Honda Car Forum

The point is dummy if you ARE involved in an accident you want to be in the
one that is offers the greatest protection to properly belted passengers, in
the third collision.

Many small and midget car drivers/passengers are killed in single
vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the Camry that drove by the
accident
or the Smart Car that was run over by a Camry? LOL



"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:rjvat49ov37tgsd57p0p4iidkjlkgmh9gv@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
> wrote:
>
>>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>the
>>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>would
>>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>
> In the real world, the safest car is the one that avoids the crash
> entirely. Many SUV/pickup drivers/passengers are killed in single
> vehicle crashes. Which would you rather be in, the F150 that flipped
> over or the Smart Car that drove by the accident?
>

I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL


"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
> wrote:
>
>>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>>but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>
>>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>design
>>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision
>>rather
>>than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>
>>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger
>>compartment
>>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>>fewer injuries.
>>
>>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>the
>>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>would
>>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>
>>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>
>>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding
>>in
>>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>>or allow my family members to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
> Great logic.
>
> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
> prevent people like you from killing the planet.

In other words, you are saying you can not afford to buy and operate one of
the larger safer vehicles right? LOL


"Darryl_J" <Darryl.Johnson@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:gr52fd$tbl$1@news.motzarella.org...
> dgk wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their
>>> "cause," but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>>
>>> The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>> design features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the
>>> collision rather than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>>
>>> I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive
>>> design engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of
>>> vehicle to absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce
>>> the terminal speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes
>>> their skeleton, the one that kills even properly belted occupants when
>>> the passenger compartment is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable
>>> fact that the lager the vehicle the more likely that properly belted
>>> passengers will survive or sustain fewer injuries.
>>>
>>> In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>> the safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which
>>> one would you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you
>>> choose to believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and
>>> LOOK at the smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather
>>> have been riding.
>>>
>>> If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD
>>> vehicle costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive
>>> RWD vehicle.
>>>
>>> As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider
>>> riding in a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a
>>> year of fuel, or allow my family members to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
>> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
>> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
>> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
>> Great logic.
>>
>> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
>> prevent people like you from killing the planet.
>
> Hell, let's face it. Cars are *way* too dangerous. All the other drivers
> are hopeless inept.
>
> The only safe thing to do is stay away from all cars. OK, maybe a
> converted Sherman tank *might* be safe, until you get some nut case who
> figures out how to fix the main gun so that it can fire live rounds again.
>
> In the meantime, pretty much forced to get around, I'll drive something
> that is fun and fuel-efficient. (And keep a sharp eye out for old
> Shermans.)
>
> --
> Darryl

On Apr 3, 9:31*am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The problem with studies like this is that they can't account for who
> buys the vehicles and how they drive.

Much of that information is available. Young men like sports cars, so
they have higher accident rates. Corvettes are more for older guys, so
Corvettes have lower accident rates.

--
Ron

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:42:49 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>I hope you had on your aluminum foil hat when you post that LOL
>
>

I see. Ridicule instead of argue the point. Let's try again for the
stupid. If everyone keeps getting bigger cars because they're safer,
where does it stop? If your safer car kills me where does it stop? If
your safer car burns our oil faster and endangers our economy and
forces us to work with dictators, where does it stop?

What part of that needs a foil hat? And I believe the helmet wars
should be confined to the bicycle newsgroups anyway.



>"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
>news:muubt4l5trvlajc2i1g734okdp0l3najid@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:04:58 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>There will always be folks you who us statistic to support their "cause,"
>>>but one can not escape the laws of physics!
>>>
>>>The fact is the larger the vehicle the more room to build in the best
>>>design
>>>features to enable the VEHICLE to absorb the forces of the collision
>>>rather
>>>than the bodies of properly belted occupants.
>>>
>>>I worked the last fifteen years of my thirty years as an automotive design
>>>engineer, on the design of crumple zones and the ability of vehicle to
>>>absorb the forces of a collision that will more likely reduce the terminal
>>>speed of the "third collision," where one body strikes their skeleton, the
>>>one that kills even properly belted occupants when the passenger
>>>compartment
>>>is not impinged upon. It is an undeniable fact that the lager the vehicle
>>>the more likely that properly belted passengers will survive or sustain
>>>fewer injuries.
>>>
>>>In the real world, even among five star crash rated vehicles, the bigger
>>>the
>>>safer. Think about it, if a Smart and an F150 collided in which one
>>>would
>>>you rather be an occupant? If you still believe what you choose to
>>>believe I suggest you take a walk through a salvage yard and LOOK at the
>>>smashed vehicles, then decide which one you would rather have been riding.
>>>
>>>If you are still in doubt ask your insurance agent why a small FWD vehicle
>>>costs as much, or more, to insure than a large more expensive RWD vehicle.
>>>
>>>As to me personally, based on my experience I would never consider riding
>>>in
>>>a small or midget car, just to save a few relative dollars a year of fuel,
>>>or allow my family members to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right. Of course, your heavier vehicle will kill the people in the
>> other vechicle. So, instead of all of us driving cars that will spare
>> our planet as well as our lives, let's see who can get the biggest
>> piece of steel on the planet. You'll be safe while the planet chokes.
>> Great logic.
>>
>> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
>> prevent people like you from killing the planet.
>

On Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:46:24 -0400, "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@lycos/com>
wrote:

>In other words, you are saying you can not afford to buy and operate one of
>the larger safer vehicles right? LOL
>
>

I think big cars are helping to destroy the planet. I certainly could
afford to buy and operate one, but I choose to keep my 1991 Accord
because it works well, gets me where I need to go, and because I think
that people who buy big cars are nasty, pushy, obnoxious, and
inconsiderate of everyone else. I think it's likely that you fit in
all four categories. You might occupy two slots in nasty.

Also, I realize that my 1991 Accord is not particularly fuel
efficient. However, I don't drive very much and all in all it would
have a greater impact on the environment to junk it and buy a new car
than just keep this one running.

dgk wrote:

> Thus the need for big government. We need to BAN big heavy vehicles to
> prevent people like you from killing the planet.

This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in
order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too
many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or
the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the
Republican party self-destructed.

On Apr 3, 3:40*pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:

> This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in
> order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too
> many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or
> the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the
> Republican party self-destructed.

People have different needs, so how would you write the regulations?
What would be the purpose of those regulations?

--
Ron

Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Apr 3, 3:40 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is one area where governments really do need to get involved in
>> order to break the vicious cycle of larger and larger vehicles. Far too
>> many self-centered greedy people that care nothing about the planet or
>> the others on the road. That's the American Way. Or it was before the
>> Republican party self-destructed.
>
> People have different needs, so how would you write the regulations?

For one thing, change the method of registration fees. I know when I was
growing up in Florida, they charged the fees based on the vehicle weight
not value. Not sure if it's still done this way, but in California the
fees are based on value. They need to change this so there's more of an
incentive to buy smaller cars. I.e. as of now, the VLF in my county is
0.65% of the value (and the value goes down each year). What they should
do is to change the formula so that vehicles under a certain weight get
a reduction for every pound under that weight, while vehicles over a
certain weight get an increase.

For example, charge an extra $1 per pound per year for every pound in
excess of 3500, and refund an extra $0.50 per pound for every pound
under 3500. So a Ford Crown Victoria with a curb weight of 4127 pounds,
would pay an extra $627 per year in fees, while a 2723 pound Toyota
Corolla would get a reduction of $388.50 (actually getting a refund). A
Toyota Camry at 3263 pounds get a reduction of $118.50. A Ford Explorer
at 4460 pounds would pay an extra $960 per year. 3500 pounds is just an
example, maybe it should be set at 3250, which is around what the most
popular mid-size cars weigh. It's got to be a significant penalty to get
people to change their behavior, not just $100-200.

Or instead of basing it on weight, base it on MPG, i.e. for every mpg
under 25 mpg city charge an extra $50/year, and for every mpg under 30
highway charge an extra $50 per year. So , a Crown Victoria at 26/18
would pay an extra $550 per year. A Toyota Camry I4 at 31/21 would pay
an extra $150 per year, while a Camry Hybrid at 34/33 would get a $600
credit, and a Prius Hybrid at 45/48 would get a $1900 per year credit.

> What would be the purpose of those regulations?

To make it financially advantageous to purchase smaller, more
fuel-efficient vehicles.

fft1976@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 1, 9:14�pm, jim beam <retard-fin...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> I'll try to explain this in layman's terms:
>>> If you have a 3000 lb Civic crashing into a 6000 lb Ford Pickup head-
>>> on, each traveling at 30 mph, then 0.1 seconds after the crash, their
>>> combined mess will continue going where the Ford was going, but now at
>>> 10 mph (preservation of momentum). Therefore, Civic decelerated 40 mph
>>> in the collision, and Ford only 20 mph.
>> give me a break!!! �what matters is what happens to the occupants
>> acceleration vectors [deceleration] and whether the passenger cell
>> intrudes into their space. �occupant reactions are not simple m1v1 = m2v2.
>
> Do you disagree specifically with anything I wrote? You were saying
> that crash testing into a cement wall shows how safe a vehicle is. I
> wrote that this is not the whole picture, and weight counts (a lot).

1. weight doesn't mean shit when a vehicle collides with a solid object.
and a vehicle with a high roll propensity or that's hard to stop is
much more likely to do that.

2. yet again, what matters in a collision with another vehicle is how
the occupants collide with the rest of the car. to minimize injury,
they want a vehicle whose passenger cell remains intact and whose
exterior absorbs the blow.

3. i've avoided collisions in my civic that i couldn't in larger cars
because it's light and agile and stops quickly. and frankly i reverted
to an 89 civic from a 2000 because the 2000 was so much heavier it
handled like crap. the damned thing wouldn't stop fast either.


>
> I suspect you are one of those big ass SUV drivers who wants everyone
> else to drive compact cars. You'll obviously be safer than if everyone
> drives and SUV, but we won't be.

deliberate suggestio falsi.