Besides having a cute keister, Prius is also safe
While I have long considered the Lexus RX as the most feminine vehicle ever designed, I've never attributed specific female anatomy to the SUV. It was a simple combination of sweet driving dynamics, very soft lines and mom-loving utility that prompted my opinion.
Until now I have never thought about which vehicle has a cute butt. It's probably a byproduct of some deeply regressed fear of being behind another car in a race. Call it rearfasciaphobia.
After reading the Queen of Green's essay about the imposing Prius caboose, perhaps I'll consider a few human body parallels in my usual walkaround evaluation of a test vehicle. When I judge the rear of a car I normally look for taillight harmony, trunk function, visibility and other practical features. Aside from the Pontiac Aztec, I've never encountered a back end that has plunged me into counseling. Nor have I ever found a vehicular tush that persuades me to watch an Annette Haven movie.
The Queen, Ruth McCann, then delves into the safety issue of the vehicle with a passion that could only be inflamed by the sight of a Prius rump. She finds plenty of info on the web that boasts the excellent crash ratings and rollover safety of hybrids. Still, the safety promise of 2 1/2 tons of Mercedes-Benz surrounding yourself and your children is appealing. In the end, McCann accepts the notion of a "sensible" risk that pollutes less is best for her.
"Morbid and cruel as it sounds, I have to say, yes, it is right to give your child less protection in order to contribute to a national reduction of emissions," write McCann. "Yes, it is right to make sacrifices in the face of a larger, global problem. No, it is not right to take absurd risks, but driving a hybrid is not an absurd risk; it is a calculated one."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
[Source: Ruth McCann / Daily Stanford]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Sam Abuelsamid 9:46AM (2/14/2007)
Mike, there you go bashing Toyota again, implying that the Prius is less safe than a 2 1/2 ton Merc! Enough already!:)
Reply
Brad Evanson 1:13PM (2/14/2007)
Not that there's a safety issue at stake, but one of the most, not offensive but awkward auto tushes belongs to the 2007 Chrysler Sebring. I'm a car enthusiast, and I take great joy in cars that aren't overdone with cliched treatments and trendy componentry for the sake of whatever. Hell, with the exception of the nose, the entire Sebring is just an annoyingly awkward car to look at. The corporate front clip is fine and pleasing to look at, like a nice evolution of the 300C. The roofline looks a little too Checker Cab, with a much too short trunk for that bulbous greenhouse. Putting the hood strakes from the Crossfire onto a non-sports sedan is silly, and pulling the door cutlines from a recent concept car looks too busy, especially with the necessary rub strips added for protection. Finally, the derriere. The overall shape isn't bad, but the combination of the trunk cutlines with oddly shaped taillight clusters just annoys the holy hell out of me. The clusters don't seem to know whether the individual sections should be circular, half-circular, ovoid, rounded rectangular or some other random shape, but whatever they are, they do not work when they are bisected by trunk cutlines.
Sorry for the rant, but finally an opportunity to spew while staying (somewhat) on topic. And for the record, the nose and butt of the Prius are fine. In profile it's a little too wedgy for me (I don't need everybody to know I'm driving a hybrid), and the Camry and Altima hybrids are on my list for consideration. Along those lines, I don't like the nose treatment on the Camry and the Yaris. Butts are fine, but the badge drooping down over the top of the grille reminds me either of a huge nose or a panting dog's tongue. Ok. I'm done and I'll get back on my meds.
http://iamhoff.blogspot.com
Reply
Doug R 5:45PM (2/14/2007)
Unbelievable, what a stupid broad! The radical environmentalists have lost all sense of reality, objectivity and now responsibility. Their movement is no longer their religion, it has officially graduated to a cult status.
She did however admit something her colleagues have refused to acknowledge for years. Regardless of the advancement of technology, safety has taken a back seat to mileage. For all the folks out there who think otherwise:
About 1983 I was sitting at a red light when I heard tire squeal and looked up in time to see a 1981 Mustang GT rearend my car, a 1973 Chrysler Newport. My land yacht barely moved. His car was drivable but the front end was destroyed, the hood as well. I wiped red paint from the safety bumpers with my finger and some saliva. A few years later the car suffered a slightly bent front bumper......from a tow truck backing into me.
Safety tech is great, but it doesn't negate mass. I would choose that behemoth with no air bags, shoulder belts or crumple zones over a prius (or a Mercedes for that matter) in an accident any day.
I pray Ruth McCann has no, nor never will have any children. She is NOT parental material.
Reply
Rick Lyon 1:12PM (2/15/2007)
So if I'm not driving a US made tank then I'm not being safe? How about I'm being safe in a Prius while the rest of the SUV driving gas guzzlin' US made tanks are dangers on the road? You don't buy a tank to protect yourself from a tank or we'd also be wearing bullet proof vests. Insurance companies need to double premiums for SUVs and large heavy vehicles so when those idiots do hit and hurt someone, they'll truly pay for it.
It's ignorant to say gas mileage has taken a backseat to safety because they haven't made the small cars way a ton. You make the car safer and that's not exclusive to making it weigh more. Take SUVs off the road and it's a more level playing field. And yes, I have two kids and I will not get an SUV or big ass american tank to protect from idiots who drive the same vehicles.
Reply
Sam 10:32PM (2/15/2007)
A Mercedes E320 CDI burning B99/B100 is safer, faster, FAR BETTER LOOKING, and more environmentally friendly (burns a renewable fuel) than the Prius.
Reply
Doug R 1:28PM (2/17/2007)
Rick, you choose to drive a smaller car, a choice no one has forced upon you, knowing full well it's a risk. Now you think you have the right to outlaw what I choose to drive because of the risk it poses to you, based on the decision you made all by yourself. Who's trying to tell who what to drive here anyway? You would be safe if it wasn't for me. It's all my fault. You're a pathetic liberal "it's everybody else's fault" whinner. I guess based on this logic, anyone who chooses to ride a motorcycle gets to ban all the rest of us from the road.
So what about the 18 wheelers, the delivery trucks and emergency vehicles that are responsible for your well being and the running of your everyday life? Get rid of them too? If their insurance rates should be doubled, then they have the right to double your delivery fees as well, right? Throw a tirade, blame some one else for your decisions and spout an opinion without thinking it through. Yep, ignorant whinning lib.
My big @$$ American tank was hit, I didn't do the hitting.
I never said weight negates safety tech. I was making the point that it's gone rediculously towards the other direction and it has. Witness the results of any compact involved in a 40+ mph accident, see the statistics on auto related deaths and examine one of the glorified golf carts passing for transportation these days. These are clear indications that safety has taken a back seat to mileage. Would modern safety tech make a 1973 Chrysler Newport safer? Probably. Does it make an environmental tin can on wheels safe? Ah.......no. Safety tech DOES NOT negate mass.
On one hand, my point is ignorant. On the other, my vehicle is a threat to yours because yours is smaller and my vehicle should be "taken off the road" to make it "a more level playing field". Great reasoning there Rick.
You (the smart guy) "choose" to take the risk for yourself and your children and drive a compact. You're mad at SUV drivers because of the risk they pose to the car you "chose" to buy, and the folks who "choose" to drive the larger vehicles are the idiots. You're comments would be totally freakin hilarious if it didn't involve a possible future consequence for your children.
50,000 traffic related deaths a year. I sincerely pray you don't regret your "I will not get an SUV or big @$$ american tank" brand of intellect.
Reply
Benson Leung 11:51AM (2/17/2007)
Doug... it's clear that you are a fervent believer that mass in an SUV keeps you protected. That's fair enough, but your SUV's mass is a double edged sword.
You have a significantly higher center of gravity than a sedan or a minivan. This means that though you might have the advantage if you hit a smaller car head on, if you ever have to swerve, you'll roll over more easily than a smaller car, even if you factor in VSC in both vehicles.
That is a legitimate reason for your insurance rates to go up.
That being said, the rest of your comments are rather offensive and hateful. Some of us here would not like to get into a flame war with you, so please tone it down.
Reply
Doug R 3:38PM (2/17/2007)
Fair enough Benson. I'm fully aware of my higher C.O.G.. Since I don't drive like Mario Andretti and yank the wheel like in these rediculous roll over tests that we have all seen, I don't believe it's as big an issue as being crushed inside a little car. Watch a video of 4WDs on an off road trail sometime. Many of these vehicles have extremely high C.O.G.s. If roll over was as much an issue as being claimed, 90% of the off road vehicles you see wouldn't be able to put themselves in such high grade and extreme angle situations.
What I find "offensive" is some one who thinks it's a "calculated risk" to purposely place your children's safety secondary to the religiously euphoric notion that you are "saving the world" in some way. If you feel that my comments are more offensive than this, then I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
What I also find offensive is this all too common belief that those who drive larger vehicles do so not because they're needed or to be safer. We choose them for the sole purpose of running over someone else in a smaller vehicle. Like we all have this morbid desire to kill other drivers. SUVs do all the "hitting", it's never the other way around. I guess I decided to back into the Mustang (instead of him hitting me) at the red light because my car was "larger".
I actually had a guy on another blog comment section suggest that there be a car designed specifically for causing SUVs to roll over in an accident. In other words, purposely endanger the lives of others who choose to drive a vehicle he hates. I had to make sure he was serious and he was, "dead" serious. No reaction from his fellow followers until I rhetorically suggested I mount spikes on my SUV in order to impale his contraption. His idea was fine, mine just proved I was an evil SUV owner. These people truly live in their own reality.
The insurance idea is particularly amusing. If I was the "small car slayer" in my big bad SUV (or just unintentionally careless), my insurance would skyrocket anyway, based on my "behavior". I would eventually lose my license and my ability to have insurance altogether. So considering the "higher insurance" logic, should a dangerous driver get leniency just because they drive a compact?
Reply