All modern cars are far safer than any built 30 or 40 years ago

The products of Mercedes Benz and Volvo of 30, if not 40, years ago were far ahead of their time. As a student working my way through school, I scrounged junk yards for cheaper parts when needed. I saw a number of Mercedes there and I never saw one where the accident did not look survivalable with minimal injuries if the occupants had been wearing seat belts.

Best Hopes for My 1982 W123 body,

Alan

One of the UK motoring shows ran a test about 6 months ago, where they crashed a 15-year-old Volvo (archetypal "tank" in the mind of the public), with a modern smallish hatch (Citroen IIRC). The cars were collided at 40MPH (combined) impact speed, frontally with 50% of each vehicle (drivers side) hitting the other. Crash-test dummies were placed in the driver's seats.

Result - modern impact-protection worked properly. Volvo dummy had mangled legs and likely severe neck internal internal injuries from the seatbelt action, Citroen dummy walked away due to clever safety construction and airbag.

Obviously if it had been modern 5000lb SUV vs. the same Citroen, we could expect a different outcome - but perceived safety from heavy weight and "tankness" isn't all it appears to be on the surface.

Regards Chris

And what about security? One could easily imagine the outcome, if you have an accident with this cart! I would never sit into a such car. Too dangerous.

Too one of these "eggs" across Europe back in '98. Not too bad, topped out at 100mph but would hold it on the way to Venice and got about 45mpg. Italian Alps were a little adventurous due to body lean, but it was almost as fun as a Ducati with all the leaning. Much better than taking the train and about the same amount of cash. Eurorail tickets are expensive when you're crossing countries.

Now if GM will just import the diesel Opel Vectra/Astra, I'd be in the market for a new Chevy. 10X better than anyting they make for the American market. The one I had a few months ago would fly (200kph) and get about 60mpg at the same time. Now those two cars would put Honda and Toyota on their heels. The Malibu and Cobalt aren't even a pathetic imitation. Don't know who designs this crap for GM, but its time they changed careers. Same with the management, its about time they actually displayed some leadership instead of being a bunch of pathetic accountants.

How about the Q7 vs a bicycle or a motorcycle head on? How does that one work out?

Interestingly mileage is a function of weight and aerodynamics. You can certainly build a large, light car that is safer than a small, light car and with better mileage than a large, heavy car. The aerodynamics aspect involves the coefficient of drag (cd)and the result drag area (cda). You hear a lot about cd, but it's really the effective drag area that gets pushed through the air. For example, my Scion xD has a reasonably good cd (which is surprising, for a box) but the cda is not that great because it's taller than many other small sedans. My brother's old MR2 actually had a worse cd, but a much better cda.

The solution to a safe highway car is to make it longer (more crush area) and low profile (low cda). In town cars that might more often be T-boned can be wider and a little less long (not as big a chance for a high-speed head-on crash). For both, though WEIGHT it critical. The car company to master cost-effective carbon-fiber should "win", IMHO. Big, comfortable in-town cars (for hauling kids now, maybe just for carpool groups later) weighing half as much as today and powered by a Prius drivetrain and getting the same mileage are certainly possible.

The whole argument about safety versus semi's and full-size trucks is real and reasonable, but backwards. The real question is why have we ever allowed semis on the highways, when less money would have been spent to make a fully capable rail infrastructure (even with no on-grade crossing) without any of the many downsides to highway freight. Without massive new subsidies for highways (which is of course still likely for a while) this problem will eventually resolve itself as freight rates rise.

The pickup truck issue will require regulation at some point, as light trucks are often on the roads (pulling vacation trailers, boats, horses, other cars, etc.) and light short-distance transport as well. Requiring low-impact crush space on the front and back of such vehicles, plus automatic braking systems, would be reasonable.

Of course all this assumes we'll still need cars in 10 years. If the peak/slide occurs quickly, the whole point is moot.

I think you are missing some basics here. As we seem to be at Peak Oil, the days of cheap gasoline are gone. It's not possible produce good fuel economy in large heavy vehicles with the technology which is known today. That's because the larger vehicles have rather poor aerodynamics and the only way to improve aerodynamics is to make vehicles smaller. As the grotesquely over sized SUV's and big PU's are driven to the scrap yard, the incidence of collisions between small and large vehicles will decline. Also, at 75 MPH, a wreck in ANY car is very likely to kill you if you hit something solid, such as a bridge or a large truck. Those crash tests you mention are performed at 35 mph. You (and the rest of the U.S.) will need to get used to driving smaller, as much as you may not want to, because that's the only foreseeable future.

E. Swanson

I bet $8 a gallon would solve a lot of these problems all at once.

'We call the small cars "Coffin Cars" and the REALLY small ones "Urns".'

good one- i coughed/choked laughed... tis true.

I've worked for several corporations and the only place I've ever seen it as standard policy (for firings) was at software companies.

As far as voluntary goes, I've left 3 software companies voluntarily and never been escorted out.

In fact, in all three I was on the job for months after announcing my intention to leave.

That is Standard Operating Procedure at my large corporate KC-based card company.

"Nobody could have predicted that..." :-)