Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Reductio ad absurdium is not a logical argument.
It's Official: SUV owners survive crashes 50% better
- Thread starter mrplunkey
- Start date
Reductio ad absurdium is not a logical argument.
PICK3
New member
nimbus
New member
this
nimbus
New member
also i'll just restate my first post in the thread since i kinda touch on that anyway
QUOTE. ORIGINALLY POSTED BY NIMBUS
SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.
if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.
if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.
there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.
but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.
as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons
/QUOTE
QUOTE. ORIGINALLY POSTED BY NIMBUS
SUVs are mainly safer because they are bigger than other vehicles, although to a slight extent it also because they do better in crashes w/stationary objects.
if everyone just keeps buying heavier vehicles in an endless race to exploit other drivers, drivers will be less safe overall because collisions will occur with continually increasing force, not to mention the loss of maneuverability increasing crash frequency, while the marginal benefit of stationary object collision safety diminishes.
if we all drove smaller cars, we'd be a little less safe in stationary object collisions, but a lot safer in car to car crashes because crumple zones would have less energy to absorb. we'd be safer overall.
there is a cutoff with downsizing too because at some point you aren't safe enough with common obstacles people hit like deer or barriers and it outweighs your v2v benefits.
but the right direction currently for overall driver safety is still towards downsizing imo.
as a policymaker i'd push for smaller cars, as a consumer i'd push for bigger. luckily we have government to save us from tragedy of the commons
/QUOTE
PICK3
New member
Apparently I don't have the good sense to avoid fast food binges
Hopefully, the govmint will enact some regulation before all of my arteries close
fuck it ... if things go awry, I'll have Obama Care to fall back on
mrplunkey
New member
If they had to google "f=ma" in the first place, it doesn't really count.
mrplunkey
New member
I guess we're past that whole "f=ma" thing now. That was sophomoric at best.
So let's move the tought experiment forward: What if every single American was forced to drive a two-seater smartcar?
Hint: What percentage of fatal accidents are actually caused by hitting another moving car, versus a loss of control where they hit something that is stationary?
PICK3
New member
agreed
elastic/inelastic collisions wood have been a more application physics concept
Elastic and Inelastic Collisions
nimbus
New member
Apparently I don't have the good sense to avoid fast food binges
Hopefully, the govmint will enact some regulation before all of my arteries close
fuck it ... if things go awry, I'll have Obama Care to fall back on
lol nobody cares if you ruin your own life
Similar threads
