Craig,
Not wanting to nit pick but, Hey, in an off center impact in my 65 cuda Id
be DEAD with a steering column through my chest. Thats unsafe too! In the
offcenter impact tests I saw they ranked unsafe/unacceptable as a foot
injury. Hell, Id take a foot injury over the shellackin I got in my last
accident in my 69 dodge charger any day. Compared to broken legs and arms
(or heads) a foot injury sounds GOOD! Im not in a posistion where I can buy
a new car every time the safety equipment improves, nor would I really want
to. Unsafe is a truely relative term when discussing cars/trucks.
Maybe Ill start wearing Nomex and a helmet on the way to work...
BKB
Unsafe in SanDiego
At 07:55 PM 6/4/98 -0400, you wrote:
>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