Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE
has
> >> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >>
> >> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing
vehicles
> >> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
> >each
> >> year
> >> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost
by
> >> one
> >> thing are balanced by the other.
> >>
> >> Ted
> >
> >You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is
less
> >fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by
CAFE,
> >those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
> >allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
> >AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
> >replaced them.
> >
> >In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles
AND
> >by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
> >trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
> >ymore. -Dave
>
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>

Even better, develop new technologies, like hybrid or fuel cells, that can
carry passengers in a truck-sized package more effeciently, and leave the
gas powered trucks alone. We ought to shift the consumers that simply need
size and are forced into trucks, because trucks offer the size they need,
into replacement vehicles that won't be called upon to do the workload that
is traditionally thought of as being needed from a truck. That is, while
hauling people is a truck is overkill, hauling lumber in an hybrid or
fuelcell equipped truck is probably not going to work very well.

Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is delivered
in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
: "Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: >
: > That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
: > Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
: > same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
: > the same thing others do.
: > The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
: > them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
: > ignores reality.
:
: No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
: with driving a car.
:
: However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
: else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
: my fat ass out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
: vis-versa.
:
: In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.
:
: Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
: hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
: to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
: and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
: space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
: whereas someone else who has an econobox
: that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
: of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
: space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
: car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
: Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
: doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
: and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
: he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?
:
: If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
: proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
: then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.
:
: But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
: trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
: road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
: costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
: pay for their "needs"
:
: > it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
: > it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
: > vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
:
: Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
: on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
: at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
: around.
:
: Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
: easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
: truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
: an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
: on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
:
: Ted
:
:

In article <[email protected]>, bfunk33
@qwest.net says...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bill Funk" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
> >> the same thing others do.
> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
> >> ignores reality.
> >
> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
> >with driving a car.
>
> No offense, but I was referring to reality.
> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
> that driver uses wheile on the road.
> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?
>

What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> > I assume you are talking about something like the Adventra. If they can
> > just avoid having the "SUV" moniker applied to it it will coast
> > effortlessly under the greenie radar. Of course that thing would never
> > sell in America if they called it a station wagon.
>
> How about a "sports tourer"?
>
> They've got a Monaro/GTO coupe version too, btw. To paraphrase another poster, 0-60
> in 6.4 seconds--on gravel!
>
> --Aardwolf.
>
>
>

Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

> >> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
> >
> >Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> >WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> >appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave

Your ignorance is mind boggling. Or maybe your sense of humour is just
to high brow for the rest of us.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > ...I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
> > and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
> > fight against cancer.
>
> And over the years, it probably has.
>
> > Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > of times larger than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack, but the
> > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
>
> However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
>

That's one man's opinion. Seems to me that the more measures that are
taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
> The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
> the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
> vehicles.
>
> Ed
>
We already know this works in Europe, and you'll still have a handful of
wealthy people driving extra large SUVs so you won't go wanting for
something to whine about.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

There has to be a balance in all this. You can micromanage all costs so
that no-one has one penny advantage over anyone else, but eventually,
and very quickly, you reach the point of diminishing returns.

By that I mean that the mechanisms and government beaurocracies... uh,
beurocracies... uh bu**sh** that have to be set up to manage and
micromanage everything is a net loss to society, government grows
bigger, and the average citizen becomes resentful of the overhead costs
(taxes) and intrusive visibilty by those administering all the crap into
their lives (kind of like Europe).

I think we've already surpassed that point in many areas (and it's only
going to get worse). There's something to be said for letting the costs
inherent in any given decision or path take care of themselves. Yeah -
maybe it's not 100% fair, but is it fair to drag the whole of society
down with all the costs and intrusion (i.e., fair to the point of
bringing everyone down to the same level of intense misery)?

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

> > >ymore. -Dave
> >
> > And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
> been
> > several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
> >
>
> Even better, develop new technologies, like hybrid or fuel cells, that can
> carry passengers in a truck-sized package more effeciently, and leave the
> gas powered trucks alone. We ought to shift the consumers that simply need
> size and are forced into trucks, because trucks offer the size they need,
> into replacement vehicles that won't be called upon to do the workload that
> is traditionally thought of as being needed from a truck. That is, while
> hauling people is a truck is overkill, hauling lumber in an hybrid or
> fuelcell equipped truck is probably not going to work very well.
>

There is a reason you can't double the price of gas overnight, the US
economy would crash and take many others with it. So I wouldn't worry
about these enviro terrorists destroying the country just yet, the
government is probably coming to get them in a black Chevy Suburban
right now.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <%[email protected]>, Dave Milne wrote:
> Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is delivered
> in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
> Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?

Food is taxed in some states.

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:59 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Kevin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>>>
>>>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>>>metro.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>>>
>>
>>A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
>>
> The seat is connected to the vehicle's structure.
> When the seat moves in relation to the cage, the cage is just
> something else to hit.

A good roll cage will run along the floor as well as up and over
the driver. I don't think it's uncommon to also bolt the seat
to the roll cage, but I may be mistaken. In any case, the cage puts
a structure of tublar steel around the driver that is stronger than
anything one would find in any mass-produced production vehicle.

Bill Funk wrote:
>
> Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
> keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.

Nah - the liberals would *never* allow that. Can't you hear their
reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent driver off the road, you would
in effect be punishing his/her innocent children. Therefore it would be
better to let the incompetent parents continue to drive without
restriction. A few more people might be killed as a result, but at
least the innocent children would not be punished."

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.

Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
punished."

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

you get my point though.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:UPykb.594744$cF.259764@rwcrnsc53...
: In article <%[email protected]>, Dave Milne
wrote:
: > Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is
delivered
: > in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
: > Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?
:
: Food is taxed in some states.
:
:

I've never understood the US attitude towards children - they seem to be
sacred until they get to 18, when the electric chair beckons

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
:
:
: Dave Milne wrote:
: >
: > I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop.
:
: Repeating what I put in another post, the liberals would *never* allow
: that. Can't you hear their reasoning now: "By keeping an incompetent
: driver off the road, you would in effect be punishing his/her innocent
: children. Therefore it would be better to let the incompetent parents
: continue to drive without restriction. A few more people might be
: killed as a result, but at least the innocent children would not be
: punished."
:
: Bill Putney
: (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
: address with "x")
:
:
: -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
: http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
: -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.


"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
> >> would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
> >> told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
> >
> >I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
> >so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.
>
> Right. CR, the IIHS, the NHTSA, FARS, and every other place that crashes
> vehicles or keeps stats. But then, don't let the facts get in the way of
> your fantasy.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >
> >
> > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> > >...Political decisions seem to be more emotional
> > > than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
> > > of times larger than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack, but the
> > > amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
> > > be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.
> >
> > However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
> > research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
> > higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
> > possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
> > quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.
> >
>
> That's one man's opinion.

As is yours - mine is no less valid.

> Seems to me that the more measures that are
> taken against terrorists, the more they attack. Case in point: Israel.

Opposite side case in point: U.S today. Another opposite side case in
point: Hitler.

One would have to be an idiot to think that the way to fight willful
murderers is to do nothing so that you don't antagonize them. The way
to get rid of murderers is to get rid of them - not let them continue to
kill at will unencumbered. You don't try to reason with them or
negotiate with them.

It seems ridiculous to have to state the obvious, but I guess with some
people, it's necessary.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.

Yep, and I own two minivans and a pickup, but not for reasons of safety.
I also ride a motorcycle when weather permits and they typically don't
fair nearly as well safety-wise, but are great from a fuel mileage
perspective.


Matt

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.

Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
average in any event.

Matt

Dave C. wrote:
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>

Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.


Matt