i agree. That's why for me and my wife, buying an old beater economy car is out of the question. If I would have known what a tin can our Neon was, I would have never bought it. We'll keep our Durango and Ram until they need to be replaced and then consider a new more fuel efficient car. I could get by with a Corolla as a work truck since my work has become more technical than heavy over the years and I wouldn't worry too much about my Mrs driving a Camry or an Impala etc... They do pretty good in their crash tests. That's still keeping in mind, a golf ball is 100% damage proof against the driver on impact compared to a bowling ball. I wouldn't want to be in the golf ball when the driver takes a swing. Even though no damage results, one would likely not survive the impact.
'05 2500HD Dodge 5.7L Hemi 5spd auto/3.73 SLT. 95k miles
ex '95 Cummins,'98 12v Cummins,'01.5 Cummins,'03 Cummins
'07 KZ Jag 28JFSS.
Actually when I watch that video I see two things that most don't.
The passengers in the Accord were safely protected at the expense of their car
The passengers in the Ram had a lot more potential injury due to higher G's (jolting) and no airbag deployment
Judging the safety of a vehicle by it's appearance after a crash is a mistake. The Honda did exactly what it was engineered to do, it sacrificed itself to save the people inside. The Ram also did exactly what it was designed to do, resist the need to deform and crumple (It stayed rigid). Think about it, do you want to mount a plow on a vehicle that will crumple like an Accord? Trucks do not have crumple zones because it's irrational to design a vehicle with a crumple zone when it has to also be used to work duty like plowing snow, attaching a winch...etc. Full framed vehicles like the Ram have their place, but it's not in the commuter car demographic, never was meant to be.
'04 Ford Freestar (Primary tow vehicle) '05 Subaru Forester (Backup tow vehicle) '65 Bethany popup (best popups ever made!) Looking for a tow vehicle Minivan towing
Actually all that video illustrates is what happens when a truck-based vehicle designed with little or no regard for safety collides with a compact car.
And you guys still can't figure out why the roads would be a safer place for everyone if less trucks shared them with us? I mean come on, trucks have a place no doubt. But using them as daily commuters only places everyone else at higher risk so you can sit up high and feel powerful in your truck!
Actually when I watch that video I see two things that most don't.
The passengers in the Accord were safely protected at the expense of their car
The passengers in the Ram had a lot more potential injury due to higher G's (jolting) and no airbag deployment
Judging the safety of a vehicle by it's appearance after a crash is a mistake. The Honda did exactly what it was engineered to do, it sacrificed itself to save the people inside. The Ram also did exactly what it was designed to do, resist the need to deform and crumple (It stayed rigid). Think about it, do you want to mount a plow on a vehicle that will crumple like an Accord? Trucks do not have crumple zones because it's irrational to design a vehicle with a crumple zone when it has to also be used to work duty like plowing snow, attaching a winch...etc. Full framed vehicles like the Ram have their place, but it's not in the commuter car demographic, never was meant to be.
Yeah the Accord held up awesome honestly...that's why I posted it. A lot has changed since 1990 and before. But I'm not beating up the Dodge about the airbags thing. I DID notice they didn't deploy, but I wonder if maybe they were disabled for some reason. Anyone have any info about those videos?
I am pretty much in agreement with most. Obviously crashing a Nissan Altima vs. a Nissan Armada, I think we'd all want to be in the Armada SUV. But Altima vs. tree might fare better for the passengers than an Armada vs. tree scenario.
The sheer weight of an SUV makes it "safer" in a collision against other lighter cars. But cars have been made to be safer for years. SUV's are still a tad new to the whole "safety" bug!
-2006 Nissan Armada LE 4x4
-2007 Coachmen 19FLB SE
-2007 Regal 1900 w/ 4.3 EFI Volvo
Supercharged wrote: 4-in-a-fiver and my statments make the same amount of since.
Well i guess will agree to disagree we could go on for ever on this.We use our suburban for the family car and tv,its what works for us the best as i have 7 kids.I drive the neon to work to save gas not because i like it but because my wallet does.For those that drive suv's more power to you the same for those that like the cross overs or what ever you want to call them.Thats why this is america freedom to choose.
daddyralph7 wrote: Thats why this is america freedom to choose.
Yes, you are right freedom to choose is certainly what America is all about.
But, as I'm sure you will agree, freedom to do anything doesn't automatically mean no consequences from that choice. I can burn a flag if I want, but I better be ready for a black eye and fat lip when a veteran sees me doing it.
Likewise, you are free to drive a locomotive if you want. Plenty of pulling power, lots of cargo capacity, handling and braking not so great but since when does that matter right?
Americans use more oil than nearly every other civilized country. Source The only countries using more oil than us per capita are the middle eastern countries that produce most of it. Our dependence on foreign oil is largely based on the fact we use about twice as much as we need on average. If we rethought our choice of vehicle to use as a daily driver, we could significantly reduce our need to do business with outside sources (who hate us by the way) and that's just the beginning. We already talked about the danger to others on the roadways, it's a fact that getting hit by a 7000 SUV is GOING to hurt someone a lot more than a 3500 pound Camry.
Trucks have their place, no doubt. If someone needs a vehicle like this for work, towing, hauling...etc. then by all means get one. It's less dangerous in most cases then trying to haul a yard of gravel home in that Camry. But lets be honest, fewer than 5% of SUV owners actually use these vehicle for these duties. Most use them the same as a minivan.
So choosing to drive a vehicle that can't get 20mpg with the wind at it's back, and is likely to kill SOMEONE in an accident, is still within your rights. But you have to then accept that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Don't get grumpy at others when the sneer at your SUV.
Quote: I can burn a flag if I want, but I better be ready for a black eye and fat lip when a veteran sees me doing it.
And said veteran should be ready for a couple of years in the lockup for felony assault & battery, along with a whopper of a civil suit.
Anyone *****ing about others using too much fuel while owning any sort of RV is lifing in a glass house.
John
1984 Ford B-700 school bus conversion, Thomas body
A bunch of other vehicles
3 nutty cats (Maya, Vierna, Briza)
One lazy dog (Marmaduke)
One wife (Liz)
"A wasted youth is better by far than a wise and productive old age"
-Jim Steinman
daddyralph7 wrote: Thats why this is america freedom to choose.
Yes, you are right freedom to choose is certainly what America is all about.
But, as I'm sure you will agree, freedom to do anything doesn't automatically mean no consequences from that choice. I can burn a flag if I want, but I better be ready for a black eye and fat lip when a veteran sees me doing it.
Likewise, you are free to drive a locomotive if you want. Plenty of pulling power, lots of cargo capacity, handling and braking not so great but since when does that matter right?
Americans use more oil than nearly every other civilized country. Source The only countries using more oil than us per capita are the middle eastern countries that produce most of it. Our dependence on foreign oil is largely based on the fact we use about twice as much as we need on average. If we rethought our choice of vehicle to use as a daily driver, we could significantly reduce our need to do business with outside sources (who hate us by the way) and that's just the beginning. We already talked about the danger to others on the roadways, it's a fact that getting hit by a 7000 SUV is GOING to hurt someone a lot more than a 3500 pound Camry.
Trucks have their place, no doubt. If someone needs a vehicle like this for work, towing, hauling...etc. then by all means get one. It's less dangerous in most cases then trying to haul a yard of gravel home in that Camry. But lets be honest, fewer than 5% of SUV owners actually use these vehicle for these duties. Most use them the same as a minivan.
So choosing to drive a vehicle that can't get 20mpg with the wind at it's back, and is likely to kill SOMEONE in an accident, is still within your rights. But you have to then accept that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Don't get grumpy at others when the sneer at your SUV.
Its your opinion and thats your right,opinions are like rearends everyone has one, oh i also work in the lumber industry, i guess i am just a all around bad guy.
And said veteran should be ready for a couple of years in the lockup for felony assault & battery, along with a whopper of a civil suit.
I'm sure some Texans can chime in, but I remember years ago when this issue went before the Supreme Court. They correctly found it constitutional to burn a flag. In response, Texas (certain counties?) imposed a $5 fine for anyone convicted of assaulting a flag burner. I love Texas...
68 Me & DW
93 DD
03 DD
06 F150 Screw 6.5' Bed, 4x4, 5.4, 3.73
04 Tahoe 23RB-GL Honda EU2000 Parallel Cables "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for...food." Col. Jack O'Neill, Stargate SG-1.
Offline
Online
