![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Having driven around at least five wouldbe accidents over the years, in
everything from a Buick Riviera, Mini, Renault Fuego, and Porsche 356, I disagree. Perhaps maneuverability PLUS driving skill and experience trumps crashworthiness (I have Skip Barber training and some autocross experience). At any rate, I'd always rather avoid the accident entirely than have one. :-) That said, if the accident is truly unavoidable, having a bit more metal around you is certainly nice. Sort of like the BRS parachute debate: Do you want to have the ultimate backup to use that one time the wings fold, at the expense of reduced payload all the time and the increased temptation to push the limits a bit more often. -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) "Happy Dog" wrote in message .. . "Bob Chilcoat" wrote in Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is always better than just surviving one. I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well. moo -- Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways) "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... Peter Duniho wrote: "Dave Stadt" wrote in message . .. A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability. Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current statistical data gathering. However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause of most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just in this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when first of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first place. Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness" rather than "capable of crash avoidance." Matt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1/72 Cessna 300, 400 series scale models | Ale | Owning | 3 | October 22nd 13 03:40 PM |
Nearly had my life terminated today | Michelle P | Piloting | 11 | September 3rd 05 02:37 AM |
Wow - heard on the air... (long) | Nathan Young | Piloting | 68 | July 25th 05 06:51 PM |
Parachute fails to save SR-22 | Capt.Doug | Piloting | 72 | February 10th 05 05:14 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |