and some more eestor news

[tombo]

It all depends what the mass is made of.
I would not expect adding 1000 lbs of lead and battery acid to make a vehicle safer in a collision.

[Maui]

Yes, but everyone else is driving something of a certain mass, and we could average that. Above that average, you are generally safer, below it you are less safe.

Ignoring whether or not this is actually true, the idea of this argument has always disturbed me. Why are people so unabashedly comforted at the idea of making themselves safer... at the expense of others?

[Aero]

Do you think that maybe "Self Preservation" has something to with it? You may as well ask, "Why is 'survival' the number one driving force in life?"
I don't know why, it simply is.

[MSimon]

Yes, but everyone else is driving something of a certain mass, and we could average that. Above that average, you are generally safer, below it you are less safe.

Ignoring whether or not this is actually true, the idea of this argument has always disturbed me. Why are people so unabashedly comforted at the idea of making themselves safer... at the expense of others?

Why not? If some one didn't do that where do you suppose the new ideas would come from? Are electric lights safer than gas lamps? Sure. Then what about the early adopters who made themselves safer at the expense of those who couldn't afford the new technology immediately?

BTW is a fair system one where people can get what they want or one where everyone gets the same?

I can administer a system where everyone gets the same. Top down.

I cannot administer a system where people get what they want. It has to be bottom up. i.e. demand driven. And of course demand is all over the place. Some people want hookers on Saturday night. Some people want to be hookers on Saturday night. Some people want to give large donations to churches on Sunday Morning. Sometimes it is all the same people. Sometimes it is not.

So where is the advantage? That is the strangest thing. In an agreeable exchange all sides are advantaged. Which is pretty amazing when you think about it.

[scareduck]

Yes, but everyone else is driving something of a certain mass, and we could average that. Above that average, you are generally safer, below it you are less safe.

Ignoring whether or not this is actually true, the idea of this argument has always disturbed me. Why are people so unabashedly comforted at the idea of making themselves safer... at the expense of others?

Why not? If some one didn't do that where do you suppose the new ideas would come from? Are electric lights safer than gas lamps? Sure. Then what about the early adopters who made themselves safer at the expense of those who couldn't afford the new technology immediately?

But that's a poor analogy. If I use electric lights, it doesn't hurt anyone not using them (ignoring for now the early safety issues that were later mitigated by such things as fuses and insulated wiring). If I drive an enormous SUV it puts people in smaller cars at risk should there be a collision.

[MSimon]

Ignoring whether or not this is actually true, the idea of this argument has always disturbed me. Why are people so unabashedly comforted at the idea of making themselves safer... at the expense of others?

Why not? If some one didn't do that where do you suppose the new ideas would come from? Are electric lights safer than gas lamps? Sure. Then what about the early adopters who made themselves safer at the expense of those who couldn't afford the new technology immediately?

But that's a poor analogy. If I use electric lights, it doesn't hurt anyone not using them (ignoring for now the early safety issues that were later mitigated by such things as fuses and insulated wiring). If I drive an enormous SUV it puts people in smaller cars at risk should there be a collision.

OK. I get it. The government should determine if you really need a large vehicle and deny you the option if you are being a waster of resources and lives.

And just to make things totally fair we can limit GVW of all vehicles to 2 tons. Or we can install a killer airbag in trucks to kill the driver in a sufficiently severe accident. Just to make things fair.

If you prize economy over safety should that be allowed? After all - seat belts if consistently worn provide 95% of the effectiveness of airbags at 1/20th the cost. Should people be allowed to make that trade off?

So then the question becomes: who decides which values are to predominate? You can have a market situation where individuals decide what they value most or you can have some guy far away from each individual's circumstances decide what is to be on offer.

How do you see to it that the Jews and Muslims get all beef sausages and the rest get all pork. Except for those who would rather have beef and those ignoring the dietary laws of their religion. Well it gets complicated if it has to be centrally administered.

You know why we got lower gas mileage SUV's ? Because we designed laws that made station wagons uneconomical to produce. Because station wagons were passenger vehicles and SUVs were trucks. So the lower mileage station wagon got counted against the passenger vehicle mileage quota and trucks got counted against a different quota.

Pretty slick, huh?

That improved passenger vehicle mileage and car company profits since they could charge more for trucks. Cutest darn maneuver you ever saw. And they did nothing but bitch the whole time. They get a mileage increase and a profit increase without doing very much additional work. All thanks to the government trying to improve things by fiat.

So where am I now? Plug in hybrids are the wave of the future. They will tend to place a ceiling on gasoline prices. One thing we can count on: they will be heavier than their straight gasoline counterparts.

Now do we want some functionary to tell us what the allowable mass is or do we let the engineers and marketing guys come up with a series of trade offs and let the market decide?

[TallDave]

Why are people so unabashedly comforted at the idea of making themselves safer... at the expense of others?

Same reason we have different marginal tax rates. It's pretty easy to justify benefitting yourself at the expense of the other guy.

[TallDave]

These dangers are minimized and essentially eliminated through head rests, seat belts, air bags, crumple zones etc. Essentially, so long as you are wearing your seat belt you don't need to worry much about delta-v for the velocities we are talking about.

Shrug. You can do all that in a large vehicle too -- and you can only mitigate so much risk from delta-v. All else being equal, it's better to be in the heavier vehicle.

The bouncing effect applies in every case that the smaller vehicle does NOT get pinned

Sure, but bouncing is still worse than not bouncing.

All I can suggest is to compare the survivability statistics of various vehicles

Again, if those are based on wall tests they don't speak to whether a smaller vehicle is worse off in a collision with a larger one.

I would not expect adding 1000 lbs of lead and battery acid to make a vehicle safer in a collision.

Why not? We do it with gas SUVs, and families seem to buy them.

[clonan]

Shrug. You can do all that in a large vehicle too -- and you can only mitigate so much risk from delta-v. All else being equal, it's better to be in the heavier vehicle.

However larger vehicles are less manuverable. This means that you are more likley to actually be involved in an accident. Smaller, more agile, vehicles can and do avoid many of thoes accidents.

Sure, but bouncing is still worse than not bouncing.

Very true but remember that most accidents happen at a speed differential of 30 MPH or less. Even highway accidents have low speed differentials because people hit the brakes. The delta-v from bouncing at that speed is well within the tolerances of any healthy person. In addition crumple zones and other safety features reduce the delta-v from the bouncing.

Again, if those are based on wall tests they don't speak to whether a smaller vehicle is worse off in a collision with a larger one.

Actually I was talking about the survivability of the occupants. The insurance companies keep very good statistics on this. You are essentially just as likley to walk away from a bad accident with no serious injuries in a small car as a big car.

You are right that the survivability of the CAR is a different matter. Small cars will be totaled where an SUV would have reparable damage.

[scareduck]

OK. I get it. The government should determine if you really need a large vehicle and deny you the option if you are being a waster of resources and lives.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said such a thing. But it is still a poor analogy. It is simply a fact that much larger vehicles represent a greater physical threat to others -- especially smaller vehicles -- in a collision. This is true whether you're talking about an SUV or a bus.

[MSimon]

OK. I get it. The government should determine if you really need a large vehicle and deny you the option if you are being a waster of resources and lives.

You're putting words into my mouth. I never said such a thing. But it is still a poor analogy. It is simply a fact that much larger vehicles represent a greater physical threat to others -- especially smaller vehicles -- in a collision. This is true whether you're talking about an SUV or a bus.

OK. Guys on horseback are more threatening than ordinary pedestrians. Should horse riding where there are pedestrians be outlawed?

And how about concrete barriers along the sides of all roads to protect pedestrians who are at a severe disadvantage re: automobiles. Why don't those people driving just walk? The nerve of them threatening innocent pedestrians by their selfish choices.

[KitemanSA]

Kind of far afield, aren't we?

[TallDave]

However larger vehicles are less manuverable. This means that you are more likley to actually be involved in an accident. Smaller, more agile, vehicles can and do avoid many of thoes accidents

Yes, and they tend to tip over more too. The original question was just whether they were safer in a collision with a smaller vehicle.

The delta-v from bouncing at that speed is well within the tolerances of any healthy person.

Not everyone is healthy, or properly restrained at impact. If you're leaning around the seat, a collision at that speed can seriously damage your spine or neck. The more delta-v, the worse this is for you.

Actually I was talking about the survivability of the occupants.

So was I.

You are essentially just as likley to walk away from a bad accident with no serious injuries in a small car as a big car.

Possibly true. But in a collision involving one and the other, it's better to be in the larger vehicle.

Picture a Civic ramming an Abrams and this is self-evident. The tank would barely notice the impact.

[clonan]

Yes, and they tend to tip over more too. The original question was just whether they were safer in a collision with a smaller vehicle.

Actually, the original question was are larger vehicles safer than smaller vehicles. The ability to avoid accidents certainly falls into that category. For instance headone collisions are the most dangerous but very rare. A smaller car has a greater ability to steer away from head on accidents and therefore will tend to be in less hazardous accidents.

Not everyone is healthy, or properly restrained at impact. If you're leaning around the seat, a collision at that speed can seriously damage your spine or neck. The more delta-v, the worse this is for you.

But that is true for everyone and every vehicle. The delta-v in an SUV when it hits a civic is still enough to hurt the occupants unless they are properly secured. Even in an SUV a sick or poorly positioned person will get hurt. Health is a continuum. For remotely healthy people who are using seat belts than any typical accident is easily survivable in any vehicle.

Possibly true. But in a collision involving one and the other, it's better to be in the larger vehicle.

Picture a Civic ramming an Abrams and this is self-evident. The tank would barely notice the impact.

And unless the Abrams runs OVER the Civic than the occupants of the civic will get out of their totaled car and say what the h*** was that tank doing on the highway.


This is my point. I am not saying that in an accident Big cars aren't better. What I AM saying is that a larger vehicle isn't necessarily safer. They tend to be in more accidents. Smaller cars tend to be in fewer accidents and the safety features make the survivability of OPERATING a small car roughly equal to the survivability of OPERATING an SUV.

[Helius]

There are clearly costs associated with larger vehicles borne by those with smaller vehicles, or no vehicles at all. Cost of collision risk, road maintenance, increased road design and building costs....

The debate shouldn't be whether or not there is a cost differential, but how the Tax and registration costs should be structured to reflect the differential. I don't believe fuel taxes even begins to cover it.

To see the problem drop fuel prices to $.25... (Gedanken, of course): There'd be secretaries driving vehicles the size of locomotives in from the suburbs, that they may be kept 'safe' from the vehicles the size of the Abrams tanks. My Honda Fit is already fodder for what's out there....