Trucks are safer?

[Msterbeau]

Uh... Not so much in this case.

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/24/iihs-cr...majority-flunk/

"The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently performed side crash tests for the first time on small pickups. Their sampling included the Toyota Tacoma, Dodge Dakota, Ford Ranger, Nissan Frontier and Chevy Colorado. The results were published today and they indicate that small pickup owners might want to start wearing helmets while driving."

[Rev.Reverence]

" small pickup owners might want to start wearing helmets while driving."

I've got some calls to make!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

small trucks are not high enough to reap the benefits to safety that full size trucks have.

[Msterbeau]

small trucks are not high enough to reap the benefits to safety that full size trucks have.

The bigger trucks have two benefits over the mid/small sized ones. One is width, which allows more structure and space to manage crush. Two, They tend to be better optioned and have benefitted from getting side airbags earlier. I don't think the height difference plays a huge role. The occupants are a few inches higher, at best. The legs get crushed instead of the hips.

The side impact bags are what often separate injury from death. That said... I don't want more crap in my car.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Marc, the height of the truck plays a major role in safety. Did you miss the whole thing about minivans a few years ago? They are classified as trucks... (at the height of a car) so are built like them (or where).. that translates to less structural steel in thier sides and more chance to die from a side impact. It's why there was a major lobby to change that classification and the inspiration for side air bags.

[Msterbeau]

Marc, the height of the truck plays a major role in safety. Did you miss the whole thing about minivans a few years ago? They are classified as trucks... (at the height of a car) so are built like them (or where).. that translates to less structural steel in thier sides and more chance to die from a side impact. It's why there was a major lobby to change that classification and the inspiration for side air bags.

The height compared to cars is significant. The height difference BETWEEN trucks isn't nearly as much.

Minivans have height like trucks (Occupant height) but they are built like cars (Unibody vs body on frame). The ladder frame that "real" trucks use is "stronger" but manages crush less well. Most of that isn't super relevant as side impacts rarely crush far enough to contact the frame. One of the things to think about with vans is that measurement from the rocker panel to roof is higher then anything else. The longer that dimension, the easier it is to bend the sheetmetal across the span.

Side impact bags were first developed in the mid 90's. As is normal, they came out in large, luxury sedans first, before trickling downmarket.

What program did you see? I'm curious to watch.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

It was all over the news for years. it's hard to get full storys from the early 90's but here are are few that I can find for refereance.

Source: Associated Press

A consumer group urged family car buyers Monday to shun minivans, saying exemptions from federal safety standards make them potential "child death traps of the 1990s." The California Public Interest Research Group issued a seven-page report, "Safety Takes a Back Seat," that says lower safety standards for light trucks and minivans cost more than 2,000 lives nationwide each year. "For people who currently own minivans, the safest

Published on July 3, 1990, Page 8B, San Jose Mercury News (CA)

Minivan Safety Answers Often Bad, Study Says Autos: A consumer group says 80% of salespeople give wrong or evasive responsives.

[Home Edition]

Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Los Angeles, Calif.

Author: NANCY RIVERA BROOKS

Date: Sep 7, 1990

Start Page: 2

Section: Business; PART-D; Financial Desk

Text Word Count: 642

Abstract (Document Summary)

At a news conference Thursday, a CalPIRG official called on Gov. George Deukmejian to sign a bill that would require safety labeling on all minivans sold or leased in California, urged manufacturers to make minivans safer and asked dealers to make sure that salespeople are giving consumers accurate safety information.

The CalPIRG survey of salespeople was conducted by telephone between July 31 and Aug. 2 at 74 dealerships selected randomly in six geographic areas of California. CalPIRG's surveyors, who posed as customers, asked the salespeople several questions about minivan safety.

When asked, "Do minivans have to meet the same safety standards as cars? ," 67.1% of the salespeople erroneously answered yes, and 11% gave evasive answers. A total of 17.8% said no, and 4.1% said they didn't know. In the Los Angeles area, 20 of 27 salespeople gave wrong or evasive answers. In the San Diego area, 17 of 19 salespeople gave wrong or evasive answers

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

it boils down to...

Mini-vans were classified as Light Trucks and were built as such. That means they had the side impact resiliance of a light truck (almost none) at the height of a passanger car.

Every major news outlet, at some point, did a peice on this. It was major news.

[Msterbeau]

It was all over the news for years. it's hard to get full storys from the early 90's but here are are few that I can find for refereance.

I'm actually surprised at this. I didn't think minivans fell under the light truck rules.

I tend to stay away from mainstream media when it comes to auto issues. They're full of alarmist bullshit, quite often. People like Nader see safety and those sorts of issues as the only priority without realizing that engineering a car for different markets and purposes is just one long series of compromises.

[Msterbeau]

I guess you can look at this a couple ways.

1. The government sets minimum standards and as long as the manufacturers meet that, why should we complain about them? We should petition the government to raise the standards if we don't like them.

2. Regardless of regs, manufacturers should make their cars as safe as technology allows, period. This only happens when the market demands it... like now.

If they're going to be irate at anyone, they should start with the salesmen who lie and deceive them. These days it's pretty simple to get that kind of info on the internet but it wasn't back then. They SHOULD be pissed at the manufacturers if they are the one's that lobbied to have minivans categorized that way. I'm surprised they were. They're passenger vehicles for the most part, not work vehicles.

[Hellion]

I felt really safe in the box truck I used to drive for a construction company.

[Head Wreck]

tv show over here crashed an SUVB and a minivan together, each traveling at 30mph.

the minivan drivers would have walked away. the suv owners would probably have to have thier legs amputataed

[Saint Germain]

That reminds me at my lightweight construction professor, who said:

Gentlemen, nowadays vehicle safety has the highest priority in automotive design,

but in future could energy-saving design alternate this.

[SaGa]

its more on whos buying these trucks, whould you trust a teenager in a truck on her cellphone(is this a fad, cause more then 50% of people use there cellphone driving it seems)

[Head Wreck]

its illegal to use a cell whilst driving here. and i couldn't agree more.

i was hit by a driver on a cellphone many years ago. i had to repair the vehicle i was in, which cost me the savings to go and see the cramps live in Atlanta with a former DGN member