<soapbox>
Wow, talk about a '70s flashback: I think the '70s version of this tune
went something like "Don't let those commies in Washington take away my
big, gas sucking 'Merican build tank car 'cause they are safer than
these little econo-car death boxes". Nice to see some things never
change.
So to take the argument forward, we should escalate the "weight" race as
quickly as possible. If the Dak is a "winner" in a crash with an econo
box, then the econobox driver should get a Dak. Now the original Dak
driver only has a 50/50 chance, so he better get a RAM to "put the
score" back in his favor. Now the "new" Dak owner, seeing he is
"outgunned" gets a RAM, and the RAM owner gets a 5 ton light truck.
Anyway, you can see where this goes, and thats no where useful...
I don't think that its really a question of "A less safe than B", but
rather that "if A is bigger/heavier than B, B is going to loose in a
crash between the two". Its already clear that a heavier vehicle costs
more to operate, are less likely to be able to avoid a crash (laws of
physics pertaining to mass and the conservation of energy), and fair
poorly in "fixed barrier" tests (i.e. hitting a non-movable object), so
its impossible to argue that the way to "safety" is for us all to drive
SUVs. I think at least part of the solution is for vehicles to be
designed to absorb the crash impact, rather than being designed to try
and pass along the impact to the other involved vehicle. I think
Chrysler is on the right track there...
The other area that comes into play is the "impact area", which is a
real pet peeve of mine with people that put lift kits on trucks without
adding "underride" protection to them (i.e. some kind of protection so
that in a rear ender that a car won't "submarine" under the truck
because the bumper is now 2000ft above sea level from the lift kit). Its
mandatory for "big trucks" to have this protection, but not for "bubba"
to have it on his pickup truck that now has its bumper above the roof
line of most family cars. The only "hope" is that in a rear impact the
car will actually be able to flip "bubba"'s truck over to "even out the
score".
The extreme case of my impact area point is that I get a Geo Metro and
weld a pole shaped like an "L" to the front to that its sticks out in
front of the car at the level of drivers window on an SUV, and then
drive it into a series of Dakotas. Results: Almost 100% fatality rate in
the Dakota drivers as the pole sticks through the window/door and spears
the driver. Is the Metro now more safe than the Dakota because in side
impact crashes with my "Super Metro" more Dakota drivers die than Metro
drivers? Nope. Just the "Super Metro" is a safety risk due to its
design.
The other part of this that is worrisome is the level of skill and
attitude of drivers. Aside from getting out my "99% of drivers on the
road are inadequately trained, can't drive worth a shit and are too busy
screwing around with cell phones/CD-changers/snot-nosed little puke kid
to devote the attention needed to driving" soapbox, there is an issue
with how people "feel" in SUVs. It seems that the make them "feel safe",
and "its 4 wheel drive so I can do anything" attitude seems to prevail.
I've watched people with SUVs weighing 2 tons+ ride the ass of someone
else in the worst weather imaginable. I think its great fun to get on
the binders hard in the car just before an off ramp with one of these
jerks behind, and watch the expression on their faces when they can't
stop (make sure to have an off ramp handy so you can duck out of the way
before trying this at home, and BTW you can't do it in a Dak). Or even
better bait one into racing stop light to stop light when its slippery,
and then run 'em hard up to the next light; nothing more fun than the
screaching of rubber as he/she slides into the intersection. Bottom line
is that an SUV (or a Dak) doesn't brake like a car, and doesn't turn
like a car, so you can't drive it like a car. As someone else mentioned,
its a truck, so the need to be driven like one.
</soapbox>
Craig
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Aaron Hefner [SMTP:gt9742a@prism.gatech.edu]
> Sent: February 27, 1998 2:59 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Safety BS
>
> >
> > At 08:36 AM 2/27/98 , you wrote:
> > >> Chrysler Corp. spokesman Mike Rosenu [...]
> > >> said the automaker already has implemented its new hydroforming
> > >> technology in the 1998 Dodge Durango and 1997 Dakota
> > >
> > >> It makes the vehicle lighter by taking out the unnecessary weight
> - thus
> > >> making it safer for car drivers if involved in a collision - but
> does not
> > >> affect its strength, he said.
> > >
> > > The sounds like a line of BS to me. They want to cut weight for
> CAFE
> > >and cost reasons, that I can understand. But this safety bit is
> all
> > >politics. If anything, cutting mass from the vehicle will actually
> make
> > >it more UNSAFE in a collision for that vehicle's driver &
> passengers.
> > >
> > > CC is just trying to deflect all the crap people are spouting
> about SUVs
> > >being menaces on the road, and unsafe because they are bigger.
> Could that
> > >be because they are actually descended from trucks? No duh!
> > >
> > > Ron "Take That Econobox And Shove It" Rader
> > >
> >
> > I wouldn't be too quick to pass this off as just BS. There is a lot
> of
> > concern in the gov't (DOT, NHTSB, etc.) about SUV/pick-up vs car
> > collisions. Seems the occupants of the cars come out on the worse
> end of
> > the deal in almost every case. Unfortunately (from the point of view
> of we
> > truck owners) the gov't's answer is to make the SUV/pick-ups lighter
> and
> > more equal to a car thus doing less damage to the car in a
> collision. We
> > may not like this solution (I know I don't) and it is arguably not
> the best
> > solution, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of
> the
> > vehicles on the road are cars and you know what they say about
> majority
> > ruling. This solution may wind up doing more damage to the
> SUV/pick-up
> > driver in order to do less damage to the car driver, but as long as
> they
> > are in the majority, they are going to make the rules. Gripe all you
> want,
> > but the way things look now SUVs and pick-ups are destined to be
> drug down
> > to the car's level. That's why I'm doing everything I can to make my
> Dak
> > last as long as possible.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Crumley mcrumley@airmail.net
> > 97 Dakota Regular Cab Short Bed
> > 3.9L V6 3.55 Auto
> > DDBC Bug Shield Mud Flaps
> >
> >
>
> It seems illogical to me to make one vehicle less safe so it does less
> damage to an unsafe vehicle, why not increase the strength of the
> unsafe
> one, it makes a lot more sense to me....
>
> Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:16 EDT