I tried to point out that this was the classic passive (vs. active) safety, "bigger must be better" thinking, and that had she been in a more nimble vehicle, she might have avoided hitting the parked car altogether.

That same question was posed to me on Usenet years ago. Someone said they had a choice between commuting in a Miata (top-down it has the ultimate visibility and is very nimble) or in an SUV (which could survive pretty much anything short of a direct Stinger hit).

They made the same argument: That the former is an accident avoider, the latter an accident survivor.

My response was simple logic: No matter how nimble you are, there are some accidents that you just can't avoid.

So given those two choices, the SUV is a safer car.

The truth is that it's possble to build a safe, accident-surviving car that's doesn't need its own zip code. The Miata isn't one of them, but such cars do exist. He just didn't have a Volvo in his list of choice when he presented the question.

Damn, I've just started another SUV thread. Please forgive me.