5 Aug
2006
5 Aug
'06
5:15 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
You've missed the point. *Manufacturers* care about the occupants
and, thus, have spent their energies (regardless as to whether or
not is the *right* thing to do) making crashes more survivable.
Almost always, this comes at the expense of making the car
take the punishment, instead. (which is why today's vehicles
don't survive crashes as well as older vehicles -- the original
poster's point)
Segin wrote:
Who the blazes cares about that. My experience is that people heel a lot
quicker than the time it takes to repair a car. And having had to do
major bodywork repairs for what should have been what you'd call a
'fender bender', I am half-convinced that all the safety features in
modern cars are just a way to sell more and more expensive replacement parts. I wouldn't say "emotionally
attached" myself, since I exibit no
emotional response to... well, anything! I like old hardware, mainly
cause it's more dependable than today's workstations and desktops. Why?
Because companies actually put thought into creating parts that were
durable back then. Compare it to cars (my favorite analogy against
computers), A 1969 Ford Mustang is usually more durable, dependable, and
will survive a crash with substantally less damage than, say, a 2005 Kia
Optima or Saab xB.
Sure. But the PASSENGERS will have substantially MORE damage
than
those in that 2005 vehicle...