In article , Ron Hunter
wrote:

William Graham wrote:
"Ken Lucke" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
sgtdisturbed wrote:

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article , acl
wrote:

jeremy wrote:
mechanical build quality had deteriorated noticably. Just like new
cars.
Better fuel economy and more amenities, at the expense of less
sheet
metal
and smaller overall size.
So, basically, you prefer cars with lots of sheet metal and large
size?

Damn straight _I_ do. Sheet metal, true internal structure (not just
some flimsy suppoorts for the outer skin), and large size. I'd take
high strength composite fiber/plastics (NOT fiberglass!) if they ever
start making cars with them (oops, sorry, that was an inadvertent cue
for RichA to enter the thread with his obsession), but until then, I
want METAL around me. The more the better.

Ever seen a serious wreck? Ever been in one?

From 1979 to 1996, I worked as a professional, full time paramedic (in
Portland, OR and other places), and the last 6 years was also a
firefighter. I've _seen_ (and sometimes had to scrape up) the
difference in outcomes.

Sorry, but to hell with fuel economy... with the millions of people on
the road in this country who merely know "how to operate a motor
vehicle" as opposed to actually knowing how to _drive_ their vehicles
(and there is a HUGE difference between those two skillsets), I want a
tank around me, if possible. Again, damn straight I prefer a vehicle
with some substance to it rather than today's tin cans that a wrinkle
in the sheet metal causes major loss of body integrity and strength
(literally).

Aren't the lighter bodies designed to use crumple zones to reduce the
forces of impact upon the passengers by
absorbing the impact as opposed to the driver feeling 100% of the
impact (which would result in a higher percentage of injury) while
using a firm, non-flexible body on their car? Newer cars seem to have
better crash test ratings than older, not-so flexible cars.

Ever had to extract a patient from one vs. the other? And then had to
treat said patient?

I thought not.

--
Yeah, but the heavier the vehicle the safer, and so everyone goes for the
heaviest they can get and/or afford....Soon the streets are full of tanks
that weigh 10,000 pounds each, with their occupants glaring out or their
little armored windows at each other.....Wouldn't it be better if they all
went for the lightest vehicle they could find? - Then we wouldn't be paying
to haul all that scrap iron around with us all the time......I guess the
only way to reach that level of sophistication is for the price of the fuel
to go through the roof, so nobody can afford to drive the tank.......


Some still will. Note the vehicle in which the football player was
killed. Longer than a city bus and didn't keep him safe.

I never said that a heavier body would eliminate death or injury. I
just prefer it from my experiences of 15 years of dealing with the
results on-scene, first hand, up close. I've seen people survive 60mph
headons with no seatbelts, and I've seen a person killed in a 5mph
parking lot fender bender. Both are extreme examples of the
combination of the incredible toughness and the incredible fragility of
the human body.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard