Hence I believe the reason that Federal Safety standards have gone above and beyond in making cars overly heavy and by adding too many saftey features to vehicles that don't need them.
Yet in some states, a motorcycle rider can go without a helmet.
To me, vehicles that roll over easy (SUV's) should have mandatory airbags in headrests and pillars and roof and everywhere. In fact, SUV's should be equipped with every saftey feature in the book, because the people who buy them don't care about spending more money for those added features nor do they worry about the weight of the vehicle.
Alternatively, smaller cars should be allowed to add saftey features as they see fit. Seatbelts, Airbags, ABS, make the required and call it day. I'd gather to say that when a small compact car rolls over, if the occupant is wearing a seatbelt, they'll just go along for the ride. What good will all those other airbags and gizmos do in keeping that person in their seat? And what good are all those gizmo's going to do when they get ran over by a Escalade or a Mack? If people want a Tata, let them have it! I can buy a motorcycle and ride without a helmet but I can't buy a $3000 new car? I can ride my bicycle in city traffic but I can't ride in a four-wheeled box with lights and a horn?
Doesn't make any sense.
S2 wrote:
Yep, riding in a 13 ton M113A3 Armored Personnel Carrier and was hit by a 68 ton M1A1 tank. Guess who won.... The tank TC was grinning when he drove away. Me, not so much....
I'd like to see safety standards designed to avoid accidents. Maximum braking distances, for example (yeah, there I go again). Every new car should be able to haul down from 70 mph to 0 in, say, 175 feet. Single stop is fine. I suspect we'd see some massive tires, but we'd also see tech like Mercedes' "Brake Assist" hit the mainstream.
I thought Canada's decision to implement DRLs right at the same time the US mandated exploding steering wheels was a good example of this. I've always felt DRLs were a safety feature, although I know feelings run high on this one. Still, properly implemented (see Corvette, not Saturn), they don't have any real downside other than taking away the extra visibility afforded to motorcyclists by their DRLs. That's a real problem and I don't have an immediate solution for it, although if you're riding a Harley and depending on loud pipes to save your life instead of a helmet, I don't have a lot of sympathy.
To me, safety equipment should be optional on EVERY car. 99% of my time is spent alone in my daily... but for some reason I've paid for E36 M3 to protect all four seats. berkeley those non-occupants and gimme my $1200 back. I'll take out the seats if it helps you in court.
I also have sold an assload of airbags on ebay... because they come out of every car I've put harnesses in. I even bought one of those cars new... would have liked to opt out on the front end.
Don't even start with the "lawyers and who is paying for my injuries" nonsense either. I see dooshbags riding 200hp motorcycles in shorts, tank tops and ball caps. I thing they are retarded but envy the options a little. I still remember riding up the highway in the back of an f100 full of wood we just chopped. I was about 8... I remember it because it was awesome.
Here's what I know. Aside from NHTSA testing, here is a photo of my wife's Tercel after she lost control from hitting a tire in the road, hit a concrete wall at about 45 mph. She had a bloody nose from the airbag hitting her sunglasses. Her passenger had a bruised hand when it flew forward and hit the dash. Otherwise they were both perfectly healthy; no hospital.
I showed up to get her as the paramedics were leaving, and she actually drove ME home. She said, "I gotta get back on the horse." By the time we were near home she was back to normal - talking on the phone, playing music on her iPod, and laughing about it. That car saved my wife.
RIP, green bean.
walterj wrote:
To me, safety equipment should be optional on EVERY car.
I'm so with you walter. I get so frustrated with things like seat belt laws and helmet laws. Its MY choice. Something like having operating brake lights, that is cool. That affects the safety of others, but in an accident, having a helmet on my head doesn't prevent me from killing others.
They are legislating my choice to force me to do something that has NO effect on anyone else. Talk about legislating morality 
Just leave me alone. If you want me to signal before changing lanes, OK. If you want me to submit to smog tests in an attempt to prevent gross pollution, OK. If you want me to conform to a law that only affects ME and no one else, berkeley you.
THIS JUST IN!:
" Dump Trucks Safer in crash testing !"
Your tax $$$$ at work
Where is that tea party?
Basic physics will tell you that over approximately 45 MPH it's pretty academic what you are riding in. A 4000 pound luxobarge has about the same survivability as a 2000 pound econobox. You smack the side of that 4000 pound pimp wagon with the 2000 pound econobox and you know what? Chances are the econobox will make it just about all the way through, meaning the passengers are just as dead.
Or at least it's that way with the current safety fixation on airbags in every crevice and all the electronic crap which gives a false sense of security, like the interactive cruise controls and silly crap like that which makes the driver LESS likely to pay attention to their driving. I'm gonna wear out my old idea again, but incorporate what NASCAR has learned about roll cages into the vehicle's basic structure, have crumple zones front and rear, scrap the airbags and replace them with intelligently designed padding, put decent brakes with ABS and handling capability into those vehicles and I bet you'd see the death/injury rate drop. But that makes too much sense.
SoloSonett wrote:
THIS JUST IN!:
" Dump Trucks Safer in crash testing !"
Your tax $$$$ at work
Where is that tea party?
No, this is IIHS, not NHTSA. Can't blame this one on the gov. It's your insurance premiums at work.
