[geeks] Mac definitions

[Dan Sikorski]

On 7/12/2011 9:42 AM, Michael Parson wrote:
>> That wasn't a head on crash, it was offset.  Maybe on purpose.
>
>
> Yeah, you're right, but most front-end collisions tend to be offset, due
> to how we drive down the road, those types of accidents are going to be
> caused by someone drifting over the line, and be offset to the driver's
> side.
>

The offset front end collision became the the real test of crash safety 
years ago when that became apparent.  Running into a a concrete wall at 
speed just doesn't happen very often in the real world.  Also, the 
offset crash tends to cause more injuries as the energy of the crash is 
concentrated on the driver's side, where there is always a person.

> Personally, most of the accidents I've been in have been me being rear
> ended while waiting at stop lights.
>

Same here.   That has happened to me three times.

> I don't know how parents these days are, but I remember when I was
> getting my drivers license back in the 80s, parents would talk about how
> they wanted to get their kid some big car from the 60s or the 70s, so
> that they would be better protected by all that steel should there be a
> crash.  Maybe a 76 Buick would have stood up better to an 85 Tercel, but
> these days, you're probably going to do better in the Mini Cooper should
> it have a similar collision with the 76 Buick.
>

Unfortunately, those cars do a good job of protecting themselves, but a 
poor job of protecting their passengers.  I think that was largely an 
excuse for parents to have a car that is cheaper to purchase and repair 
anyway, not an attempt to increase safety.  Anyone who still subscribes 
to that theory should take a look at crash data and pictures.  The 
1970's cars fare better then the 1959 Chevy in the video, but their 
passengers do not.  Modern cars are damaged more easily because they are 
designed to.  When all of the energy from the crash is used to deform 
the front end of the vehicle while keeping the passenger compartment 
intact, people walk away from accidents that completely destroy the 
car.  That definitely doesn't happen with the 1976 Buick. I am probably 
belaboring the point to the members of this list that already understand 
that, but I have still heard that repeated from others that simply are 
not informed.

>> I wonder if this was the same outfit that "showed" that my old '73
>> Corolla had a 25% chance of bursting into flames if read ended by
>> another vehicle going 35 mph while Ford was denying the Pinto had an
>> explosion problem.
>>

Or the ones that planted ignitors in the trucks with the side mounted 
gas tanks.  Thing is, I don't want to be driving something that leaks 
fuel that easily in an accident even if chances of explosion are 
actually lower than they claim.

>> Of course the best thing is not to crash.  We all do that every day.
>> :-)
>
> Until you don't. :)
>

...which may or may not be under your control.

     -Dan Sikorski