Correction:
I thought you were right but according to pg 103 of Arsenal passengers are not injured if their vehicle crashes or is destroyed. The GM has the option of saying characters without airbags and/or seatbelts take damage. So, if you have a choice of slamming into that van or the wall, choose the wall.

am . . am i the only one who thinks that that is NOT right? O.o

I'm with ya, this is bunk. We need these rules fixed, hopefully soon. Tough to play RAW with vehicle combat.

When determining the damage level, use the relative speed. So it's either 0, running parallel, 30 for T Boning, or 60 for head on.

Agreed...

nope, try arsenal for that (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

ah yes, i forgot about arsenal. i have yet to fully memorize the "important" bits of the sourcebooks.

as i think about it, it seems they wanted the vehicle combat rules to be fast, without to much maths depending on the actions of the driver.

hell, they seem tuned towards there being two vehicles, max (a runner van followed by a cop car maybe?).

as such, they have opted for using numbers right in front of the players, as they are written on paper.

with that, and the new walk/run stats for all vehicles, it seems that they approached the rigger as being more a drone keeper then a getaway driver, with the drones mixing it up in the normal battle.

all in all, the text bit before the vehicle list in arsenal could probably have been expanded to 10 times its size and still not give a, to some, acceptable set of vehicle chase rules.

in total, SR4 is tilted much more towards ease of use vs realism then maybe even the earlier editions where (especially when grabbing some of the optional rules from the rigger books).

ease of use? yes i decide to play ben hur with the star in true cinenatic fashion, a quick glance at those handy numbers...and now I can spend the rest of the day rolling up a new character

With any luck, the powers that be are going to be taking a look at this thread, so if you have more observations on Ramming post 'em up.

Armored vehicles striking people don't get damaged. Ok, you might get some cosmetic damage, but it isn't going to break. And it's kind of rare to see an unarmored vehicle in SR.

Of course, in SR the windows are just as tough as the bumpers, so you won't even star the windshield when you run down granny.

And in my book, ease of use trumps realism almost always...

Oh! New ramming rules!

"If a vehicle rams another vehicle, all passengers die!" There. Done away with all the math.

That certainly fixes things doesn't it...

Well, it's certainly the effect as a result of the current rules, but without all the math. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I like the idea that the vehicle soaks the damage, and then the players resist the damage the vehicle actualy recieves, then chalk it up to seatbelts and airbags.

hoda spirit at 61 m/turn = 8p, rolls 14 dice, knocks it to 4p, car takes the brunt of it leaving a fair amount of damage for the passengers, who are strapped in, and luckily are wearing lined coats and such . makes sense neh?

how about a dodge scoot? maxspeed(60) = 2p, rolls 6 dice, knocks it to 0p, I'd probably have the driver roll a pilot test to see if he's thrown from the bike and taking falling damage... feesible

ares roadmaster at 61 mpt. = 16p, rolls 32 dice, kicks it down to 6p, feels like a heavy pistol round to the chest, hope you got a vest on. also, if you were hanging out the window? 16p = splat

this doesn't fix everything, but I think it makes it playable, same goes for grenades through cars(vs grenade through walls, I mean they should be comperable yea?)

. . you know, now that you wrote it out like that, i think i actually understand how this is supposed to work O.o
and it does sound much more feasible too ^^