4 ms·

*Safer for occupants only. More dangerous for everyone else on the road.

balfirevic 7y ago
Larger crumple zones on any vehicle in collision will make that collision safer for all vehicles involved. The point about the mass stands, though.
saagarjha 7y ago
Well, now you're stuck in this sort of tragedy-of-the-commons situation where it's better for everyone individually to have bigger cars but worse for everyone as a group.
- lazyjones 7y ago
  > but worse for everyone as a group. Not true. 2 modern, big cars crashing into each other at typical urban speeds usually mean no serious injuries. But try crashing 2 LSV at 50 Km/h and see what happens.
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    Worse for everyone because we’re hauling around many otherwise unneeded tonnes of metal in case we hit someone who’s hauling around many unneeded tonnes of metal in case they hit someone hauling... Also cars don’t only hit other cars.
    - lazyjones 7y ago
      > Worse for everyone because we’re hauling around many otherwise unneeded tonnes of metal This may be wasteful, but it's safer. So it's not a net loss. > Also cars don’t only hit other cars. They also hit people and big cars can cater for this more efficiently (see crash tests for big Volvos for example), as well as hard walls and trees, where the answer is quite obvious.
      - sliken 7y ago
        Safer for cars, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing recently.
        nradov 7y ago
        Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing due to distracted and impaired drivers, as well as more vehicle miles being driven overall. Vehicle size has little effect on pedestrian safety. A compact car will hurt a pedestrian just as badly as a large SUV. Actually the compact car can be worse in some collisions due to the hood height and shape.
        lazyjones 7y ago
        > Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing due to distracted and impaired drivers, as well as more vehicle miles being driven overall ... and electric bicycles.
      - kennywinker 7y ago
        > This may be wasteful, but it's safer. You’re missing the point again. Safer than what? If everyone drove low-speed light vehicles, we would be safer too. We’re in a “safety” arms race, where you’re only safe if you’re in the largest size vehicle possible. Buy an escalade and you are “safe”. Buy a Yaris and you’re risking your life for better gas milage and cheaper car payments.
  - ajuc 7y ago
    In typical urban speeds you are as likely to crash into people or bicycles as into another car. And then the additional mass is making it more dangerous, not less.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  This is exactly where gov. regulation helps, when applied correctly. Another example, have you noticed how headlights have gotten noticeably (blindingly?) bright in recent years?

Larger crumple zones on any vehicle in collision will make that collision safer for all vehicles involved. The point about the mass stands, though.

saagarjha 7y ago

Well, now you're stuck in this sort of tragedy-of-the-commons situation where it's better for everyone individually to have bigger cars but worse for everyone as a group.

lazyjones 7y ago
> but worse for everyone as a group. Not true. 2 modern, big cars crashing into each other at typical urban speeds usually mean no serious injuries. But try crashing 2 LSV at 50 Km/h and see what happens.
- kennywinker 7y ago
  Worse for everyone because we’re hauling around many otherwise unneeded tonnes of metal in case we hit someone who’s hauling around many unneeded tonnes of metal in case they hit someone hauling... Also cars don’t only hit other cars.
  - lazyjones 7y ago
    > Worse for everyone because we’re hauling around many otherwise unneeded tonnes of metal This may be wasteful, but it's safer. So it's not a net loss. > Also cars don’t only hit other cars. They also hit people and big cars can cater for this more efficiently (see crash tests for big Volvos for example), as well as hard walls and trees, where the answer is quite obvious.
    - sliken 7y ago
      Safer for cars, pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing recently.
      - nradov 7y ago
        Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing due to distracted and impaired drivers, as well as more vehicle miles being driven overall. Vehicle size has little effect on pedestrian safety. A compact car will hurt a pedestrian just as badly as a large SUV. Actually the compact car can be worse in some collisions due to the hood height and shape.
        lazyjones 7y ago
        > Pedestrian and bicyclist deaths have been climbing due to distracted and impaired drivers, as well as more vehicle miles being driven overall ... and electric bicycles.
    - kennywinker 7y ago
      > This may be wasteful, but it's safer. You’re missing the point again. Safer than what? If everyone drove low-speed light vehicles, we would be safer too. We’re in a “safety” arms race, where you’re only safe if you’re in the largest size vehicle possible. Buy an escalade and you are “safe”. Buy a Yaris and you’re risking your life for better gas milage and cheaper car payments.
- ajuc 7y ago
  In typical urban speeds you are as likely to crash into people or bicycles as into another car. And then the additional mass is making it more dangerous, not less.
kennywinker 7y ago
This is exactly where gov. regulation helps, when applied correctly. Another example, have you noticed how headlights have gotten noticeably (blindingly?) bright in recent years?