Cute, enviro friendly death traps!

[hatt]

Once again you've failed to show why the Smart is not a death trap.

I bet you don't throw around that idiot stuff when talking to people face to face.

[blackbeagle]

Originally Posted by hatt

Once again you've failed to show why the Smart is not a death trap.

I bet you don't throw around that idiot stuff when talking to people face to face.

You're right. If I would talk to guys like you face to face, by the time I'm done, they walk the other way with their tails between their legs.

They can no longer repeat the same thing over and over. I can have them pretty much boxed in whatever they try to convey, especially when they lack common sense.

I think I've done MORE than to prove that this car is NOT a death trap. But hey, this is America JACK. You think what you want to think. You post what you want to post, but don't cry when people call you 'Stupid' because of your idiotic, non-informed rant. It's a lesson I learned in the 3rd grade.

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

You're right. If I would talk to guys like you face to face, by the time I'm done, they walk the other way with their tails between their legs.

They can no longer repeat the same thing over and over. I can have them pretty much boxed in whatever they try to convey, especially when they lack common sense.

I think I've done MORE than to prove that this car is NOT a death trap. But hey, this is America JACK. You think what you want to think. You post what you want to post, but don't cry when people call you 'Stupid' because of your idiotic, non-informed rant. It's a lesson I learned in the 3rd grade.

If the Smart microcar performs very poorly under tests where a something that simulates a vehicle twice as heavy plows into it, how does it perform on the streets when nearly every vehicle weighs twice as much as a Smart car?


This is America where you have the right to drive what you want, and I support your right to not only own a Smart car, but to be proud of it. I personally wouldn't own one when there are real life vehicles out there that are much more practical, and get as good or better fuel economy.

[blackbeagle]

Originally Posted by junehhan

If the Smart microcar performs very poorly under tests where a something that simulates a vehicle twice as heavy plows into it, how does it perform on the streets when nearly every vehicle weighs twice as much as a Smart car?


This is America where you have the right to drive what you want, and I support your right to not only own a Smart car, but to be proud of it. I personally wouldn't own one when there are real life vehicles out there that are much more practical, and get as good or better fuel economy.

Again, I ask that you read my previous post.

The Smart tested "Poor" by the IIHS in ONE test. I have to say this over and over to get people to understand. It was an offset head on crash. When does that ever occur? Not very likely. That is my argument. You have more chances of being DEAD in the following scenario by at least 2-3 folds:

A. Roll over crushing your head
B. Head injuries by a side impact

Now I ask a simple question. How did the Smart fare in these two test?

How does that compare to say like an Aveo, Kia Rio, Ford Escape, PT Cruiser? That's just a few I can name off.

So people continue (I have no idea why) continue to harp on ONE test which does not depict the most common accidents.

All trails leads back to the facts that Americans just don't like small cars. We've been conditioned for decades that bigger is better. It's a no brainer.

[blackbeagle]

"I personally wouldn't own one when there are real life vehicles out there that are much more practical, and get as good or better fuel economy".

Your take is respectable. I can deal with that because it is very true. No problemo at all with what you said.

There are other better practical/values. No doubt. Some even gets better mileage (Hybrids). However for me, they cost almost twice as much. At the time I wanted something that will get me from A to B without having to get into a huge car payment (plus I don't trust used cars). What I didn't know was this car was so fun to drive and would garner so much attention......and hatred.

[hatt]

Does anyone know if you get a free professionally prepared living will with the purchase of a Smart car?

Owners should also check their life insurance coverage. Many do you not cover dangerous activities during the first year or two.

[blackbeagle]

Originally Posted by hatt

Does anyone know if you get a free professionally prepared living will with the purchase of a Smart car?

Owners should also check their life insurance coverage. Many do you not cover dangerous activities during the first year or two.

The jokester who makes fun of Smart car does so even when he admits he drives an Escort........ Now that's FUNNY!!!

[hatt]

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

The jokester who makes fun of Smart car does so even when he admits he drives an Escort........ Now that's FUNNY!!!

I'll put my free Escort up against your Smart any time.

Remember, an Escort to a Smart is like a Camry to an F350. The winners can easily be picked out.

[blackbeagle]

Originally Posted by hatt

I'll put my free Escort up against your Smart any time.

Remember, an Escort to a Smart is like a Camry to an F350. The winners can easily be picked out.

I might hang out with an escort, but I sure ain't hell drivin' one......

[hatt]

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

I might hang out with an escort, but I sure ain't hell drivin' one......

I know, you already told us. You don't like cars with back seats and trunks and stuff. And you like to be able to use the front bumper as a foot rest while driving, we get it.

You should remove the floor boards in that thing. I bet you can get it up to maximum safe speeds using Fred Flintstone's technique.

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

If you're going to ask a question, then remember the answer.

I am driving that car RIGHT NOW. My Maxima, in my driveway is for sale (only 79000 miles). My Maxima would far well against the C230. We already know how my Smart would fare, but I'm driving it right now. What does that say?

Remember, I predicted you would say that when I stated that it wouldn't matter to you. I was asking the question more for the benefit of anyone else who might have been interested.

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

Well if you must know, that IIHS test had no bearing then and it had no bearing now. You see, I don't have to worry about hitting a car straight on and dying because of the remote possibilty of the even ever occuring. I don't live on a country road where everything is ONE WAY. Most of the accidents that I've heard of that involves head on collisions/deaths are mostly in the outskirts of town where one way roads runs for long stretches. THen I would be worry that either someone will accidentally veer into me or me dozing off and veering into them.

Living where I live, I don't have to worry about that. If a head on collision is going to happen, it's going to be at a slower speed and I trust the car based on my research. Reading the stories from Safeandsmart confirms it (Yes.....the marketing website).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you've got a 2008. I'm assuming based on that you've had it for a while and since you looked at the smartandsafe website you probably didn't even know the latest IIHS tests were available. That's WHY you don't trust a marketing website. Even to this very day, that website doesn't list the 2009 test in it's safety reports. That's why I called it misleading. Being a marketing site means that they are not bound to be truthful in any way. They aren't even required to show all sides. So you're only getting one side of the story from them. That's not a fair representation of the safety of the vehicle.

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

The question I have for you is why aren't you lambasting motorcycles? Why aren't they death traps? Why do you choose to pick on the small cars, which are much safer than a bike?

Because this thread isn't about motorcycles. It's off topic and not relevant to this thread. How exactly does the safety of a motorcycle impact the safety of a Smart car? Motorcycle safety is not in any way directly related to the safety of this car, or any other car. This is the typical lame duck argument I hear far too often these days.

"The Smart is rated X. Well what about widgets in Africa, are they bad too?"

Who cares? If they are or aren't doesn't change the statement. As if varying degrees makes it ok. Well it's not safe, but it's safer than a motorcycle... Oh well then in that case, A+++++ rating!. BULL. That's faulty logic. IF the Hummer was suddenly rated 0 stars by NHTSA, would that by it's very definition mean that the F150 also is? No, that's stupid. That's called setting up a strawman argument. It's intended to set up an easy target that distracts the discussion away from it's purpose. I personally believe that motorcycles are very similar to any other car and even the Smart. It's as much about the idiot behind the wheel, or handle bars, as it is the vehicle. But that doesn't grant me the right to mislead people about either.

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

As for the slow sales, don't you think the economy has anything to do with it? Don't you think the gas prices has nothing to do with it? Back when I bought it, gas was almost $5. I thought we might be going to war with Iran which would decimate most Americans when it comes to gas prices.

The IIHS test has virtually no bearing on the effects of sales. Why? Because the IIHS has not overhyped this test. You'd be hard to find it even on their site. As much as I'd like to think that mainstream media are not "Smart" friendly, they are not even pushing any safety agendas when it comes to this car. So NO. I do not believe this test has anything to do with slow sales.

Just in case you didn't noticed, it's happening to virtually every automanufacturer and not just Smart.

I do think the down turn has something to do with it. But I think that can only explain a small portion. I think that poor reviews and failed expectations have doomed the Smart more than the economy. I say that because Smarts numbers are down 61% while Mercedes general numbers are up in December while Smart sales are down. I can't say it's a direct result of the safety testing. I would be interested to see the month to month sales figures for 2009 and see when the drop happened. To be blatantly honest, I tend to think the novelty factor is wearing off and the bad reviews are making it worse. But that's my opinion, not a validated claim.

[blackbeagle]

Originally Posted by hatt

I know, you already told us. You don't like cars with back seats and trunks and stuff. And you like to be able to use the front bumper as a foot rest while driving, we get it.

You should remove the floor boards in that thing. I bet you can get it up to maximum safe speeds using Fred Flintstone's technique.

Not sure if you're a sports fan or not, but there's a feature on the ESPN pre-game show with Ditka, Keishawn Johnson, Chris Berman, and Tom Jackson. They call it "C'MON MAN". It's their way of telling people what they did was pretty darn stupid.

"Tony Romo fumbles the ball, he falls on the ball and boots it with his right foot......CMON MAN"

"Ocho Cinco is going to change his name back to Chad Johnson.....CMON MAN"

"There are actually people that actually drives Escorts?..........C'MON MAN"

[mobiushky]

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

Again, I ask that you read my previous post.

The Smart tested "Poor" by the IIHS in ONE test. I have to say this over and over to get people to understand. It was an offset head on crash. When does that ever occur? Not very likely. That is my argument. You have more chances of being DEAD in the following scenario by at least 2-3 folds:

A. Roll over crushing your head
B. Head injuries by a side impact

Now I ask a simple question. How did the Smart fare in these two test?

How does that compare to say like an Aveo, Kia Rio, Ford Escape, PT Cruiser? That's just a few I can name off.

So people continue (I have no idea why) continue to harp on ONE test which does not depict the most common accidents.

All trails leads back to the facts that Americans just don't like small cars. We've been conditioned for decades that bigger is better. It's a no brainer.

Pulling numbers out of your rear like 2-3 fold for rollover crashes is BS. The Smart was given a 3 star rating by NHTSA for rollover. (Notice that's not the IIHS test you hate so much) The roof is very strong, but there were 2 issues that NHTSA didn't like. First, the car is unstable at higher speeds which leads to a higher likelihood that it will roll over. Wider larger cars have less tendency to roll over in the first place. Second issue was that the doors tend to pop open in some tests which they stated gave a greater risk to the occupants of being ejected from the vehicle in a roll over. Third, the potentiality of a crash doesn't do justice to the effects of that crash on the occupant. Smaller cars have less material to allow absorption of crash energy which leads to more of that energy being transmitted to the occupant. That is a law of physics no amount of denial or marketing can change.

Found an interesting article on rollovers from Texas A&M:

http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger...s_brochure.pdf

Interesting stats, you are 4 times more likely to die from being ejected in a rollover than from being in the vehicle. You are 75% more likely to be ejected if you are not wearing your seat belt. And 85% of vehicle rollovers are single car accidents.

The offset head on crash is more common that you are willing to allow or admit. Refusing to accept it doesn't invalidate it. Ask Mshulman... Further, if you read the Smart response to that test, they specifically stated that they design the safety only based on the current tests... Essentially they design to pass the tests, not to assume potential other crashes. They complained that the the Smart does poorly in the offset head on because they didn't design the safety around that possibility.... Is that what you tell the family of the person who died in that particular type of crash?

So what if Americans want bigger cars? Don't we get to choose? If I want a full sized Escalade ESV, who the heck are you to tell me no? It's my choice and if I can afford it, so be it. If you want to drive a Smart, who the heck am I to tell you no? It's your choice and you are more than welcome to it. This BS line about trying to make some kind of political statement about the cars we choose is old and tired. You cannot make me change my mind on which cars I want or am willing to buy. You go right ahead and buy whatever car you want. If I want a small car, I'll get one. But I don't want one because they are not practical to me and I don't really care about fuel economy all that much.

[blackbeagle]

Originally Posted by mobiushky

Pulling numbers out of your rear like 2-3 fold for rollover crashes is BS. The Smart was given a 3 star rating by NHTSA for rollover. (Notice that's not the IIHS test you hate so much) The roof is very strong, but there were 2 issues that NHTSA didn't like. First, the car is unstable at higher speeds which leads to a higher likelihood that it will roll over. Wider larger cars have less tendency to roll over in the first place. Second issue was that the doors tend to pop open in some tests which they stated gave a greater risk to the occupants of being ejected from the vehicle in a roll over. Third, the potentiality of a crash doesn't do justice to the effects of that crash on the occupant. Smaller cars have less material to allow absorption of crash energy which leads to more of that energy being transmitted to the occupant. That is a law of physics no amount of denial or marketing can change.

Found an interesting article on rollovers from Texas A&M:

http://fcs.tamu.edu/safety/passenger...s_brochure.pdf

Interesting stats, you are 4 times more likely to die from being ejected in a rollover than from being in the vehicle. You are 75% more likely to be ejected if you are not wearing your seat belt. And 85% of vehicle rollovers are single car accidents.

The offset head on crash is more common that you are willing to allow or admit. Refusing to accept it doesn't invalidate it. Ask Mshulman... Further, if you read the Smart response to that test, they specifically stated that they design the safety only based on the current tests... Essentially they design to pass the tests, not to assume potential other crashes. They complained that the the Smart does poorly in the offset head on because they didn't design the safety around that possibility.... Is that what you tell the family of the person who died in that particular type of crash?

So what if Americans want bigger cars? Don't we get to choose? If I want a full sized Escalade ESV, who the heck are you to tell me no? It's my choice and if I can afford it, so be it. If you want to drive a Smart, who the heck am I to tell you no? It's your choice and you are more than welcome to it. This BS line about trying to make some kind of political statement about the cars we choose is old and tired. You cannot make me change my mind on which cars I want or am willing to buy. You go right ahead and buy whatever car you want. If I want a small car, I'll get one. But I don't want one because they are not practical to me and I don't really care about fuel economy all that much.

and you wonder why I called you DA#2. I live in MN. You know what I saw within the last two days of snow? I've seen at LEAST 5-6 roll over accidents. That's with my own eyes. It's plastered all over the newspapers. How many head on accidents have been in the news during the same period? Exactly ZERO!!! Pulling numbers out of my rear? Yeah...I guess that's not exactly correct because it's about 10 times more. If you're too stupid to know that, then I can't help you. But those are the facts jack.

The problem with you, is that you won't admit when you're wrong so you go back and pick apart my quotes. Guess what? I think most people reading this have already realized you're a FRAUD. You have your opinions YES. But they are opinions of ignorant.

Did I ever say anywhere in the last post that I have a problem with SUVs? I have one........remember? You must have memory problems because you seem to cherry pick certain things and seem to remember everything else.

Don't do the "BS line..... political statement" on my Jack. Why you can't talk politics in the same breath as cars? Does that bother you? You want to get your behind kicked in politics too?

The Smart car is one of the most hated cars and I stated the reason why? AMERICANS ARE CONDITIONED TO LIKE BIG CARS!!!!

It's a fact and you even deny that or make up some BS that I hate SUVs, then you're stupider than I thought.

[junehhan]

Originally Posted by blackbeagle

I might hang out with an escort, but I sure ain't hell drivin' one......

Those old Ford Escorts were really nice vehicles. They were dependable, safe for their time(for its class), and very fuel efficient. Unless you were doing something stupid, and unless you were one of the few with the dreaded recessed valve seat issue, they ran forever. My mom had a 2 door and I remember she absolutely loved that car until a big truck backed into her.