Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

  • Thread starter Dianelos Georgoudis
  • Start date
This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
> And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough to
avoid all those big, bad SUVs. The junk yards are full of such cars. >

And the hospitals and graveyards are filled with their drivers.


 
> > 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

My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?


 
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.

Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.


Matt

 
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Aardwolf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>
> problem--probably
>
>>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>
> simply do
>
>>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>
> Charger,
>
>>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>
> drivers
>
>>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>
> new
>
>>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>
>
> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> directly
> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
> However, let's explore your argument a bit.
>
> Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
> car.
> Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
> are gonna
> get a half pound of air pollution.
>
> Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
> CAFE
> forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
> 1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
> putting
> double the amount of pollutants into the air.

Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
independent issues.


Matt

 
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>you to believe.
>>>
>>>
>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>
>>Why?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.

Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.


Matt

 
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>>>>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>>>>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>>>>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>>>>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>>>>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>>>>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
>>>crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
>>>damage to others.
>>>
>>>Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
>>>is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
>>>tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
>>>front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
>>>money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>>>
>>>And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
>>>because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
>>>crashes?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.


Matt

 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> 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"
>
>
>
>

Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> 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.
>

The US today enjoys the benefit of geography, that's the only
difference. If Mexico were Palestine or Afghanistan, the southern
states would be the battlefield of a 50 year war. Instead you have the
luxury of defending that boarder with a hand full of border patrol
guards in guess what? SUVs. By the way, the only one I see trying to
take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.

> 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.

Show me how the numbers have decreased since the spending has increased.

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

Again and again.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> 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
>
>

Personally I don't think any of these statistics hold water anyway, but
I thought I should point out that even the quoted statistics didn't
support the argument of the people quoting them. That happens when you
press the send button without reading I guess.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
Lon Stowell <[email protected]> wrote:

> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.

I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare
a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be
economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a
stated sporty goal would be able to impress.

Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me.
Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about
price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>> >boasts about.
>>
>> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
>> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
>> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
>> similar price point.
>>
>Speaking of point, was there one in that post?

That trucks, even those like the ML55 AMG, still handle like trucks.

Next time I'll try to use smaller words so you can understand.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>> >just in case.
>> >
>> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>>
>> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
>> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
>> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
>> availability of large cars.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?

Yes.

Please post the specific statistics you are referring to so that we all may
read them. So far, all of them posted indicate that SUVs are less safe.
You seem to disagree, so I'd like to see what statistics you have to
support your opinion.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.

"A little security in an insecure world." And that is just the first that
popped into my mind. No, there has never been one where they said "our
truck is safer than cars," but there have been plenty that play up the idea
that they are "safe."

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.

And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.

The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).

Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?

No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:

>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.

Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.

But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.

Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 


Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Not being an SUV driver, I'd simply steer out of the way, knowing that I
> > can actually turn sharply without rolling over. With any luck, it would
> > be rainy, or on a curve, and I could see evolution in action as a bonus.
> >
> > Lisa
> >
>
> Your ignorance is what will kill you one of these days. Rainy on a
> curve with you driving? What is the current record for a small car
> rolling over in a ditch? 15 times I think? Let me know if you break
> it.

I don't drive a small car. I also don't drive at or beyond the limits
of my vehicle or skill. I'l be doing the watching, not the rolling.

Lisa
 
In Europe trucks travel the same roads as everyone else..
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
: >
: >> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
: >> >> metro.
: >> >>
: >> >>
: >> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
: >> >generates more momentum
: >>
: >> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your
boat
: >> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
: >>
: >And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
: >be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
:
: Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
: portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
: appear that critical thinking is your forte.
:
: Marc
: For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"


 


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.

Look who's NOT on top, your beloved SUV's. Large cars and minivans,
both of which represent a lesser threat to other drivers are on top. So
you can choose more safety for you, your family AND all the other
drivers on the road, or you can choose an SUV.

Lisa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Defenders Vs Insurers tomfoolery
Replies
1
Views
4K
lightning
lightning
300bhp/ton
Driven: New Defender - On & Off Road. Is it a Pretender?
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
lightning
lightning
P
Range Rover P38 EKA and BeCM Lockout
Replies
6
Views
5K
Doolinjames
D
natas
Hurricane Dorian survivor.
Replies
8
Views
2K
ProjectX
ProjectX
Alibro
How to recondition a VCU yourself.
15 16 17
Replies
325
Views
47K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top