Car safety stats (risk of death vs risk of killing other drivers)

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

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

 

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.

deliberate suggestio falsi.

 

i remember you bullshitting on this stuff before. /you/ must have been
the guy that designed the f150 because /you/ don't seem to know wtf
you're talking about.

based on the actual facts, not suppositional underinformed bullshit, the
smart. any day.

actually, i am a guy that's spent a whole shit-load of time in junk
yards looking at smashed vehicles. i'll take a vehicle whose exterior
gets all fucked up absorbing energy and whose passenger cell remains
intact over /ANY/ detroit piece of shit that looks ok-ish, is heavy, but
has amputated my legs.

what a crock! have you even insured a freakin' car?

i won't allow my family to drive detroit garbage that doesn't perform
satisfactorily in crashes. that's real world crashes, not suppositional
crashes by trolls that can't accept the fact that maybe they're
underinformed.

 

er, listen "dummy", your so-called "third crash" is predicated by the
deceleration rate. deceleration rate is determined by energy
absorption. energy absorption is predicated by deformation. thus you
want a car which bends, not some hunking great lump of detroit crap that
remains rigidly undeformed. duh.

not as many as big heavy suv's and trucks!

 

that's because they can't. if you have 100% more weight on the road but
only 50% more rubber [if that], it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to
figure out which vehicle can be best stopped or maneuvered. [hint -
it's not the suv.]

this is something that blows my mind - modern engines are /way/ more
efficient than old ones, yet because modern cars have all this "safety
weight", their fuel consumption is actually /worse/ than older vehicles.
check out the fuel consumption on the crx hf vs. the fit or civic hybrid.

 

What is wrong with a gas tax? Registration fees, once paid, don't
discourage anyone from driving.

 

iirc, they do _two_ such things in europe:

1. heavily tax gas.

2. tax based on engine size or vehicle weight.

such a policy here would have a much the same effect as there you have
to suppose - many more smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.

 

The gas tax is such a distributed expense that it's of limited value in
changing behavior. Also, the chances of getting a gas tax that is high
enough to change behavior is highly unlikely at either the federal or
state level given the influence of the oil companies. The big 3
automakers have a lot less money to purchase influence these days, and
the other automakers might not be against weight or MPG based vehicle
license fees.

When you get hit with a $500 extra fee for registration when you
purchase the car, with the knowledge that that fee will be assessed
every year, it will have more of an effect.

 

I agree completely!

 

Why in the hell do people need to be driving TANKS on our public roads?
It just increases the danger for the rest of us.
EVERYONE would be safer if they went back to sensibly sized cars.
Leave the SUVs for their original limited TRUCK uses.

It's more likely the F150 will be ramming the Smart,because the Smart can
be controlled,and the F150 is more likely the one to be OUT OF CONTROL.

so,with his insane logic,we should make the Smart bigger and heavier....
and less fuel efficient.

also,the F150 driver is more likely to consider himself well-protected and
become more careless about how he drives.

and put all the rest of us at increased risk,along with wasting
fuel,risking ocean pollution,and enriching our enemies.

Very unpatriotic.

 

Families may own two or more vehicles, one of which, needs to be
larger for carrying the whole family and towing a boat or trailer.
Your solution doesn't match the needs of those families.

 

OMG, that's terrible--charging people extra when they need a large car
to tow a boat!

For large families, there are ways to offset the cost with tax credits
or tax deductions for large families. Similarly, for vehicles used
commercially, the increase in fees can be offset with tax deductions.