road rage, tailgating, and Big Vehicles

Status
Not open for further replies.
I got t-boned in my Sentra by a 3000GT. The nose was already low, and even lower during that event as he was hard on the brakes. The nose of his car caved in the bottom of my door and crushed the rocker panel. If it'd been a truck, I might have gotten badly hurt. Judging from the damage of that 30mph impact, I much rather be in a truck if anything taller than a 3000GT hit me. What is a side-impact air bag besides a 2" thick pillow between you and the nose of the approaching truck? I'm not sure that's enough.

I'm no proponent of SUVs, but I think they're much safer for a side-impact crash.
 
Sorry, and I have nothing against anyone on BITOG or their vehicle choices but as a small car driver, and just as a person, it rubs me the wrong way to hear people tout their vehicle's mass as a "safety feature" because, essentially, it's more likely to seriously injure the other guy. The logical extension of this is having directed explosive charges mounted on the outside of your vehicle to soften the blow while killing the occupants of the colliding vehicle. Why not, right?

I'm more a fan of safety features like airbags, crumple zones, and same-height bumpers that protect the occupants of one vehicle without overtly hurting the occupants of the other.

I'll rest easy if I ever get hit by a pickup that the other driver was safe and sound in their big steel box.

Like I said, nothing against anyone here. I honestly believe most of us are conscientious drivers who are more likely to be t-boned than to t-bone someone else. I just think it sets a bad precedent. Relying on vehicle size for safety is a wasteful arms race, not a solution.

Just to clarify, I want to repeat that I am not judging anyone's vehicle choices because I acknowledge they are made for a variety of reasons. (Heck, I've got a Suburban in my driveway, too)
 
Originally Posted By: rationull
I'm more a fan of safety features like airbags, crumple zones, and same-height bumpers that protect the occupants of one vehicle without overtly hurting the occupants of the other.


I'd be a fan of standardizing passenger vehicle mass and crash compatibility.
 
I'm more of a fan of people getting off the danm cellphone and learning how to drive like they have some sense. Seriously, when I went to school to get my CDL it was an intensive training program that taught me how to safely operate a giant piece of machinery capable of massive amounts of carnage on the road. If the standards were as strict for regular licenses as they are to get a commercial license, I guarantee that the number of fatalities and accidents would die down.
 
Originally Posted By: rationull
Sorry, and I have nothing against anyone on BITOG or their vehicle choices but as a small car driver, and just as a person, it rubs me the wrong way to hear people tout their vehicle's mass as a "safety feature" because, essentially, it's more likely to seriously injure the other guy. The logical extension of this is having directed explosive charges mounted on the outside of your vehicle to soften the blow while killing the occupants of the colliding vehicle. Why not, right?

I'm more a fan of safety features like airbags, crumple zones, and same-height bumpers that protect the occupants of one vehicle without overtly hurting the occupants of the other.

I'll rest easy if I ever get hit by a pickup that the other driver was safe and sound in their big steel box.

Like I said, nothing against anyone here. I honestly believe most of us are conscientious drivers who are more likely to be t-boned than to t-bone someone else. I just think it sets a bad precedent. Relying on vehicle size for safety is a wasteful arms race, not a solution.

Just to clarify, I want to repeat that I am not judging anyone's vehicle choices because I acknowledge they are made for a variety of reasons. (Heck, I've got a Suburban in my driveway, too)


You are not the only person who feels this way.

Maybe allowable vehicle size could be rationed based on driving skill and personality testing. Level headed and competent drivers could have their Tankamatic 5000's while the testosterone addled and inattentive would be relegated to Metros.

Think of the increase in safety for us all!
 
Quote:
The logical extension of this is having directed explosive charges mounted on the outside of your vehicle to soften the blow while killing the occupants of the colliding vehicle. Why not, right?


Exactly. The "me" thing and to heck with humanity
LOL.gif


Let's all have a game of "top this" in mass destructive capability.

Quote:
I'm more a fan of safety features like airbags, crumple zones, and same-height bumpers that protect the occupants of one vehicle without overtly hurting the occupants of the other.


I go the other way. Reduce transportation to sensible levels and not spend massive amounts of energy intensive mass on safety features. Eventually you'll have a 100% fatality free car that no one can afford to drive or fuel. Move more of the super high mass stuff to rail and make tin cans that can get 65mpg in their sleep.
 
Originally Posted By: rationull
Sorry, and I have nothing against anyone on BITOG or their vehicle choices but as a small car driver, and just as a person, it rubs me the wrong way to hear people tout their vehicle's mass as a "safety feature" because, essentially, it's more likely to seriously injure the other guy. The logical extension of this is having directed explosive charges mounted on the outside of your vehicle to soften the blow while killing the occupants of the colliding vehicle. Why not, right?

I'm more a fan of safety features like airbags, crumple zones, and same-height bumpers that protect the occupants of one vehicle without overtly hurting the occupants of the other.

I'll rest easy if I ever get hit by a pickup that the other driver was safe and sound in their big steel box.

Like I said, nothing against anyone here. I honestly believe most of us are conscientious drivers who are more likely to be t-boned than to t-bone someone else. I just think it sets a bad precedent. Relying on vehicle size for safety is a wasteful arms race, not a solution.

Just to clarify, I want to repeat that I am not judging anyone's vehicle choices because I acknowledge they are made for a variety of reasons. (Heck, I've got a Suburban in my driveway, too)


***AGREED***

The "mine's bigger" race is a great for the individual but doesn't do "humanity" right. I want my wife and kids to be safe, but also the drivers around them to be safe as well. The competition to get bigger steel for safety is driven by fear of loss, and fear is a dangerous thing. I've often wondered if those of us in bigger cars for "safety" reasons might suffer from less inner-certainty than the guy driving around in a civic who just goes about his business. (My boss years ago was a whip-smart x-farm-boy who did really well, managed huge projects, was built like an iron barrel and drove a tercel...).

Think of all these news articles about the recent surge in Americans' purchases of guns in lieu of the market collapse. Just who are they planning on shooting?? We're not looking at a foreign invasion... And if they get desperate enough while hungry, are they going to shoot me for my food? Fear becomes...._______.

We *IMO* as culture are very vulnerable to fear. I'm no different. We work hard to get what we want but then become very fearful of losing it, and are often (generalization) willing to say "that's his problem, not mine" when we go out and buy a sedan-crushing 9000lb grocery-getter. Our since of civic community goes only skin-deep.

Note: I'm not accusing others without admitting my own weakness.

Mike
 
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

I go the other way. Reduce transportation to sensible levels and not spend massive amounts of energy intensive mass on safety features. Eventually you'll have a 100% fatality free car that no one can afford to drive or fuel. Move more of the super high mass stuff to rail and make tin cans that can get 65mpg in their sleep.


Of course, you're right about this. The real problem (both for safety and for the environment/oil dependency issues, etc) is a critical mass of cars and not the types of cars being driven. To clarify, I don't support a safety features "arms race" any more than a vehicle mass one. I do think what we have in airbags (esp curtain airbags), ABS, and related right now is a good thing, though, given the current road environment.


I'm glad to see agreement. Talking with some people I know (or more accurately, people the GF knows through one of her hobbies) I've had to hold my tonque to avoid calling them out on their antisocial "safety" decisions wrt their daily driver trucks at times. Honestly, it kind of disgusts me. I mean, I don't care if they want to drive their trucks around all the time, and if it prevents them from getting injured in an accident caused by somebody else then I'm glad, but I'd rather just be alert and avoid the accident, if possible.


Originally Posted By: kingrob
I'm more of a fan of people getting off the danm cellphone and learning how to drive like they have some sense.


QFT. I just don't get how people think it's OK to operate something as dangerous as a car without paying attention.
 
Originally Posted By: rpn453
............I'd be a fan of standardizing passenger vehicle mass and crash compatibility.


Me too. This is something NHTSA has failed at miserably! I would also like to see a tighter tolerance on headlamp height, and a reduction in headlamp glare. Kudos to Ford for lowering the headlamp height on their Super Duty pickups.
 
Originally Posted By: SubLGT
Originally Posted By: rpn453
............I'd be a fan of standardizing passenger vehicle mass and crash compatibility.


Me too. This is something NHTSA has failed at miserably! I would also like to see a tighter tolerance on headlamp height, and a reduction in headlamp glare. Kudos to Ford for lowering the headlamp height on their Super Duty pickups.


I believe Ford was also the first to reduce bumper height on the SD trucks to prevent them from going OVER cars. I remember this was an advertised feature on the Excursion.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

I believe Ford was also the first to reduce bumper height on the SD trucks to prevent them from going OVER cars. I remember this was an advertised feature on the Excursion.


Didn't Ford standardize the bumper heights on all their models some years ago? I'm not sure if they're still all the same but that seems like a really, really good idea. Collision compatibility is definitely something that needs more work, both for safety reasons (high speed collisions) and to minimize damage cost and waste (low speed collisions).
 
I believe you are correct. It was to address the well-noted issue of truck bumper height when involved in collisions with automobiles.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I believe you are correct. It was to address the well-noted issue of truck bumper height when involved in collisions with automobiles.


was it to reduce legal liability by Ford? say someone in a car get hit by a big truck whose bumper was at their head in a collision.
 
I don't think so, otherwise wouldn't Dodge and GM have done it as well?

It's possible though I'm sure.

I just know they were advertising it as a "feature".


OT:

Anybody else remember Chrysler in the 90's advertising side-impact beams as this new safety feature?

I remember having the door panels off my '87 GT and observing these bars; my Townie has them too. Makes me wonder how long OTHER auto manufacturers were using them before Chrysler thought it might be "revolutionary" and start advertising and using them as well........
 
Sorry, but the excuse to drive around a mammoth SUV/pick-up truck is due to safety reasons is a side-show. It's all really about power and control and inciting fear in others, conducted by those who are very insecure about themselves. This is why you see the vast majority of them alone on their high horses, they are within their own little world with the perception that they are completely in control of themselves and if need be those around them. It is all about power-tripping. This disease in America will not go away because if you'll notice around you, most of these people begin to resemble the vehicles they drive....
 
Sure, you've got EVERYBODY figured right out.

I'm sure every time my mom (retired Special Ed teacher) hops in her Expedition, the first thought that blips through her mind is how many people she can intimidate on her way to wherever she's going.

I'm sure when my dad is driving through 1ft of snow down their rarely plowed rural New Brunswick road in the same vehicle, trying to get to the University to teach is thinking the same thing as well.

What you are doing is called STEREOTYPING.....

And as much as one person MEETING that profile may set you off, there is another doing the complete opposite.
 
Overkill, notice I say vast majority and most as keywords. I dont need to call out your parents because there is no need here, nor will I defend them. If you dont consider them the vast majority of SUV/truck drivers then I would dismiss my commentary as not relevant to your situation. Your parents were not my target audience. I still stand by my comments as this is the way I perceive the vast majority of them.
 
Challenger, perhaps it depends on where said demographic resides? Rather: the sample being analyzed from California is far more likely to contain a higher percentage of a$$-hats than a sample made from Thunder Bay, or Northern New Brunswick; places that get a LOT of snow. In Southern Ontario, I'd say it's maybe a 50/50 split?

Same goes with idiots in small cars who think they own Ferrari's and can drive like Mario Andretti though.......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom