Fine, you're more than free to do so.
The point of his reply is that before too long, and with continued moronic leadership, we will NOT be free to do so.
But in response to your claims, as you can see in the article: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that every 100-pound reduction in the weight of small cars increases annual traffic fatalities by as much as 715."
In your one article, "Is Bigger Safer? It Ain't Necessarily So", they don't come up with any real particular conclusion to WHY a vehicle that is heavier isn't safer. They have taken a bunch of data and said that it isn't the case to say 'heaver is safer.' I would assume that there are a lot more variables than mere weight.
As you claim, newer lighter cars are safer than older heavier. Does that have to do with weight? I think not. Does it have to do with the fact that a lot of the various other safety systems weren't in the older heavier vehicle? Absolutely.
If you took two vehicles with identical safety systems (air bags, side air bags, ABS, etc, etc) and one of them was built like a 1959 Lincoln and one was built like a 2005 Corolla, I can guarantee that the Lincoln built-alike would be safer. Give me real, heavy steel, give me the extra reinforcement, but include the latest in safety technology.
So, if all things were equal (except for the weight and composition of course) we'd be safer in heavier vehicles. Which IS the point of the JE and the new emissions standards.
Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.