SUV vs. mini

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> One more thing, even the IIHS warns you to not compare
> results between vehicles in different weight classes. Your
> are crashing the vehicle into a fixed unyielding barricade.

But single vehicle crashes are more common than multi-vehicle crashes.
The odds of an SUV losing control and striking a solid, unyielding object
are about as great as a car being struck on the side at an intersection.

That's strange. My wife had a head on collision with a Mini-Cooper
just last month. She was in her new Ford Expedition SUV (that's F150
class SUV not the big Excursion).

It was the Coopers fault. S.O.B. was drunk and drifted into her lane
head-on at about 50 mph. Needless to say only a moron would ever think
something like a mini-Cooper could sustain a head on collision with a
6,800lb truck. Thanks God she was in that tank. The front bags
deployed but she was still able to drive it away to the side of the
road. As a matter of fact she could've driven the thing home....that's
how little damage it sustained.

The Mini on the other hand was absolutely destroyed. They had to cut
the drunk out of it like a tin can. Last I heard he was still in
intensive care. Hopefully the ******* will wind up in prison.

So put me in an F150 and you get in tin can Mini and lets go head to
head. Only a MORON would think that a 3,000 lb Cooper could defy the
law of inertia and collide head on with a 7,000 LB truck and come out
smelling like a rose.

Magnulus wrote:
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>
> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a
Ford
> F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were
human).
> In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury,
possibly
> life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.
>
> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given
that
> most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the
Expedition is
> built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why
hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to
see?
> Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.

That's strange. My wife had a head on collision with a Mini-Cooper
just last month. She was in her new Ford Expedition SUV (that's F150
class SUV not the big Excursion).

It was the Coopers fault. S.O.B. was drunk and drifted into her lane
head-on at about 50 mph. Needless to say only a moron would ever think
something like a mini-Cooper could sustain a head on collision with a
6,800lb truck. Thanks God she was in that tank. The front bags
deployed but she was still able to drive it away to the side of the
road. As a matter of fact she could've driven the thing home....that's
how little damage it sustained.

The Mini on the other hand was absolutely destroyed. They had to cut
the drunk out of it like a tin can. Last I heard he was still in
intensive care. Hopefully the ******* will wind up in prison.

So put me in an F150 and you get in tin can Mini and lets go head to
head. Only a MORON would think that a 3,000 lb Cooper could defy the
law of inertia and collide head on with a 7,000 LB truck and come out
smelling like a rose.

Magnulus wrote:
> http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/Cra...operVsFordF150
>
> Frontal crash test photo comparisons between a Mini Cooper and a
Ford
> F-150. In the Mini Cooper, the dummy looks to be unhurt (if he were
human).
> In the F-150, the driver/dummy looks to have sustained injury,
possibly
> life-threatening, and there is significant intrusion into the cabin.
>
> Over half of all collisions in the US are single-vehicle. Given
that
> most SUV's are just trucks with a price premium (in fact, the
Expedition is
> built on the F-150), why do people assume SUV's are safer? Why
hasn't 60
> Minutes or some other news program spelled out this idiocy for all to
see?
> Firestone tires and rollovers are just the tip of the iceberg.