Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

our country spends 20% of road revenue on roads and road development. The
rest goes into the general goverment unaccountable pot.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > yes, there are 5 million people in Scotland, 60 million in the UK.
However,
: > our motorways are amongs the most crowded in Europe, and average mileage
is
: > about 12K/yr. I'm not against improving road safety, just those who
blindly
: > attacking SUVs and ignore why people have those SUVs or how many miles
they
: > do in them ... let's face it, SUVs are an easy target .
: >
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
:
: Well that's the problem isn't it, these people are more than happy to
: take try and take your 4x4 away in order for them to feel safer on the
: roads, but spend a dime of their tax money on research into something
: that could save thousands of lives like autonomous freeway navigation
: and they'll kick the man responsible out of office.
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.

not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Chris Phillipo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
: >
: > Chris Phillipo wrote:
: > >
: > > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
: > > ...By the way, the only one I see trying to
: > > take over numerous other countries like Hitler did, is from Texas.
: >
: > You are delusional if you really think that. I think we just met the
: > criteria for Godwin's law.
:
: When American's stop making this bull**** parallel with Hitler I'll stop
: pointing out that US Imperialism is really starting to show through int
: he current administration.
:
: >
: > > > 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.
: >
: > The proper question to ask is, over the next 2, 20, 30, 40 years how
: > much the numbers *would* have increased had we not taken a stand?
: > Neither you nor I can answer that with any certainty at this point, and
: > we certainly can't afford to sit around doing nothing to wait and find
: > out.
: >
:
: That's not he question to ask at all, because in 2, 20, 30, 40 the
: numbers will increase, there is no question.
:
: > I'm glad that your attitude wasn't prevalent in WWII after we were in it
: > only 6 months. By the numbers, lots of money had been spent, and deaths
: > only increased. So I guess we should have pulled out. I wonder what
: > our lives would be like now. Idiot.
:
: Ah the US education system at work, you seem unaware how the US sat at
: the sidelines for TWO YEARS while WWII raged on. I wonder what your
: life would be like now if Canada and England hadn't held out on their
: own for those two years. Idiot indeed.
:
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.

In article <[email protected]>,
jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>

Awoke the sleeping giant up off the couch as it were.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Dave Milne wrote:
> Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
> out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
> we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
> money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
> all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
> parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.

Never said the benefits of cars didn't outweight the costs, just that
3,400 deaths is hardly something to classify as insignificant. How many
deaths each year occur from the other things you mention?


Matt

Dave Milne wrote:
> not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...

And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.


Matt

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> > interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> > hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>
> And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>
>
> Matt
>
>

He was making a joke, Matt.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>>Dave Milne wrote:
>>
>>>not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
>>>interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
>>>hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
>>
>>And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>
>
>
> He was making a joke, Matt.

No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
or Korea, etc.

Matt

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >
> >>Dave Milne wrote:
> >>
> >>>not strictly true - they did supply us with ammunitions at a very nice
> >>>interest rate. However, the cold fact does remain that the Japanese did us a
> >>>hell of a favour by attacking Pearl Harbour ...
> >>
> >>And firearms to shoot the ammunition and many other supplies.
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > He was making a joke, Matt.
>
> No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a
> lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we
> defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be
> engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not
> convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam,
> or Korea, etc.
>
> Matt
>
>

Well the big one in Europe would have come to you if you didn't go to
it, but the rest of them were skirmishes in the Cold War and that never
should have happened in the first place.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

>
> I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
> crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
> enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
> are running.
>

You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave

Dave C. wrote:
>>I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
>>crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
>>enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
>>are running.
>>
>
>
> You haven't seen the escalade commercial? They didn't animate it to look
> like some kind of tiger from hell for nothing. -Dave
>
>

Certainly doesn't sent any more of a message than the Camry commercial
with the Camry skidding and spinning along on the freeway ... amazingly
free of any other traffic. All car commercials are full of hype. Any
consumer who reads stuff into the commercials isn't terribly bright.


Matt

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:41:11 -0700, Lisa Horton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton
<[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
>> >> Georgoudis) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>> >> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>> >> >car.
>> >>
>> >> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so
I
>> >> bought a very safe SUV.
>> >>
>> >> Go figure.
>> >
>> >Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic,
this is
>> >Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time.
>>
>> What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton?
>
>Because you claim to care about the safety of your family, yet you
did
>not buy the safest type of vehicle.

The vehicle that I bought is very, very safe. Pity that you're so
myopic.

Maybe less time playing Dungeons and Dragons and more time in the real
world is good advice for you.

>> It's easy to make silly comments such as yours.

>
>Sure, but not as easy as making silly comments like your SUV handling
>better than many cars.

So, you know what kind of SUV I drive and how it handles relative to
many passenger cars? How do you know this?

>
>>
>> It's much harder to back them up.
>
>And even harder if you use logic and facts, good thing you're not
trying
>the hard thing.

So what "facts" are you using? LOL. How ironic.

>> Best of luck.
>>
>
>I think it's you and your family that will need the luck, as you roll
>roll roll down the road, but not on the wheels.

More proof of your cluelessness. It's not surprising though.

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:33:58 -0700, Lisa Horton <[email protected]>
wrote:


>Pulling assertions out of your ass makes you an ignoratn fool.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:16:26 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


>>>Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
>>>supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either
>>well.
>>
>>Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
>>
>
>And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in
Brooklyn?

Nope, I know it outhandles many cars.

p.s. The bridge still isn't for sale.

On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:15:39 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


>>So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>>many passenger cars,
>
>Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne,
you're
>sadly mistaken.

Nope. In don't drive one of those yet, but I'm not mistaken.

Go figure.

On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:07:38 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>
>LOL!

Cluelessness induced laughter? Wow!

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:26:58 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 14:59:03 -0700, [email protected] (C.R. Krieger)
wrote:
>>>P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
>>>> Georgoudis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>>> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>>> >car.
>>>>
>>>> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so
I
>>>> bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>>If you can't understand what's being said in this thread, I'll just
>>>suggest that you kiss your family goodbye *every* day ...
>>
>>On the contrary, I understand what is being said (or written) and I
>>also understand that people have a tendancy to jump to conclusions,
>>not read the cited links, read the cited links but not grasp the
>>underlying assumptions and/or data, etc., etc.
>>
>>It's incredibly common behavior on usenet.
>
>And it is even more common where people are presented with facts that
>contradict their opinions and they believe their unsubstantiated
opinions
>over facts.

Where are these "facts" that have been presented that contradict my
opinion?

The "facts" that were presented at the start of this thread have no
bearing on my vehicle choice.

On Sat, 18 Oct 03 15:59:12 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs
out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.

LOL!

While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and
small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world stats
prove it.

This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it!

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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
>

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> 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"
>>
>
>Neither car can tow worth a damn.

Not in the requirements of the other poster.

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

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:59:44 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Gas taxes seem nice, but they are subject to the same law of
unintendced consequences as most other things.
For example, the higher gas tax means one thing in the Northeast
corridor, but something very different in many areas of the West,
where distances to anywhere are much longer.

Europe is much like the American Northeast corridor; they simply don't
have the vast areas that the US has, and the population density is
higher than in vast areas of the American West. What works well there
won't translate well to here.

So, yes, a high gas tax does mean the more you use, the more you pay.
But that doesn't make it fair when other things (like the distances
that need to be travelled) are taken into consideration.