Matthew S. Hallacy wrote: >On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 12:12:21PM -0600, Matt Murphy wrote: > > > >> True, but studies show *you* won't be better off >>because you have a big car, the other guy will just be worse off. >>(at least that's what studies of SUVs said) So, basically if you're >>just out to kill other people, go for it, but I'll be hoping my crumple >>zones (and quick reflexes) protect me. >> >> > >Not exactly true, the mass of my '88 chevy is more than enough to plow >*through* the fiberglass cars and continue on my merry way until friction >brings me to a "gentle" halt. > > > The problem with your '88 Chevy is that its rigid frame will transfer most of the kinetic energy into the cabin where your body gets to make the necessary adjustments to absorb the impact. The big question is how you're feeling when friction brings the car to a gentle halt but your spinal cord has impaled itself in your brain pan. I really hate it when that happens. >On the extreme end, consider a semi or train running into a vehicle, >the mass is too great for one of those dinky cars to stop. > > The difference won't be much different than a train impacting a Suburban. Given the choice between an '88 Chev and a 2003 Civic with a crumple zone, front and side-curtain airbags, I'll take the Honda every time. Just for the record, one of the worst performing vehicles on the offset crash test is the F-150 with near certainty of the driver and passenger being severely injured or killed. One of the best is the Forester. --rick _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list