Unsafe referring to that kind of impact (i.e. if you have that kind of
an impact in a Dak, then expect head injuries, so the vehicle is unsafe
in that kind of impact). There were other trucks in the test that were
safe (i.e. didn't cause possible life threatening injuries), as well as
a good number of cars (the test is a "standard" one used on a bunch of
vehicles, not just the light trucks.
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Bridges [mailto:bbridges@alarismed.com]
Sent: June 4, 1998 6:04 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: RE: DML: shoulder harness failure
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