oxeye
New member
I know someone who is convinced that FF is safer than RF because he thinks he is more likely to be rear-ended than be in any other sort of collision because he trusts himself as a driver more than other people. Meaning that he can't avoid being hit from the rear but feels he is likely to be able to avoid a frontal or side collision.
I know the data about the most severe crashes being frontal and side. Rear-end collision are both less common (is this true?) and less severe. But how to you argue with someone who is convinced that for themselves, a frontal or side collision is very unlikely?
This person is very intelligent and physics-oriented (he's an engineer) so he understands crash dynamics and all that. Can anyone think of a better argument than "how do you know you aren't just as likely to be in a frontal or side collision as everyone else?" Because that is the best I've come up with and it hasn't worked.
I know the data about the most severe crashes being frontal and side. Rear-end collision are both less common (is this true?) and less severe. But how to you argue with someone who is convinced that for themselves, a frontal or side collision is very unlikely?
This person is very intelligent and physics-oriented (he's an engineer) so he understands crash dynamics and all that. Can anyone think of a better argument than "how do you know you aren't just as likely to be in a frontal or side collision as everyone else?" Because that is the best I've come up with and it hasn't worked.