You wonder how these low priced cars do in a crash with a heavy vehicle.
Skipping $5k worth of gee whiz electronics might be reasonable. But please donât mess with the steel.
Interesting perspective! Itâs crucial to consider safety alongside affordability, especially with the growing number of lighter vehicles on the road. While itâs great that more customers are looking at the $20k-$30k range, I share your concerns about how these vehicles perform in a crash against heavier models. Striking a balance between cost-saving features and maintaining essential safety standards is key for consumers today. Thanks for bringing this important issue to light!
Automakers did thin the metal in autobody parts so they would crush accordion style to absorb energy in a crash. My first car-1960 Chevrolet Biscayne-had thick metal in a front end car crash the hood would have shared off the hinges, drive through the windshield decapitating passengers. Also the steering column was a solid one piece of steel that would have been driven through my chest cavity. I believe now most steering columns are collapsible.
If USians could buy less expensive Chinese EVs they would be driving heavy vehicles also.
Due to physics, weight is an important factor. There has always been a wide range in weight of the US fleet. Should legislation be passed to regulate the allowable weight of the US fleet? Does an individual have the ârightâ to assume risk?
A personal private vehicle is a depreciating asset. Best to buy the cheapest one suited for oneâs needs. The same is true in deciding how and where one chooses to live.
There are plenty of safety test results for cars, people just need to look. I recall that some of the smaller cars can actually be safer (built better) than things like the Humvee which has bad crash results.
A few years ago, the IIHS noted that the engineers had made small cars perform just as well in their crash tests, as much larger cars. Rather than congratulating the engineers on their ingenuity, the IIHS declared this a problem. The crash tests were made more stringent, in an effort to make small cars look bad.
All other things being equal, the issue is size difference. If everyone drove something the size of a Camry or Corolla, they would be just as safe as if everyone drove a 5500lb SUV. Certain interests seem to be more interested in making everyone drive a 5500lb SUV, however, so everything is focused on making that happen.
âŚand what happens to a 5500lb SUV, when it is hit by a Peterbuilt, pulling 160,000lbs?
Steve
A while ago (years) I read that on average, larger top heavy SUVâs are more dangerous because they tend to roll easier, killing the occupants. That seems to have changed: From 2021 to 2022, the occupant fatality rate for passenger vehicles decreased from 0.96 to 0.90 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The fatality rate for passenger cars decreased from 1.27 to 1.20, and the fatality rate for light trucks decreased from 0.76 to 0.72
An F150 T-boning a corolla is gonna injure or kill the corolla passengers on the side being T-boned. F150 driver will be fine. A corolla T-boning an F-150 is probably survivable to both drivers. Airbags and all.
Theoretically, legislation is not required other than mandatory insurance which is the practice in most states.
The Insurance industry should be pricing the risk into their rates. If a smaller vehicle tends to have large outlay in claims, rates will rise to cover, and those vehicles wonât be as cheap to operate.
Change the expected outcome. Equip (at buyerâs request and cost) smaller vehicles with SUV-killer tech. Self-defense is a Second Amendment right. Suddenly, the rules of the road become a bit more âcomplicatedâ. Especially with a big SUV facing a problem if its driver wants to be a pain on the road.
I donât believe the 2nd mentions âself-defenseâ at all. Just the âsecurity of a free stateâ!
JimA
But the lawyers DO. That is the rationale used by the courts to keep pushing the right to own a gun. One needs a bigger gun when facing a bigger enemy. Otherwise, military-style weapons would be illegal.
But you made the statement: âSelf-defense is a Second Amendment right.â We certainly shouldnât be accepting that as it just gives more credence to the âlawyersâ who argue that.
JimA
Re: live where you want
Yes, its cheaper to live in a flood zone or down wind from a smelly chemical plant.
There are lots of ways to save money.
Safety is worth paying for.
Congress repealed the Second Amendment one or two CENTURIES ago. They just did NOT bother to remove the Second Amendment.
So what do you think the District of Columbia v. Heller case back in 2008 was about?
U.S. Constitution protects an individualâs right to keep and bear armsâŚand that the District of Columbiaâs ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept âunloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lockâ violated this guarantee.
DB2
That right was repealed by Congress one or two centuries ago.
The Second Militia Act of 1792 required people to personally buy and keep available (at all times) a (what is deemed a) âmilitary grade rifleâ, with ammunition, powder horn, satchel, and more. It was not voluntary. Everyone qualified was required to join the militia. At the time, the govt could NOT afford to equip them, so the govt mandated every militia member provide his own equipment for the use of the govt if it was needed.
Hence, the need for the Second Amendment. Why? The Second Militia Act of 1792 specifically stated the military gear bought for military use (referenced above), was EXEMPT from any and all debts owed by the militia member. The gear could NOT be taken for taxes owedâor any other reason. A militia member without his weapon, gear, etc was useless to the govt as a member of the militia, so the need to keep the militia armedâas long they were paying for their own gearâwas critical.
âAnd every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements re-quired as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.â
Read the italicized header (Chap xxxiii) to get a sense of the meaning of the new law.
When the govt was finally able to pay to equip the military, the Second Amendment ended. Not because I say so, but because the rationale for needing it in the first place no longer existed. The GOVT provided all the military equipment, not the military member(s) serving. Thus, the govt no longer the military members to buy and pay for their own military gear.
The Second Amendment was drafted in 1789, and ratified in 1791. It predates the adoption of the Second Militia Act by several years. How could that Act possibly have been the reason for the Second Amendment?
âŚand the Second Amendment is (murkily but really) deeply entangled, even after the USA could afford to fund a national army, with slave statesâ urgent needs to control potential slave revolts.
d fb