5 ms·

Unfortunately weight _is_ generally a predictor of occupant safety. IIHS says: “Frontal crash test results can't be used to compare vehicle performance across

Unfortunately weight _is_ generally a predictor of occupant safety. IIHS says: “Frontal crash test results can't be used to compare vehicle performance across weight classes.… Given equivalent frontal ratings, the heavier of two vehicles usually offers better protection in real-world crashes.” https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests

Dalewyn 3y ago
I agree. My dad always told me that, in a hypothetical situation where I'm going to crash and I have a choice in the kind of car I'm driving, to always pick the bigger car than the other guy. Bigger cars are safer, for better or worse. Those Ford F-350s will, in general, survive crashes and protect the occupants better than something like a Toyota Camry.
- smcl 3y ago
  Hasn't this caused an arms race of sorts where these trucks get bigger and bigger to the point where now some models have worse visibility than enormous M1 Abrams tanks: https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visibility-than-a-ford-super-duty https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    It's definitely one of the reasons cars in general have gotten bigger, you can't deny that better survivability in crashes is good marketing material. Trucks are just among the larger of them.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Yes, but it's only better survivability in two-car crashes, and it makes the overall survivability worse. The social cost is greater than the private benefit. IOW, it's a market failure (externality).
- fireflash38 3y ago
  It's this exact line of thinking that explains why there's an arms race going on - not just in larger vehicles, but a literal one where carrying a gun makes one person safer but almost everybody else around them less safe.
- newaccount74 3y ago
  I don't remember the exact stats, but something like 30-50% of lethal crashes happen alone, without another vehicle involved, because drivers lose control of a vehicle. If you hit a bridge pillar or drive off a cliff, it doesn't matter how heavy your vehicle is. I'd for these types of crashes it's much better to have a small, nimble vehicle that is more stable and doesn't crash in the first place rather than a huge truck with poor grip that tips over if you corner too fast.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Well, unless you hit another F350.
Gordonjcp 3y ago
That doesn't really work in practice though. I've seen the aftermath of a Renault Megane hitting a Ford Explorer, and it wasn't pretty. The Megane was a writeoff, with significant intrusion into the passenger area. The Explorer looked like it had been de-orbited rather than centre-punched by a small hatchback, with the bodywork in four pieces and parts scattered for about 100m. The occupants did not fare well, and indeed none of the small pieces of the occupants spread around fared well either.
ilyt 3y ago
Well if you ignore damage caused to the target you hit no wonder.

Dalewyn 3y ago

I agree. My dad always told me that, in a hypothetical situation where I'm going to crash and I have a choice in the kind of car I'm driving, to always pick the bigger car than the other guy. Bigger cars are safer, for better or worse. Those Ford F-350s will, in general, survive crashes and protect the occupants better than something like a Toyota Camry.

smcl 3y ago
Hasn't this caused an arms race of sorts where these trucks get bigger and bigger to the point where now some models have worse visibility than enormous M1 Abrams tanks: https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visibility-than-a-ford-super-duty https://carbuzz.com/news/the-abrams-m1-tank-has-better-visib...
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  It's definitely one of the reasons cars in general have gotten bigger, you can't deny that better survivability in crashes is good marketing material. Trucks are just among the larger of them.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Yes, but it's only better survivability in two-car crashes, and it makes the overall survivability worse. The social cost is greater than the private benefit. IOW, it's a market failure (externality).
fireflash38 3y ago
It's this exact line of thinking that explains why there's an arms race going on - not just in larger vehicles, but a literal one where carrying a gun makes one person safer but almost everybody else around them less safe.
newaccount74 3y ago
I don't remember the exact stats, but something like 30-50% of lethal crashes happen alone, without another vehicle involved, because drivers lose control of a vehicle. If you hit a bridge pillar or drive off a cliff, it doesn't matter how heavy your vehicle is. I'd for these types of crashes it's much better to have a small, nimble vehicle that is more stable and doesn't crash in the first place rather than a huge truck with poor grip that tips over if you corner too fast.
ilyt 3y ago
Well, unless you hit another F350.

Gordonjcp 3y ago

That doesn't really work in practice though. I've seen the aftermath of a Renault Megane hitting a Ford Explorer, and it wasn't pretty. The Megane was a writeoff, with significant intrusion into the passenger area. The Explorer looked like it had been de-orbited rather than centre-punched by a small hatchback, with the bodywork in four pieces and parts scattered for about 100m. The occupants did not fare well, and indeed none of the small pieces of the occupants spread around fared well either.

ilyt 3y ago

Well if you ignore damage caused to the target you hit no wonder.