DS, of course cars with a higher center of gravity are increasingly likely to roll over, depending on their wheel base. Not only does this do nothing to prove your point (it is common knowledge that big cars are also dangerous machines), but it reveals something more subtle at work in your arguments: driver error is a mighty big contributor to such accidents. Predictably, you chose to ignore driver error and seek to attribute the safety to engineering when it can be made to suggest big cars are unsafe relative to small cars; yet, you do the exact opposite by calling attention to driver error when it is necessary to your argument to suggest that safety is not dependent on weight. It’s simple physics. But don’t take it from me, take it from the link you supplied, which says:
“NHTSA categorizes vehicles by vehicle class and “curb” weight. “… “Side crash rating results can be compared across all classes because all vehicles are hit with the same force by the same moving barrier.
Rollover ratings can also be compared across all classes.
Frontal crash rating results can only be compared to other vehicles in the same class and whose weight is plus or minus 250 lbs of the vehicle being rated. This is so because a frontal crash rating into a fixed barrier represents a crash between two vehicles of the same weight. Examples:
* It would not be permissible to compare the frontal crash results of a 4,500 lb SUV with those of a 3,000 sedan (different classes and exceeds the weight requirement).
* It would not be permissible to compare the frontal crash results of a 3,600 lb pickup with those of a 3,400 lb van (meets the weight requirement, but different classes).
* It would be correct to compare the frontal crash results of a 3,400 lb passenger car with a 3650 lb passenger car (same class and meets the weight requirement).”
Here, the NHTSA is acknowledging a basic fact of physics which you seem perfectly willing to ignore: force is the issue. Meaning that relative mass is important with regard to relative safety. And if you’ll forgive me the pun, I believe the entire point of this thread is that mass is indeed a driving force behind auto safety.
Now, just because rollover risk is presented by NHTSA as one of three ratings does not confer it equal standing in terms of risk. It is simply one of the very bad things that can happen in a vehicle that they can precisely measure. In fact, I submit that is the only one of the three that driver error is the dominant factor, meaning that if you drive an SUV safely, you can virtually eliminate this risk. Other drivers cannot force you to roll-over if you are cognizant of this risk. Meanwhile, not so for the frontal and side crash ratings, which depend equally on one’s own actions behind the wheel as on a) those of others, and b) those of other animate and inanimate objects. Even though those ratings don’t help your arguments, I think they are the ones that are of primary importance and of primary relevance with regard to CAFE.
In a frontal or side crash between a Honda Civic and a Chevy Caprice, 1994 or today, the Honda Civic loses every time. And my point is that police officers have seen this sad reality up front. And you can bet that if the Civic held up in such a crash, they would be talking that up and putting their wives in them, which they don’t do. They are after all cheaper, and officers don’t make that much money.
Nobody should have to volunteer to die, or sacrifice their own family, in the name of misguided policies the ends of which are chiefly social. What’s more, it’s not even about conservation, which I find completely galling as conservation appeals to everyone and especially me.
Seriously DS. Read Eric’s post #59. It is worth something to at least acknowledge what those are in a position to know about safety do in practice.
