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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
While they’re not under every seat, battery fire containment bags are already included in airlines’ onboard emergency equipment, for flight attendants to use when needed.
And hopefully some tongs to move the devices into the bag while still molten.
I'm perversely curious how bad the smoke issue is when this happens on planes. Honestly fucked up, but I actually don't think the fire is really that much of an issue, is almost no real threat. You bet your ass the plane, the seats, the carpet, the bulkheads are non-flammable. There's no real threat here, from what I can tell. Other than the harm of a major smoke release. I know there's a ton of air systems on planes... It's be so interesting to see a video of an extreme battery detonation test on a plane, to see how the smoke & air systems handle it.
