I agree with you, but I think I can explain some of the rationale behind wanting big cars. Part of the reason is fear. "If I have a very small egg-car and everyone else has a heavy car, I'll be the one that is killed."
> Part of the reason is fear. "If I have a very small egg-car and everyone else has a heavy car, I'll be the one that is killed."
That isn't fear, it's entirely rational behavior. This is one of those many cases where a group of people behaving individually in their self-interest results in a situation that's worse for all participants.
It would be better for everyone if we moved in aggregate to smaller, lighter cars, but no one can take that step unless we all do.
It's not a zero sum game. All else being equal, larger cars for everyone results in more safety for everyone.
Imagine two extremes. 1) You smack into another person at 70MPH while you're both in a cardboard box. Don't ask me how you got a cardboard box up to that speed, but you probably do not survive. 2) You manage to get a Maersk E class up to 70MPH and crash it into another Maersk E class. Assuming you're not at the front, you and the other guy probably both walk away from the crash unscathed.
Now, that doesn't mean that it's best for everyone to have huge cars. There are other factors beyond simply safety. Small cars can be much safer than large cars when designed and built well. My point is just that the shift to larger vehicles is not the sort of game-theoretic tragedy of the commons that one might imagine.
> * Don't ask me how you got a cardboard box up to that speed, but you probably do not survive. 2) You manage to get a Maersk E class up to 70MPH and crash it into another Maersk E class*
I'd be more impressed if you got the Maersk up to 70mph, since it's 100k horsepower engines can manage less than half that.
And I suspect the collision would be pretty terrifying, given it would be dumping a kinetic energy load of 81GJ if I did the maths right (70mph ~= 31m/s, Emma Maersk ~= 170kton, E=1/2mv^2), which is somewhere around 20kton of TNT equiv.
The 300+ metre "crumple zone" might save you, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
Also don't ask why I expressed wonder at a 70MPH cardboard box but not a 70MPH cargo ship....
Anyway, the kinetic energy involved in the ship collision would indeed be gigantic, but the mass available to absorb it is similarly gigantic. The energy will be going into the structure rather than into your fragile human body. It will take many seconds just to complete the collision. Compare this to the tiny fraction of a second available to decelerate the meatbags from 70MPH to 0MPH in a car collision at that speed.
* The smaller car will stop and maneuver more quickly, avoiding more accidents.
* I read a study years ago that said the relative sizes and weights of vehicles did not significantly impact the outcomes for the humans inside. Instead, the relative positions of the 'hard-points' did (I forget the term, but the parts that don't crumple on impact). If you rear-end a truck and its rear hard-point goes through your windshield into your head (albeit a personal hard-point), that's bad news. If its hard-point hits your vehicle's hard-point then I imagine you mostly suffer from the sudden stop, at least in modern cars.
