fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 5:59�pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> fft1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Crash tests don't tell the whole story. They hide the fact that
>>> driving a heavier vehicle is safer for you.
>
> Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. All things being equal, heavier
> will be safer for you (less safe to others).

except for the fact that you're more likely to crash in the first place.
heavier vehicles are harder to stop. they tend to roll more easily too.


>
>> really? �have you seen this?http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTe...perVsFordF150/
>
> But have they tried crashing Cooper into F150 head on at the same
> speed?

why would they? can you not see the difference?


>
>> are you shilling for an oil company by any chance?
>
> Are you serious?

yes indeed i am.


>
>> �oilcos have a HUGE
>> vested interest in heavy vehicles, not consumers - because of the extra
>> fuel consumption.
>
> I bet, but what does this have to do with issue?

you're advocating heavy vehicles. that's very uninformed because just
weight doesn't enhance survivability, it's passenger cell design and
energy absorption that do that.

otoh, increased vehicle weight increases gas consumption. if you were
to, er, "encourage" incorporation of "safety features" that added
400-600lbs weight to every vehicle in the nation, which we are, you're
talking very significant additional gasoline consumption. [and of
course increasing crash propensity for the reasons above.]

/your/ only winner seems to be the oilco.