This whole safety issue hit home yesterday when I was driving home. As
I started around a bend in the road, I noticed all sorts of flares
burning on both sides of the road. As I rounded the bend, I saw the
rear of a chrome bumper MGB on one side and the front of some
nondescript modern car on the other. The modern car's bumper and grill
were well caved-in. As I passed the MGB, I noticed that very little
damage had occurred to it even though the accident was obviously a
head-on.
So, I must conclude that although safety standards have been updated in
recent years, the cars are not necessarily any stronger because of it.
Just a passing observation.
Joe Curry
Reed Mideke wrote:
>
> Hmmm... All the child seats I've seen are secured by the seatbelt,
> and not attached in any other way to the car or seat. Thus the
> preference for non inertial reel belts.
>
> I'd say in a crash, a small light car is much more likely to get
> squished than a big heavy one. I'd hesitate to say a spit (equiped with
> a roll bar) would fair worse than say a geo metro, but the ~30 mph
> headon I had in a 67 Lincoln Continental would have been a different
> story in my spit (or a geo)...
>
> As jonmac points out, you can't predict what car is going to fair best
> in an accident: SUVs are much more likly to flip, and little FWD cars much
> more likely to spin, and a viper is much more likely to hit some object
> a 200mph.
>
> Maybe a hummer is the way to go... but since it's twice as wide as
> a spit, you're more likely to hit something.
>
> --
> Reed Mideke rmideke@interbase.com
--
"If you can't excel with talent, triumph with effort."
-- Dave Weinbaum in National Enquirer
|