Bob Rochlin wrote:
>To me the real heart of the matter is not if you can put more than
>on child in a TR and get away with it legally, but the turmoil and heartache
>if a child was seriously hurt in the event of an unfortunate accident. Would
>you forever question whether your judgment, or lack thereof, caused pain or
>worse to a child(or their parents) who trusted your judgment. Not
>withstanding the many stupid car tricks I have gotten away with, I'd never
>want to have to entertain those thoughts.
>
No, I wouldn't. But that's a fair and thoughtful point, Bob. Personally
I don't believe that I or my passengers are inherently in more danger
riding in a TR than in a modern car. While modern cars have features
like airbags and ABS, they also have features like CD players with loud
sound systems, video screens, hands-free cell phones, air conditioning,
and astounding blind spots -- all of which serve to isolate and distract
drivers from the driving experience and increase the likelihood of an
accident. By comparison a TR is well designed to enhance driver awareness.
Especially compared to the use, as a family car, of a truck-based SUV
that doesn't comply with passenger car safety rules anyway, I'd much
rather drive my family in a responsive low-center-of-gravity sports car
-- even one that's over 40 years old. ISTR that Triumph ran a TV advert
that showed a TR7 NOT crashing into a wall? Not to be glib, but I don't
think that shows a lack of judgement.
Steven Newell
Littleton, CO
'62 TR4, '66 Volvo 122S wagon, '76 Mercedes 240D
|