<snip>
> I'll defend your right to drive a Fiat 500 on the freeway because
> you're only putting yourself at risk--but driving a truck on public
> roads places everybody else at risk. That's why your freedom to
> drive drunk is restricted. (Since people like to assume otherwise,
> I'll add another sentence to this off-topic post and state explicitly
> that I have absolutely no problem with people who use trucks to haul
> gravel, tow Alfas, go offroading, etc, etc.)
>
> No one likes to see their Alfa destroyed by someone else's shitty
> driving, but if it can do what it was designed to do and save your
> life by absorbing energy, you shouldn't complain because there will
> always be shitty drivers. It's when the idiot's vehicle contributes
> more energy to the collision than your Alfa can absorb, and absorbs
> none of it itself, and you die, that I'm apt to complain.
<snip>
So if you get hit and killed in an SUV that's hauling gravel, that's ok,
but if you get hit and killed by the same vehicle being driven by a
soccer mom, it's not?
I don't get the logic.
The only thing wrong with SUV's, trucks, etc, imo, is that they aren't
made to adhere to the same type of bumper laws that passenger cars
adhere to. It makes no sense to me that passenger car bumpers all have
to be at a uniform height, so if they crash into each other they absorb
equal energy, but SUV and truck bumper heights can be much higher. In
fact one might argue it's almost criminal that passenger cars aren't
allowed to raise their bumper heights to protect themselves against
SUV's.
bs