Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#801
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#802
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.
Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#803
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#804
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#805
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#806
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <71v1pvcr5r3qhuv1ct7hqlsrcc06gpr8ue@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
Yes.
Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <71v1pvcr5r3qhuv1ct7hqlsrcc06gpr8ue@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
Yes.
Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#807
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <71v1pvcr5r3qhuv1ct7hqlsrcc06gpr8ue@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
Yes.
Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <71v1pvcr5r3qhuv1ct7hqlsrcc06gpr8ue@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
Yes.
Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#808
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <71v1pvcr5r3qhuv1ct7hqlsrcc06gpr8ue@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
Yes.
Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <71v1pvcr5r3qhuv1ct7hqlsrcc06gpr8ue@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
Yes.
Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#809
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.
And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.
The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).
Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.
And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.
The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).
Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#810
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.
And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.
The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).
Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.
And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.
The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).
Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"