on 4/2/03 6:22 PM, Dean T. Lake at dtlake@erols.com wrote [or actually,
quoted Andrew]:
>> Not all of us. Some of us realize if we hit a small car in a big car,
>> those in the big car are going to have a better chance than those in
>> the small car.
Based on that logic, everyone who wanted to assure the safety of their
family would drive a Bradley or an Abrams... or a Peterbilt.
OK, that's silly, but this kind of thinking can only lead to "escalation".
It may be true in one particular instance, but it's nonsense applied to the
vehicle population as a whole. Studies show that well-engineered small cars,
like Honda Civics, are just as safe as any SUV. It drives me crazy to hear
this myth that "bigger is better' endlessly repeated (and worse, used to
subvert sane regulations such as CAFE standards).
Put it this way: We know energy = mass times acceleration. Therefore, a
population of more massive vehicles on the highway not only represents more
energy consumed (as we all are perfectly aware), but also more kinetic
energy waiting to be released in a collision. In other words, more
destructive potential. That doesn't sound safer to me. Moreover, to take the
stance that the best way to deal with all this destructive potential is to
drive an equally massive, equally destructive vehicle is merely to selfishly
and foolishly contribute to the problem.
To me, it looks a lot like deliberately endangering everyone else in order
to delude oneself with an illusion of safety. I personally find that a very
questionable ethical position.
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|