Yup, agree with ya Bruce on the ratings thing. I think "unsafe" should
be reserved for things that are likely to cause "grave" injury (like the
head injury they were reporting in the Dak), rather than just "the dash
moved in and cause a bo-bo on your knee").
The one useful thing out of all of this is to wake up the folks that
think "hey, I'm driving a light truck/sport ute so I'm invincible".
Raging discussion here a while back about how trucks were so much safer
than a car, which obviously isn't necessarily the case in a fixed impact
(i.e. single vehicle) crash.
Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Bridges [mailto:bbridges@alarismed.com]
Sent: June 4, 1998 8:26 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: RE: DML: shoulder harness failure
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