8907]

I agree with the argument that avoiding accidents is easier in smaller vehicles. Im not too concerned with not being able to avoid an accident i see coming. My problem, fear, is being broadsided at an intersection or some other scenario where you don't have time to react. Safe driving is whats going to prevent accidents, not a small car.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by ksa8907

My problem, fear, is being broadsided at an intersection or some other scenario where you don't have time to react.

Oddly enough, this situation happened to me a couple of months ago, when an idiot ran a red light as I was heading into the intersection. By being aware of cross traffic, and having a small, agile car (the Insight), I was able to brake and swerve enough into the next lane so that he missed me. With a bigger vehicle (or if I hadn't been paying attention), I easily could have become a statistic.

[Fat Charlie]

Armor makes you stupid.

[user removed]

Mom and Pop were almost head oned by a drunk in marathon in the florida keys. I was almost head oned within 100 yards of the exact same location a few years later.

They were driving a 1977 Honda Accord I rebuilt, right at 2000 pounds versus a Cadillac. My 1973 Alfa GTV weighed almost exactly the same. They swerved right and lived. I was not quite as lucky. It was raining torrents and they had dug a new ditch for the water supply pipe to the lower keys, which was about 15 feet deep with vertical walls. I had to go across the path of the oncoming car and into a parking lot at night, praying I did not nail one of the two telephone poles.

No doubt had either my parents or myself been in a heavy car we would be dead in the head on 100 mph combined impact, BEFORE AIRBAGS.

regards
mech

[Cd]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Armor makes you stupid.

[Xist]

The debate on when armor makes you more vulnerable fires up periodically with my coworkers. Many years ago, I worked with a kid who said that his bike helmet made him feel unsafe.

Doesn't American football have more injuries than rugby?

[wdb]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I'm going to reiterate Vskid3's excellent point that you want to see a car mashed up because it means it dissipated the energy instead of transferring it to the occupants.

Except in the case of my friends/neighbors the vehicle not only failed to dissipate the energy, it also failed to prevent transferring it to the occupants.

Really though, I refuse to listen to anyone that places lots of emphasis on driving a larger vehicle for safety reasons while simultaneously failing to have reasonable diet and exercise habits.

A Forester is the same size as the car my friends/neighbors were in, and provides greatly superior protection to its occupants. Did you even read my post?

[user removed]

I was watching wheeler dealer for a short time today. They bought a Porsche 928 for 1600 pounds, after bargaining for 100 pound discount, THE COST OF A SINGLE TANK OF FUEL!

So the car basically cost them 16 tanks of gas .

That kind of puts fuel cost in perspective. In my Mirage that same amount of fuel would get me around 2500 miles.

Pushing 11k miles now for about $360 in fuel.

regards
mech

[Fat Charlie]

There are two truisms that apply here: The first is the old saying that to a six year old with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The second is that people apply their beliefs as if they were facts.

If you're in a situation that can be seen as having risk and you have a tool that is labelled "protection," you're going to walk into it ready to wield that tool. If you bought your fat-assed SUV for safety, it is therefore safe no matter what situation you're in or what physics has to say.

Most people think tanks are magical, invincible things. I was a TOW gunner when I was a kid, maybe that's why I see tanks (and safety) differently.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by wdb

Except in the case of my friends/neighbors the vehicle not only failed to dissipate the energy, it also failed to prevent transferring it to the occupants.

No, it didn't fail at anything. There was more crash energy than the car could dissipate by deforming because the other person was driving a big, heavy truck with lots of inertia and hit them head on. There's a difference.

Also, why was the collision head-on? What other factors could have prevented or mitigated the damage of this collision? Why is the go-to response always, "When I get in an accident JUST LIKE THIS again, I need to be driving a bigger car because SAFETY"? And not, "Gee, maybe I should drive slower" or "Why don't I take an autocross course and practice handling my car in emergency-like situations" or "Maybe I should practice checking my mirrors more often" or "How about I take a defensive driving course", which would help prevent collisions no matter what vehicle a person is driving? We act like the mass of the car is the only factor in these collisions, when the reality is there are myriad little details that affect the severity of a crash as well as whether or not it happens in the first place. No vehicle is a magic bullet for safety in a collision.