Cirrus Killer? Cessna just doesn't get it...

Having driven around at least five wouldbe accidents over the years, in
everything from a Buick Riviera, Mini, Renault Fuego, and Porsche 356, I
disagree. Perhaps maneuverability PLUS driving skill and experience trumps
crashworthiness (I have Skip Barber training and some autocross experience).
At any rate, I'd always rather avoid the accident entirely than have one.
:-)

That said, if the accident is truly unavoidable, having a bit more metal
around you is certainly nice. Sort of like the BRS parachute debate: Do
you want to have the ultimate backup to use that one time the wings fold, at
the expense of reduced payload all the time and the increased temptation to
push the limits a bit more often.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in

Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
place is always better than just surviving one.

I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

moo




--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.


Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause
of most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just
in this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when
first of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more
importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because
they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first
place.

Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."


Matt

And just to add an international flavor to this conversation about SUVs.

I heard a story on NPRs Morning Eddition today. Sales of SUVs has increased
5 fold in the last few years. The number one reason given is to protect
themselves from "aggressive French drivers."


The French want to by USAians so bad they can taste it.

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...
Having driven around at least five wouldbe accidents over the years, in
everything from a Buick Riviera, Mini, Renault Fuego, and Porsche 356, I
disagree. Perhaps maneuverability PLUS driving skill and experience
trumps crashworthiness (I have Skip Barber training and some autocross
experience). At any rate, I'd always rather avoid the accident entirely
than have one.

And you are certain that driving, say, a BMW X5 would have caused a
different outcome? How about a Ford Explorer? What are you going to do
when you get older and your reflexes slow?

That said, if the accident is truly unavoidable, having a bit more metal
around you is certainly nice.

It's much more than "nice". It's your ass.

Sort of like the BRS parachute debate: Do you want to have the ultimate
backup to use that one time the wings fold, at the expense of reduced
payload all the time and the increased temptation to push the limits a bit
more often.

Just because you can't control yourself doesn't mean nobody else can. Your
argument about temptation applies more to quick cars than planes and pilots.
I have an old M3, street legal, sort of, but basically ready to race. I
take it out for fun every few weeks. I can barely make it to the curb
before some yahoo is practically driving up the sidewalk to have a go. Back
when I used to do this stuff on track with other real race cars, I never saw
so much focussed yet misplaced testosterone fueled adrenaline displays.
Flying is hanging with a bunch of girls by comparison.

moo

moo



--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Happy Dog" wrote in message
.. .
"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in

Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
place is always better than just surviving one.

I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

moo




--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho wrote:

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

A factor that cannot be determined is how many accidents are avoided
by
smaller vehicles due to their greater maneuverability.


Many factors are difficult or impossible to determine using current
statistical data gathering.

However, as in aviation, driver error is fundamentally the root cause
of most accidents. I find it amusing to see so many people (not just
in this newsgroup either) argue about which vehicle is "safer" when
first of all they haven't even agreed on what "safer" means, but more
importantly when most of those drivers need a "safer" vehicle because
they and everyone else on the road refuse to drive safely in the first
place.

Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."


Matt

"Dylan Smith" wrote in
On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."

It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.

What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
because

You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And they
all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?

moo

Happy Dog wrote:
"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in


Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those than
any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first place is
always better than just surviving one.


I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter stopping
distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a pretty tough
challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small cares, and
certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.


Matt

Dylan Smith wrote:

On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting wrote:

If that is true, then there are a lot of deluded Americans out there.
An SUV for status or coolness as compared to a Vette, Miata, etc. That
is hilarious.


I reached this conclusion long ago - there are indeed a lot of deluded
people out there. The advertisments tell them an SUV is gung ho and
cool, so they think it is so. The Corvette now has a
boy-racer/mid-life-crisis image, and the Miata has an image of being a
hairdresser's car, but a giant 4x4 now has accepted macho appeal. The
same thing to a lesser extent goes for a pickup truck, but most the
people I know with pickup trucks actually do throw **** in the back of
them from time to time.

I find that the combination of my snowplow mount on the front, receiver
hitch on the rear and NRA stickers all around, makes my K1500 plenty
macho. :-) I don't need no steenkin' SUV for macho.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

I find that the combination of my snowplow mount on the front, receiver
hitch on the rear and NRA stickers all around, makes my K1500 plenty
macho. :-) I don't need no steenkin' SUV for macho.

Yeah, my Nissan 4WD PU has a brush guard instead of plow mount, but I find I get
the same effect.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

Happy Dog wrote:
"Dylan Smith" wrote in
On 2005-10-03, Matt Whiting wrote:
Yes, it is unfortunate that to the auto crowd, especially folks in
government or the IIHS, that "safety" is defined as "crash worthiness"
rather than "capable of crash avoidance."

It's the Volvo driver effect. In this country, Volvo drivers have a poor
reputation (mainly amongst motorcyclists) for being dangerous drivers.

What happens is a bad driver tends to gravitate towards Volvo cars
because

You imagine they do? I just find Volvo drivers to be a bit weird. And they
all seem to wear hats. Ever noticed that?

moo

Thank you very much, the both of you.

-Kees, accidentless Volvo driver.

P.S. I do not wear hats, I'm weird though.
P.S.P.S. Is either one of you flying Cessna? Hmmmm?

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:
"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in


Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
place is always better than just surviving one.


I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.

Hit anything going really fast? Really believe that a BMW X5 is
significantly less able to keep you out of an accident than a Mini? Wanna
bet your kids? Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will
yield more survivors?
moo

Happy Dog wrote:

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message news:

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in



Having had a Mini in the 70's, I would rather be driving one of those
than any SUV anytime. The ability to AVOID the accident in the first
place is always better than just surviving one.


I doubt that maneuverability trumps crashworthiness. I suspect that the
most important maneuverabilty feature of small cars is the shorter
stopping distance. Driving around an accident situation is usually a
pretty tough challenge. And, when it comes to taking a hit, most small
cares, and certainly small cars from the 70s don't fare so well.

Maybe not for you, but for me I'll take accident avoidance over an
accident in the most crashworthy vehicle made.


Hit anything going really fast?

Nothing over 30 MPH, but much above 40 and you are toast no matter what
you drive.


Really believe that a BMW X5 is
significantly less able to keep you out of an accident than a Mini?

Yes, and the BMW is probably the best handling SUV on the market.
Compare a more typical SUV such as an Expedition or Tahoe and the
difference witht he mini is even more dramatic.

Wanna bet your kids?

Yes, I'd much rather have my kids in no accident than in a 50 MPH
accident in an SUV.


Given a hundred years to live, and drive, which ride will
yield more survivors?

I'm betting on the mini. Compare the death and accident rates for SUVs
against cars. Cars are already better.


Matt