[Leica] red mini

[photo at frozenlight.eu (Nathan Wajsman)]

SUVs are an abomination. There are some radical youths in Denmark and the 
Netherlands who slash tires on SUVs at night and/or leave leaflets under the 
wipers explaining how antisocial it is to drive those porkers. Without 
condoning their methods, I have some sympathy with their sentiments. As an 
economist, my solution is of course to tax gasoline enough so that people 
will not drive such cars.

Cheers,
Nathan

Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/


YNWA


On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Frank Dernie wrote:

> Actually as contemporary cars went they were not bad in safety. Nothing 
> was that good in that era but the design of the mini shell was miles 
> better than anything else at the time, and was much copied later. The VW 
> beetle was about the worst IIRC but even the vast cars of the era were not 
> designed with crash safety in mind.
> Modern cars are very good at passing the tests, how much better they are 
> in real-life accidents I do not know, but as long as trucks and cars share 
> the same roads, and 4x4s continue to be popular as normal transport, the 
> real-life accidents are -not- like the tests because of bumper height.
> The whole thing is a bit of a farce really. The pedestrian impact rules 
> apply to cars, which have to have to have low bumpers to make sure a 
> pedestrian is not knocked under the vehicle, and "soft" bonnets (hoods) so 
> as to minimise injury to the scooped-up pedestrian. Since trucks and 4x4 
> (SUV) are fashionable, and don't need to comply, it is a joke.
> Anyway something is better than nothing!
> The new mini is 2.5x heavier than the old one, most of this is mild steel 
> added to pass tests. The rest is luxury kit. It needs about 3x the power 
> to match the performance...
> Frank