Well, as the Messiah he is above such earthly distractions as per-gallon fuel mileage requirements.

Look Obama got threats early on and had to request Secret Service protection in the first days of the campaign. It's one of the reasons that Hillary is getting attacked for her idiotic comments about anything can happen like Bobby Kennedy being shot. While I can't stand Obama's energy policies, I'm not going to begrudge him for using what I assume is a heavily secured SUV when transporting his family. But it comes as no shocker that the gang at National Review who have sold out conservatism and continue to spew forth the Grand Old Pravda would not see this.

The stuff hotair were saying about smaller cars being less safe is just not true.

This just exemplifies how desperate they are.

Bullshit, bryan. You're thinking about exceptions to the rule. Overall, lighter cars simply don't have as much strength and structure to protect people within as large cars do.

I can tell you from personal experience, namely my three smaller cars getting hit by larger ones, that larger cars are indeed safer. My assurance is because it was always a larger car that creamed my small one. I should have been killed each time, but I was blessed enough to walk away twice, and the third time sent to the hospital with just minor injuries. Try to imagine a compact-sized car being hit from the front and right by a Jeep Wrangler, a '79 Buick Regal that pulled in front of me, or a Mazda 626 that T-boned my hood. That last one would have killed me if I'd been just a tenth of a second faster. I was damn lucky in each case, hallelujah, despite driving a smaller, lighter car. I don't know about your country, but over here, thousands of Americans aren't as lucky. They die each year and would have survived had them been in sturdier vehicles.

But don't take my word for it. There have been plenty of studies for the last two decades, which you can find online.Edmunds talks about how to make a small car safer -- which wouldn't be necessary if you're correct.

Perry, I have no wish to get into an argument with you about this, and I am tired of the way some people create a row out of virtually nothing. Ypu are right, some smaller cars are less safe. However, some smaller cars are better built, and comparing a better built car against one worse built (sizes unimportant) will always favour the better built one.
That said, I am happy that you have been so fortunate in the past.

If you don't want to get into an argument with me, then don't say anything remotely stupid that I might see. I've been a bit busy for a few months, but I happened to catch what you said here.

Your point about small cars being made safer does not take into consideration that larger vehicles are inherently safer. They don't need all the additional safety features of smaller cars, but add the same things like side airbags and reinforced sides, and there's no question: all else being equal, larger vehicles are safer.

Didn't you ever hear women say, "Size matters"? It's the same with cars. But it's not even just the difference between large and small cars. The same car, whatever its size, is made less safe. In its infinite disdain for individual rights, the U.S. federal government (from Bush to Obama) is continually"mandating" higher fuel economy. Automakers must therefore cut corners here and there to make cars lighter, sacrificing passenger-protecting structure for the sake of a fraction of an mpg. Aren't people smart enough to decide for themselves that they want a bigger car, or the same car but not reduced to nearly tin-foil, though it might cost them a few more bucks a week in gas?

Anytime you'd like to test this out, how about you get into a Mini Cooper, I'll get into an Escalade, and we'll play chicken. Then you can personally tell me how "safe" your smaller car is.

Perry, having worked in what you know as an emergency room, I know how unsafe the mini is (my first car was a mini mayfair with an engine 25% bigger than nescessary, and it could really accelerate). People I know have safer smaller cars and have survived some bloody awful crashes with sometimes a couple of scratches. One family I know were bounced 40 yards uphill (and it was steep; just think how much momentum that needs) by the impact of a truck (the were in a citroen I think), and the two kids were fine, husband scratched and wife fractured her wrist after impact (falling out of what was left).
Cutting corners to improve fuel economy is just dumb. Remember was it Ford or GM had that truck that had the inherent design fault with the fuel tank? They said they would be better off paying for deaths from lawsuits than fixing the problem? That wasn't when fuel economies were being done I think we can both agree that a well designed car is going to allow the people in it to walk away, and a badly designed one increases the chances of death, No?

Drill in the ANWR and tell the greens to GO TAKE A HIKE and just feed them greens to the POLAR BEARS KILLER WHALES AND SKUAS

"Cutting corners to improve fuel economy is just dumb."

Guess what: that's what Congress is pushing the automakers into. What else do you expect when they say, "Starting in the year 200_, your vehicles must have weighted average of x mpg"?

If it were up to the automakers, they wouldn't make the metal a little bit thicker.

"Remember was it Ford or GM had that truck that had the inherent design fault with the fuel tank? They said they would be better off paying for deaths from lawsuits than fixing the problem?"

The Pinto. You should check out Gary Schwartz's paper that questions whether it was any more unsafe than other cars. The "memo" may not be as much of a smoking gun as you think -- the calculation was arguably not Ford's. http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

Even so, Congress' mandates of higher and higher fuel economy has killed far more people. Only 27 people have been documented to die because a Pinto's gas tank exploded. Think of the uncountable tens of thousands who have died just on American roads, in the name of fuel economy. So do you blame a corporation but give government a pass?

"That wasn't when fuel economies were being done"

That's true, the nonsense didn't start until 1975. And it only made things worse. At first, it was automakers having to sell more smaller cars than larger. Then when they couldn't make a car smaller, they made it lighter.

"I think we can both agree that a well designed car is going to allow the people in it to walk away, and a badly designed one increases the chances of death, No?"

That's a platitude. Are you going to ask me next if I agree that two plus two equals four?

My example was a couple I know who crashed into a much larger vehicle on the Isle of Man (home of the bloody scary motorcycle TT race). The fact is they survived due to having a vehicle that could withstand serious punishment. I think with the rise in fuel prices, smaller cars may become more popular. If any of the big cities introduce congestion charges (like in London, where smaller engines are charged less and electric cars are exempt), how people deal with it will be interesting. If they introduce length limits when you don't own a parking space (like in parts of Japan), maybe same again. My once-wished for car was the Suzuki Cappuchino, 2 seat pocket sports car (baby Jag overtook it in my affections),
On a lighter note, have you seen the Smart car that has been pimped out to be a monster truck? Only in the USA!

"I think with the rise in fuel prices, smaller cars may become more popular." That's the only relevant thing I saw in your reply.

Life is all about trade-offs. You give up something for something else that you think is worth more to you. People will decide for themselves, or at least they should without goddamn bureaucrats deciding for themselves, whether saving money on gas is worth the strong possibility of being injured in an accident.

Your premise that all big cars are, by merit of their size, safer than smaller cars is flawed, and my example of a high-speed impact with a truck was used to illustrate same flaw. I have also seen pictures of accidents happening locally to me (I live by "Spaghetti Junction", Junction 6 off the M6 in the UK), all impact collisions with smaller and larger cars which bear out what I have said. In fact, there are a lot of occasions when 4X4s have been rolled over by the caravan they have been towing in high winds. I realise this has no empirical value, and mention it only in passing.
Your point, which you seem to be tacking onto my original assertion that (more or less) safety and smaller vehicles are, because of size, not related, seems to be that governments' demands on car companies are unreasonable. I give you no argument on this point. The consumers' demand for the vehicle which suits their needs and budget for gas will always win out IMO.

Damn, "safety and smaller vehicles are, because of size, not related", that was your point. Mine was that a fair amount of smaller cars are as safe as any large one.
Again, consumers will decide, otherwise they'd still be turning out fins and chrome.

"Your premise that all big cars are, by merit of their size, safer than smaller cars is flawed, and my example of a high-speed impact with a truck was used to illustrate same flaw."

Wrong. I'm not sure how your reading comprehension is so skewed, but like I said from the beginning, "Overall, lighter cars simply don't have as much strength and structure to protect people within as large cars do."

What part of that can't you understand? It's very simple: all else being equal, bigger cars are safer. Smaller cars can be made safer, but guess what: put the same in a bigger car, and the bigger car is that much ahead.

"I have also seen pictures of accidents happening locally to me (I live by "Spaghetti Junction", Junction 6 off the M6 in the UK), all impact collisions with smaller and larger cars which bear out what I have said."

Fine. You get into a Mini Cooper, and I'll get into an Escalade. Let me .

Would you be willing to bet your life, literally, that the smaller car would protect you as well as the big one?

"In fact, there are a lot of occasions when 4X4s have been rolled over by the caravan they have been towing in high winds."

Anecdotal and hence meaningless. "A lot" means nothing for statistical comparisons. How many? Also, we're talking about pure collisions -- how many small cars do you know of that are "rolled over" with similar driving?

"I realise this has no empirical value, and mention it only in passing."

At least you saw that much.

"Your point, which you seem to be tacking onto my original assertion that (more or less) safety and smaller vehicles are, because of size, not related, seems to be that governments' demands on car companies are unreasonable. I give you no argument on this point. The consumers' demand for the vehicle which suits their needs and budget for gas will always win out IMO."

Never mind the governments' demands on car companies. It's the demands on consumers that are unreasonable. It's no less than the government premeditatively killing and injuring people, by forcing people to buy lighter and/or smaller cars than what they'd have otherwise bought. Consumers can't decide, because the manufacturers have to achieve fleet-wide fuel economies somehow, "or else."

Fins were a consumer fad and did nothing for safety. Actually today, consumers might want them, but automakers would trim them to make the vehicle a little lighter. Chrome was the predecessor to impact-absorbing bumpers, and the trend for bumpers to share the same color as the body.

Here in the UK, one of the deciding factors for people buying a car is it's rating by a group called NCAP. Now, a popular car may rate badly for safety, but increasingly people opt for cars which score higher in this rating system. That is how the consumer seems to want a car, and so the makers look at this when designing the next model. Fuel efficiency also helps, which is why hybridisation of older cars to electric and gas is doing really well at the moment (my brother the stand up is having his Audi done this month).
If I was in one of the later (BMW redesigned) Mini Coopers, I'd be willing to bet we both survive. The roll cage would prevent you collapsing the roof as you inevitably roll over the top of the Mini (the ground clearance of most 4X4 is higher than the hood (?) of a Mini. The older Minis (and there have been 4 different sorts in the family over the years (clubman, mayfair, standard and cooper)) were designed in the late 50's and mid 60's, which is why IMO their safety is not so hot. The redesign was 15 years overdue. Saying this, the handling of the most basic Ford, the Fiesta has come on in leaps and bounds over the last 30 years. Driving a mark1 makes you realise how design has come along, partly due to R&D, but also due to safety imposed upon car makers. Do you think our seatbelt laws are too much? ABS?

The NCAP sounds like our Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. I don't know about yours, but here the IIHS runs some good tests but also some bad ones -- improbable stuff you'd hardly ever encounter, which can severely ding a fine car's safety rating. Because people listen too much to IIHS reports like with Consumer Reports, manufacturers then spend too much on nearly nonexistent types of crashes, which diverts attention from more typical crashes. The easier solution, of course, is a bigger and better car. But oops, the government mandates higher and higher fuel economy.

I'm not denying that smaller cars are getting safer, but my point all along is that bigger, heavier cars are overall still safer. With the same safety features and structural designs, which would you rather be in? You might survive in a Mini, but I'd rather be the Range Rover that makes the mini's panels look like aluminum foil.

Now, you're talking about safety, but that's technology's doing, not government. Government can't wave a magic wand and make all these things happen: the capability (usually a matter of technology) has to exist first. For example, government didn't create the 40-hour work week, or safety standards. It merely codified what was becoming tradition, because technology allowed people to produce more while working less in better conditions. Similarly, government didn't push cars into being safer, whether roll cages, sturdier frames or ABS. Automakers competed with each other in making safer cars, because that's a selling point when markets are allowed to government themselves: people have the choice to spend more for safety, or spend less and have faith. And the developments in safety actually wouldn't have been necessary if government didn't force them to sell more smaller cars than they otherwise would have.

As a libertarian, I don't believe in making people wear seatbelts or motorcycle helments. It's their life. My own sister was stupid enough not to wear hers some years ago. She went halfway through the windshield and was damn lucky to survive.

Spend less and have faith? That reminds me of the Indian approach to the roads. Because of the believe in reincarnation, it has been said, the use of badly made, badly braking vehicles is seen as ok. Their accident rates are through the roof.
Libertarian? You've always struck me as more utilitarian =D