Craig,
Unsafe compared to what?
BKB
At 02:11 PM 6/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Luv these "they should have crashed thousands and then averaged the
>results like "real science"" comments. They took a vehicle, crashed it
>under controlled conditions, and came up with the "poor" rating. There
>was a Dak that rolled off the line and when crashed faired poorly. Who
>cares if the next 2 did well, and then the 3rd did poorly again? Point
>is Dodge is making trucks that fare poorly in these tests, and there is
>no "SURVIVE" option code to make sure you don't get one exactly like the
>one that failed. For the "scientific" guys, this is the negative proof
>of the asertion that "Dakotas are very safe trucks in crash tests"; you
>don't need to crash any more trucks once you've found one that is
>unsafe.
>
>Craig
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rhyner, Mark [mailto:RhynerM@emh1.hqisec.army.mil]
>Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 12:31 PM
>To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
>Subject: RE: DML: shoulder harness failure
>
>
>Tony writes: Of course any accident is potentially dangerous in any
>vehicle, however, as the recent crash tests have indicated , head trauma
>was the main culprit in the Dakotas poor ratings.
>
>Yeah but to base a finding on one test is like....well actually like
>about all science nowadays. <GRIN>
>
>Mark R
>93 5.2Magnum, CC, LE, slushbox, pigeon hauler
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:54 EDT