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

[wdb]

All this talk about defensive driving is fine and good, and I have been - and continue to be - a strong proponent of teaching driving skills + driving something that gives you a fighting chance to avoid having the accident in the first place. But sometimes stuff just happens.

Like what happened to my friends/neighbors. They pulled onto a two-lane road, began heading towards their destination, and over the crest of a curve came a pickup on their side of the road. Nobody was speeding, in fact my friends/neighbors were not even up to speed yet. The other driver was sleepy and crossed the center line.

Not all accidents can be avoided.

I still maintain that their Hyundai failed them. It wasn't purely because of the weight difference between vehicles because at some point vehicles carom away from one another (except perhaps in a dead-straight head-on collision which is actually pretty rare). By the time that happened in their case the energy of impact had already folded the driver's door and footwell into the (former) passenger space. I believe that a better designed crumple zone would have sent more of the energy around them. They were both trapped in the vehicle until they were cut out by rescue team folks.

For what its worth they bought an Outback. May they never find out how well it protects them in frontal impacts.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by wdb

But sometimes stuff just happens.

Sure, but the question is (or should be) what's a reasonable response to the chance of stuff that just happens happening to you. Is it reasonable to e.g. wear body armor 24/7 just in case of a jihadist attack?

Seems reasonable to balance costs against benefits. With the typical oversized SUV people are trading money, convenience, and pleasure against the perceived safety benefit, when statistics show that it's often a false perception, and the SUV is actually less safe than a smaller vehicle.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Is it reasonable to e.g. wear body armor 24/7 just in case of a jihadist attack?

I was concerned about hitting an elk before I did and somewhat paranoid afterwards. I have Army-issued body armor in my locker that I have not used in a couple of years. I have thought that it ought to do something if I hit another elk--I was fine the first time, but people die in much larger vehicles.

I think about the damage to my 1990 Accord. It dented in the bumper, grill, hood, windshield, and front foot of the roof.

I am pretty sure that my Civic has a shorter hood, so if it hit a similar elk in a comparable fashion, it would be worse for me.

Also, the Accord weighed 2,728 pounds while my Civic is 2,519, which could conceivably make a difference.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

With the typical oversized SUV people are trading money, convenience, and pleasure against the perceived safety benefit, when statistics show that it's often a false perception, and the SUV is actually less safe than a smaller vehicle.

They're not just more prone to rollover, but also their roof structures often can't stand to all the weight and then the roof sinks and may break the driver's neck...

[Cd]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Sure, but the question is (or should be) what's a reasonable response to the chance of stuff that just happens happening to you. Is it reasonable to e.g. wear body armor 24/7 just in case of a jihadist attack?

Seems reasonable to balance costs against benefits. With the typical oversized SUV people are trading money, convenience, and pleasure against the perceived safety benefit, when statistics show that it's often a false perception, and the SUV is actually less safe than a smaller vehicle.

I'm old enough to remember before 'Sport' Utility Vehicles became popular, and were simply known as 'trucks'.
If you wanted one, you had either a Ford Bronco, a Chevy Blazer, a Suburban, a Dodge Ramcharger, and one or two others.

Women hated them.

Vans were semi popular - and I mean vans ...not minivans ( they didn't exist yet ) , but not because they were safer, but because they could fit a full size bed in the back.

Women hated them.
(Young men loved them.)

I don't remember Ford Thunderbirds being bought by soccer moms because they were 'safe. A 1975-79 T-Bird was a monster of a car. Ten feet of hood in front of you, and over two tons of dead weight.

Station Wagons were the SUV of the era, but I doubt they were sold on 'safety', and more for their 'space'.
In the 1980s, the minivan took over where the station wagon left off, and station wagons were looked down on in shame.
The 1990s and 2000s replaced the minivan with the SUV, and suddenly family men didn't have to be ashamed to drive a vehicle that branded them as a man that was no longer a playboy.
These things looked like trucks, and trucks were rugged without the frills that family men had to have in their vehicles.
Yes - trucks were vehicles that real men drove ... because women hated them.

But something happened to these trucks- they became soft, and feminine.
Now we have the SUVs that are nothing but jacked up cars.
I wonder what the next progression is, and I still wonder what the catalyst was that made these people want to buy trucks...I mean SPORT utility vehicles.

[Xist]

Sort of Utility Vehicle

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Even though I like the Chevy S10 Blazer, SUVs are kinda pointless as they're neither as roomy as a closely-sized van (or minivan) and not as versatile as a truck.

[redpoint5]

I dislike the idea people have of increasing their safety in an inertia war by increasing their mass, at the expense of the safety of others. I have no greater right to safety or life than anyone else.

I'm looking forward to the near future where cars are able to avoid most human caused accidents, and vehicles can return to normal sizes. Eventually, cars will not have to be designed with crumple zones and reinforcement, and instead can be designed for efficiency and utility alone. Seat belts and airbags will no longer be necessary. Impaired driving and cellphones will become a non-issue.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I dislike the idea people have of increasing their safety in an inertia war by increasing their mass

If a heavier weight could save lives, sumo fighters would be immortal

at the expense of the safety of others. I have no greater right to safety or life than anyone else.

It may sound kinda selfish, but I don't share this feeling. Irresponsible drivers can ruin other peoples' lives even with some random econobox. Then, I wouldn't feel any sorrow if they met the natural selection as long as they didn't take any innocent along...

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

I was concerned about hitting an elk before I did and somewhat paranoid afterwards.

You have elk in Arizona? Don't know much about them, but if they're like deer or wild horses, they have preferred routes and times of day when they're out, and you learn to drive carefully then. As for instance these guys, who cross the road most evenings to get to the pond off to the right.