"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:vVf1f.

Yet the stats show motorcycles to be much more dangerous than cars. Or
do accidents mostly happen to non-alert operators? And you were about to
say about the survivability of collisions above 40 MPH?

Yes, most accidents happen to folks that aren't paying attention and
maintaining situational awareness. Just as in flying.

You were about to say about the survivability of collisions over 40 MPH?
Nothing, right?

Comment: When I started flying, I noticed the amount of training that went
into safety issues of all kinds far exceeded anything I saw in performance
driving. All this because you can't pull over. Almost. I know that most
training considers a career as a commercial pilot. But the number of
safeguards we learn should make us invincible. And, yet, we're taught and
reminded that, without rote procedures, things can quickly get out of hand.
The skill of being able to maintain grace under pressure and follow a
checklist, maybe one of a dozen, that others have written for you to follow,
is a proved lifesaver. Good, safe, piloting has little in common with race
or performance driving. Or great pitching or goaltending. And a great deal
depends on the equipment. Planes use technology that was old, I remember,
in the sixties. But one tends to listen to the AME's opinion with a bit
more respect than the race mechanic. So, you may think that your skill
trumps bad luck and the safeguards available to counter it. But, you're
likely dreaming.

Anyway, many accidents involve people who have no hope of avoiding them.
This happens all the time, no?

I only have to avoid one crash to make up the difference. You are basing
your argument on the underlying assumption that a crash is inevitable. I
don't accept that premise.


Many of them are. You're an idiot if you think you're immune. And,
survivability, given enough time and miles, *is* the issue. The
difference between the great driver who avoids every accident and the one
who doesn't is, eventually, luck.

Never said I was immune. A vehicle that is even 50% more crashworthy than
another (if there is even a decent way to make such a comparison), still
doesn't GUARANTEE survival. That is my point. Avoiding an accident
guarantees survival. Getting in an accident, even in the biggest, baddest
SUV, doesn't guarantee survival. Personally, I'd rather focus on avoiding
the accident and having 100% survivability, than to accept a few accidents
and hope that I survive the accident.

You're dreaming. Almost everyone who races cars knows how cruel luck is.
People crash, for whatever reason, including mechanical failure (a biggie
with pilots). And they take others with them. Many, many accidents involve
people who have no hope of avoiding them. You think you can? Almost nobody
who races cars thinks so. If winning just meant surviving, F1 races would
be done in Hummers.

The fundamental point is that I believe it is a better deal to increase my
odds of avoiding an accident and trading a little crashworthiness to do
that (although, the SUV data doesn't even support that they are better
overall than cars). You are saying you would rather have more accidents,
but have them in a more crashworthy vehicle.

Idiot.

It is inevitable that I will die. It is not inevitable that I will be in
an automobile crash. The only wreck I've had was a single vehicle
accident in a VW Beetle where I lost control in heavy snow. I was 17
years old and haven't had an accident since then and that was nearly 30
years ago.


That you can't see the error in your logic is, at once, disturbing and
pedestrian.

There is no error in my logic. I'm basically doing an expected value
calculation mentally. Look it up.

Asking you how you avoid a crash caused by someone who has caused havoc by
their stupidity, or not, that presents you with a hopeless situation would
require you to deal with that possible reality. GR, SR and Euclidean
Geometry ary internally consistant and contain no errors. Keep your foot
over the brake pedal entering every intersection.

Also, you increase the chance of an accident due to roll-over. The last
statistics I saw showed that SUVs were LESS safe then cars, so your
argument simply doesn't hold in the real world.


Cites, please?

Consumer Reports. I don't recall which issue and am not going to dig
through my 10 years of back issues on your behalf. Do you own research.

Cites please. Just give me anything that show small cars being, generally,
more crashworthy than large cars will do.

No. I'm speaking about crashworthiness, period. Usually it's bigger.
Not always. And, sometimes, like the experience related above, luck
plays a big part.

Yes, but competent alert drivers have much greater luck than the average
driver. :-)

Luck favours the prepared. You think your are, why? You have compared your
driving skills to others how? Try to give us something other than your own
self-revering speculation.

You made the claim. Just cite your stats. You're comparing SUVs and
small (compact & sub-compact) cars, right?

I don't need to cite the stats. I know the data and am comfortable with
that. If you want to see the data, go find it. I told you above where to
look.

Didn't think you could. Maybe you should rethink your beliefs.

moo