Date:         Tue, 26 Aug 1997 08:25:31 CDT
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@vanagon.com>
From:         Joel Walker <JWALKER@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: crash damage, Van front end

On Tue, 26 Aug 1997 Matt said:
>Does anyone have experience to ease my mind? What happened/how'd you fair? I
>would also be interested in VW crash safety test results, but don't know

well, my insurance company, USAA (active duty and retired military officers)
rates the Vanagon as "much better than average" in crash risk (injuries).
it seems that sitting UP above the other car's bumper makes a lot of
difference. they also agree with Mercedes' testing that MOST accidents
are side-angle hits, NOT front-end crashes.

of course, the trick is to hit or be hit by someone in a car SMALLER than
your own. this has always been true. way back when Ralph Nader was trying
to crucify the Beetle (by claiming that it was dangerous when hit by a
Cadillac!), one of the VW dealers in New Jersey (who just happened to also
be a Mac Truck dealer) showed what happens when the Cadillac gets hit by
a five-ton truck: guess what? the Cadillac is "dangerous"!!

now, since MOST of the cars out there ARE smaller and lighter than a
Vanagon, statistically, you are safer in the Vanagon than in a Honda Accord.
in my opinion. :)

but there's no guarantee ... the best thing to set your mind at ease is to
visit a junkyard, and look at the number and severity of the wrecks. see
which brands have the worst damage, and which have the least. i've noticed
that the American cars don't seem to hold up very well ... sort of
"disposable" vehicles. whereas the Volvos and Mercedes have almost NO
interior damage at all. likewise, MOST of the Vanagons (and Buses) that i've
seen in junkyards were rollovers, or side-impact crashes. and there were
very very few of them in the junkyard at all ... so either there weren't
very many sold, or people don't wreck them very much (which is what my
insurance company also indicated: low numbers of wrecks; i get a refund
every six months for driving a "safer" car. eh? it ain't much: $16).

>I know this is an ugly subject that we'd rather not think about, but if it is
>an inherant liability of this design, so be it, I can deal with it. If there
>are bunches of you who have slammed into the back of a semi- at 60 mph and
>lived to giggle, lemme know.

well, ANY cab-over design that puts any part of the driver in front of the
front wheels is a "liability" design, no matter who makes it. the thing is,
i've seen wrecks with front-engined cars in which the engine actually came
back into the front seats!!!! so i don't know if some of these "safe"
designs are very good.

but if you'll get under the front of your bus, you'll see some rather LARGE
frame members, making a Y-shape on each side of the middle ... for something
to get back past that, it's gonna have to be pretty severe.

i figure it this way: i'm responsible for the front end of my car. cause
that's really the only thing i have control over. i have to watch all the
other idiots around me, but i can only control the forward progress of my
car. if someone slams me in the rear, i can't control that (unless i can
get out of his way). same thing with the sides. but i CAN keep from hitting
the idiot in front of me. :)  unless it's a head-on from the other direction
... :(  and those are rather rare (i hope! i hope!). of course, i COULD
always run off the road and smash into a bridge abuttment or telephone pole
or something like that, but then again, that should have been my control. :)

it's something to be "concerned" about, but i don't "worry" about it myself.
i DO, however, try to limit my "exposure" to certain risks ... like planning
trips so i go through large cities and towns at times OTHER than rush hour.
stuff like that. :)

joel