Advocacy & Safety - PSA: even SUVs are made like tin cans these days

at the end of my commute, I cut down an alley to avoid the main drag. Some guy behind me in an SUV did the same, and he, of course, had to pass me at a high rate of speed so he could spend more time waiting at the stop sign. When he finally makes it to the stop sign, he drag races 100 feet to the main drag to wait longer at the stoplight. He's an important man, in a hurry to cure cancer. I come up behind him at the light and do a track stand. It's a long light. When it finally turns green, I'm thinking that mr. Speed Racer is going to zoom off again, but he just sits, and sits and sits. I had moved out of the track stand and had to put a foot down. Speed Racer still sits. It's not a long light in our direction, we're about to miss the cycle. So I yell "go" and smacked the back of his SUV with my fingertips, not hard enough to even make them sting. It made a sound like I rear-ended him with a semi. Good thing I didn't hit it with the side of my fist, probably would have disabled the car.

Probably shouldn't be smacking peoples cars... anyways they're made like that now to save weight, increase profit and increase mileage... good luck to them in the next hail-storm!

I didn't expect it to sound like the heavens were descending upon us. It really was a pretty light tap. I usually reserve my car smacking for the people that are in the process of trying to make their vehicle occupy the same part of the time-space continuum as I am. Suppose I should get an airzound.

Yeah, i often find myself in a dilemma whether to knock on the trunks of distracted drivers or just wait for them to realize the light is green.

Just pass him. I always go to the front on a red light anyway...cops dont care around here.

I read and understand what you've written, I'm on your side and think HIS behavior was silly.

I initially responded to this based on the title. In answering IT, I've only to say that cars, SUVs.... haven't NOT been thin fendered for a long, long time. Made like that now ? Yes if now meens using 20 guage, in use for many years now.

Thinner metal is not only used to save weight, but to crumple easier in a crash in order to absorb kinetic energy, and reduce G- force loads; like running into a pile of soft pillows versus a brick wall. In my youth, I lost my temper and kicked my 50's vehicle, and swore I'd never do that again; no dent to the vehicle but I had one bruised toe and sore foot for a few days.

Blame the 1970's. Standard Equipment: 4 wheels, motor, interior, rust.

-Kurt

Blame the 1970's. Standard Equipment: 4 wheels, motor, interior, rust.

-Kurt


And 5,000lbs!

If you kicked your new 2010, you'd swear to never do that again because of the massive paper cut you'd get on your leg when your foot broke through the body. Our 2000 Pontiac is made of a lot thicker metal than this SUV. However, It is amazing that less metal makes for safer cars. The insurance companies made a film that shows that pretty graphically.
(http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-2009-chevy-malibu-destroys-a-1959-bel-air-literally/)
It would have been pretty awkward to pass at the light, there was left turning traffic in the left lane. It's very tight there because they added the left turn lane what would otherwise be a two lane road. I also figured that when racer-boy woke up, he'd floor it and it might make things a little dicey for me.

It would have been pretty awkward to pass at the light, there was left turning traffic in the left lane. It's very tight there because they added the left turn lane what would otherwise be a two lane road. I also figured that when racer-boy woke up, he'd floor it and it might make things a little dicey for me.

I guess I dont know the road so I really cant say too much, except hitting the car might have been the wrong idea. In the situation you described, I've never been there so I really cannot comment any further.

SUV driver was probably texting or reading e-mail.

I wouldn't be surprised if the heavy weight of body panels were a negative in an accident. It'd increase the total weight of the vehicle, but very little of it would be between you and what you hit in a crash. Seems like it'd be much better to put the weight into the frame: And car's are still heavy so I'm guessing something is getting beefier while the engine has gotten lighter.




SUV driver was probably texting or reading e-mail.

Or showering. It's coming, I'm pretty sure.

SUV driver was probably texting or reading e-mail.

No, the SUV driver was probably enthralled watching the OP doing a track stand in his rear view mirror!

Speedo

crash safety has little to do with how thick the body panels are, how heavy a vehicle is, or how tough it looks.

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150

crash safety depends most on how much the manufacturer values that aspect of the design and engineering process.

Many mid sized and full sized SUVs are basically rebodied pick-up trucks. They are built the old fashioned way, body on frame. This accounts for most american made SUVs. These are tough vehicles that will come out the winner against any lighter vehicle in a collision.

Oh, it happens to me all the time: they race by me as if to show me "see, I'm faster than you, ha!" then get distracted or stuck at the light. If it's safe I prefer to pull in the front of the waiting vehicles at a light. I never knock on them, I don't want them to get a heart attack, LOL. Besides, I believe it's not legal in NYC to bang or slap on cars, even for pedestrians.

A.

However, It is amazing that less metal makes for safer cars. The insurance companies made a [URL="http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-2009-chevy-malibu-destroys-a-1959-bel-air-literally/"]film that shows that pretty graphically.It's a good video. However, it doesn't show that less metal makes for safer cars -- what it shows is that modern cars (or this modern car) are safer than older cars (or just this older car) in a collision.

There's a lot of things that go into making modern cars safer -- it goes way beyond less metal.

The conditions in my area combined with my roadway positioning practically never leaves me close enough to touch a vehicle even if I wanted to, and I like it that way.

The insurance companies made a [URL="http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/a-2009-chevy-malibu-destroys-a-1959-bel-air-literally/"]film that shows that pretty graphically.

It's a decent comparison if you wish to show off the rubbish strength of most 1960's automobiles, Chevy in particular. Dodge was pretty bad as well. Try something from the 1950s or a large 1970's automobile in the same collision.


However, it doesn't show that less metal makes for safer cars -- what it shows is that modern cars (or this modern car) are safer than older cars (or just this older car) in a collision.

It doesn't prove that either - it proves that anything built on the same platform as the '59 used in the test will display similar characteristics in a crash.

-Kurt

It doesn't prove that either - it proves that anything built on the same platform as the '59 used in the test will display similar characteristics in a crash.Picking nits, it doesn't prove that either.

It doesn't really prove anything -- it just shows that in this particular accident, with these particular cars, the newer car is far safer for the occupants than the older car. We can extrapolate this to other types of accidents, to other cars built on the same platforms or to other cars of the same era, probably with at least some accuracy, but the video doesn't prove the accuracy of this extrapolation.

It doesn't really prove anything -- it just shows that in this particular accident, with these particular cars, the newer car is far safer for the occupants than the older car. We can extrapolate this to other types of accidents, to other cars built on the same platforms or to other cars of the same era, probably with at least some accuracy, but the video doesn't prove the accuracy of this extrapolation.

...and I thought college texbooks were verbose.

Would you volunteer to be the crash dummy in the Malibu if the opposing vehicle was a Checker Marathon?

Didn't think so.

-Kurt

...and I thought college texbooks were verbose.Now, now, you're the one who said it proved that "anything built on the same platform ... will display similar characteristics in a crash", when you could have simply (and more accurately) said "new cars are safer than old cars". THAT is what the video was really trying to show.


Would you volunteer to be the crash dummy in the Malibu if the opposing vehicle was a Checker Marathon?Personally, I wouldn't volunteer to be the crash dummy in any car, new or old. Getting hurt isn't my thing, and it happens, even in new cars.

Didn't think so.Snarky. I like it.

Now, now, you're the one who said it proved that "anything built on the same platform ... will display similar characteristics in a crash", when you could have simply (and more accurately) said "new cars are safer than old cars". THAT is what the video was really trying to show.

Twist my words, why don't you?

-Kurt

I didn't expect it to sound like the heavens were descending upon us. It really was a pretty light tap. I usually reserve my car smacking for the people that are in the process of trying to make their vehicle occupy the same part of the time-space continuum as I am. Suppose I should get an airzound.


I had a friend who was an auto mechanic. He basically said that those "light trucks" really are light trucks. These things aren't made to really go out into the mountains or anything. They are designed to sit in suburban driveways and go to Old Navy at the mall. Automakers know their market.

Twist my words, why don't you?Quoting your words (merely removing a small redundant part to keep the size down and replacing it with an ellipsis to show that my quote isn't exact) is twisting your words?

(Unless you think the part I removed changes the meaning of what you said? I don't, but that's really the only place I could have possibly twisted anything, so if that's it, say so ...)

I had a friend who was an auto mechanic. He basically said that those "light trucks" really are light trucks. These things aren't made to really go out into the mountains or anything. They are designed to sit in suburban driveways and go to Old Navy at the mall. Automakers know their market.

You've got to make it profitable at that low price point....

I imagine it's harder to make a larger vehicle safe in an offset barrier test. All that extra weight is just more weight that you have to keep from crushing the cabin. Now, in a head on with a bus...

Many mid sized and full sized SUVs are basically rebodied pick-up trucks. They are built the old fashioned way, body on frame. This accounts for most american made SUVs. These are tough vehicles that will come out the winner against any lighter vehicle in a collision.

Sorry, no. It's a common misconception of the car buying public that bigger/heavier ALWAYS = SAFER, it doesn't. Most pick-up based SUV are not required by federal law to meet the high standards for passenger safety that are required of passenger cars. This is because they are technically pick-up trucks and not passenger cars. While it is true that a large SUV will probably come out ahead in a duel with a Civic, the same is not true if it strikes a similar sized vehicle or a stationary object. You are more likely to be killed in a pick-up based SUV if you strike a stationary object than if he hit the same object wit a proper passenger car.

Twist my words, why don't you?

-Kurt

He didn't twist your words. Also, the post which you called verbose was written with proper logic and remarkable lack of empty rhetoric (unlike yours).

You've got to make it profitable at that low price point....

I imagine it's harder to make a larger vehicle safe in an offset barrier test. All that extra weight is just more weight that you have to keep from crushing the cabin. Now, in a head on with a bus...

It really depends on the bus too, I work for a courier company and the standard courier truck, is mostly aluminum, many of the straight trucks you see on the road, that big box is mostly fibreglass, even a transport trailer is aluminum and fibreglass. In a major collision, an AL or Fibreglass truck body is going to be destroyed. At least the AL ones have the advantage that the AL can easily be recycled.

I would assume that buses are similar, AL and fibreglass to increase capacity while keeping fuel use reasonable. Even at that, you consider fuel efficiency on that courier truck good if you only use 35L/100km (7MPG).

Quoting your words (merely removing a small redundant part to keep the size down and replacing it with an ellipsis to show that my quote isn't exact) is twisting your words?

(Unless you think the part I removed changes the meaning of what you said?

Your editing most certainly changed the meaning of what I was intending to convey. I quote from your previous reply:


Now, now, you're the one who said it proved that "anything built on the same platform ... will display similar characteristics in a crash", when you could have simply (and more accurately) said "new cars are safer than old cars". THAT is what the video was really trying to show.

#1: I do not believe for one moment that "new cars are safer than old cars." That is not my point of contention, and for that matter, I don't believe said statement in the least bit. Those are your words and your argument, not mine.

#2: My argument is that a GM vehicle of similar era to the '59 used, produced on the same platform (i.e., Bel Air, Impala, various full-size Cadillacs, and anything else built on the same General Motors X frame) will produce the same results. Fact is, I don't consider the results suitable to base a generalization upon, and I dare say that an early 1970's Chrysler 300 would provide considerably different results.

#3: A restatement of my position cannot be "more accurate," if it doesn't state my viewpoint as intended.


He didn't twist your words. Also, the post which you called verbose was written with proper logic and remarkable lack of empty rhetoric (unlike yours).

Nobody invited you.

-Kurt