小車不安全？高速正麵對撞的幾率有多少？

除非故意殺人或自殺，哪有高速正麵碰撞的，別瞎掰嗎。
多數是失控兌上樹兌上人屁股嘛，所以碰撞試驗的結果還是可信的。

所有跟帖： 

• Well, many many people live outside of the city -mdgg- ♂ (483 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 05:57:01

• +1 -internuts- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 06:40:42

• 40m/h is not high speed, it is common city drive! -bassman- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 06:51:30

• 看看NHTSA的統計數據 -cys254- ♂ (255 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 07:27:48

• 數據:撞車是第一死因, 正麵結果不好,斜角對撞可能更慘! -bassman- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 09:40:43

• 所以說正麵對撞的幾率並不是很大，汽車安全性能不能隻看 -woth- ♀ (253 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 11:04:43

• Well Well, if 38% deaths are due to collision with another car -once4all09- ♂ (316 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 11:31:57

• 你以為hwy都有隔離帶啊，都一邊八條道啊。 -殺雨- ♂ (146 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 09:27:12

• 就算如此，還有人打U turn, 上錯方向呢 -biglow- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 10:39:04

• The riskiest thing is "中間有虛線允許跨線超車"head-on -internuts- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 12:33:37

• 確實不算很多。汽車安全性能要綜合起來看的 -woth- ♀ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 11:05:34

• 事故可分為兩種 -cys254- ♂ (511 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 12:50:32

• 假設世上隻有兩種車， -Audi- ♂ (107 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 13:05:50

• 回複：假設世上隻有兩種車， -cys254- ♂ (163 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 13:11:00

• I am confused ... "所以說應該兩輛車都去撞重量相同的車更合理. -Audi- ♂ (66 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 13:15:38

• "大車也可能撞上大車,小車也可能撞上小車"-exactly! -Audi- ♂ (95 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 13:20:49

• 沒說清楚:中文不好多包含 -cys254- ♂ (218 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 14:15:20

• 拿三千磅的分別去撞四千磅和兩千磅的車,豈不更偏離真相? -MOVEOVER- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 14:18:26

• 那就撞三次好了 -cys254- ♂ (50 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 14:25:26

• What is your logic? -Audi- ♂ (98 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 17:10:50

• 你是不是個留學生，從來沒出過大學城呐？ --vip-- ♂ (476 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 11:42:43

• Real man! -MOVEOVER- ♂ (156 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 15:02:31

• 徹底服了。LMAO --vip-- ♂ (0 bytes) () 04/15/2009 postreply 15:06:32