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.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:51:33 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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

As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany
*after* Germany declared war on us.

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html
http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 10:46:11 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>The full sized trucks and SUVs that are three-quarter ton or smaller all
>have city mileage from 10-15 and highway mileage from 15-19.

They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.

>The one-tons
>(trucks only, I know of now SUVs with that title) and some of the "heavy
>duty" 3/4 ton ones are of sufficient GVWR that they do not get listed with
>the EPA as passenger vehicles and are worse for mileage, but they aren't as
>easy to look up for all of them in one place.

 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:31:17 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>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."

I agree fully.
"Given my druthers" doesn't mean that I *expect* it, just that I
*want* it. :)

 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:01:42 -0700, Lisa Horton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Bill Putney wrote:
>>
>> 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."
>>
>
>Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
>tougher licensing requirements.
>
>I think that a lot of us know that the real problem isn't so much the
>SUV's themselves, but SOME of the people who drive them. The people who
>don't understand, or don't care, that their vehicle does not have the
>turning or stopping ability of a road car. The people who take 2 spaces
>in a crowded parking lot because they can't operate their vehicle well
>enough to fit in 1 space. The not too good driver, normally (and
>wisely) timid who suddenly becomes super confident. Oh, I could go on
>an on.
>
>Lisa

But that applies to drivers of *ALL* classes of vehicles, not just
SUVs.

 


Bill Funk wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
> >
> >I'm not aware of any that did.
>
> I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
> It had an EGR setup.

I knew they had really early requirements for PCV setups, but I didn't know
about EGR setups that early on. I guess all bets are off when it comes to
California.

--Aardwolf.


 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:30:01 -0700, Lisa Horton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>At least around here, the large SUV is THE vehicle of choice for the bad
>drivers. Unfortunate for those who are not bad drivers but do have
>SUV's.
>
>Lisa

I don't know where "here" is for you, but here in the Phoenix area,
the worst drivers are the wannabe gangsters with the small, "sporty"
cars with the loud, raspy exhaust (who have, evidently, never heard
the exhaust of a decent V-8 :)), 140dB stereo going full blast with
rap playing on it, who think they are God's gift to designers of such
cars, and think they have a divine mandate to drive as fast as they
can, usually after drinking a 40.
Despite their relatively small numbers, they cause an inordinately
large number of crashes, with the attendant injuries and fatalities.
Next in line are those who substitute the compact import trucks for
the cars.

Yes, I see SUVs being driven stupidly.
However, I do not think that this is a characteristic of the vehicle,
unlike a lot of people who seme to like to impart humanity to a
machine.


 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:16:18 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
>> 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.
>>
>
>It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much, but
>not getting out of bed :)

Quite to the contrary:
More people die in bed than anywhere else!
Hospitals have the highest rate of deaths per occupancy.
Being in a bed in a hospital, well, forget it!
:)

 

"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Lisa Horton wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Which should make us all wonder what explains the difference since most
> large SUVs are based on a full-size pick-up. So, I return to my
> previous comment that there is a lot more to these statistics than
> vehicle type. Most full-size four-wheel drive trucks have handling
> characteristics not all that far from SUVs, and probably worse
> characteristics when they are loaded. So how do all you statistics
> believers explain this 50% discrepancy between vehicles of very similar
> design? And since minivans have poorer handling characteristics than
> almost any car, why are they so much safer? Just points out that these
> stats must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.
>
>
> Matt
>


SUVs generally have a higher center of gravity than the pickups of the same
platform whether the pickup is loaded or not. As far as minivans go, the
people that drive them around here tend to drive like old ladies, whereas
many of the SUV drivers seem to think they own the road and drive the
stinkin things like a Ferrari instead of a truck.


 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:52:48 -0500, Aardwolf <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 03:18:02 -0500, Aardwolf <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >I'm not aware of any that did.
>>
>> I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
>> It had an EGR setup.
>
>I knew they had really early requirements for PCV setups, but I didn't know
>about EGR setups that early on. I guess all bets are off when it comes to
>California.
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
I think so too.
And I bought the Camaro in Georgia! Figger that out!?


 


"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair.

All right, poor choice of words. But a whole lot more equitable than what we have
now, that I'll stand behind.


> Taxing gas is unfair to
> people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
> average.

So is charging for gas, by that measure.


--Aardwolf.


 
Big? Heavy?

You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/home/products/trucks/actros/index.html

I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".

:)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
..........................................>
> I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove
fairly
> pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.


 


Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> 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.

So in one post you explicitly equate Bush with Hitler; your very next
post you say that Americans make bull**** parallels to Hitler. I rest
my case (about your being an idiot). My bringing up Hitler was only to
illustrate that in some situations, tyranny has to be faced down and to
do that, unfortunately, blood has to be shed - short term losses
(deaths) for long term gains (fewer deaths over the long haul, plus
freedom for people). If you want to call that a parallel, then OK - but
it is valid, unless in your mind Bush is bad and Osama Bin Laden (9/11)
and Sadam Hussein (swimming pool acid baths; put people into tree
shredders, sometimes head first, sometimes feet first, depending on his
mood, idolized Stalin, etc.) are good. Your call.

Then you were the one who made the, in your words, bull**** parallel to
Hitler.

Again - we're well past the Godwin's law criteria here.

> > 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.

And if we sit back and let them rape us, the numbers will go down. I
see. Again, thanks for making my case.

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! =-----
 


Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
> >
> > 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."
> >
>
> Nonsense. I'm definitely liberal, or beyond, and I strongly support
> tougher licensing requirements.

I was just pointing out one more typical liberal logic dilemma (of which
there are countless). This particular one is similar to the one about
ending the welfare state (you know - the one about: "We have to continue
rewarding women who continue having numerous children out of wedlock who
can't afford them but who don't have self-control because if we don't
their innocent children will suffer").

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! =-----
 
>
> 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.
>

AND THAT'S WHY ADVERTISING WORKS!!!! (unfortunately) -Dave


 

"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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!

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers


 
>
> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>


That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave


 
> Big? Heavy?
>
> You mean it's in the same class as one of these?
> http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/e/home/products/trucks/actros/index.html
>
> I never fail to be amused by what Americans call "trucks".
>
> :)
> DAS

To Americans, the following is a typical "truck". The vehicle you linked to
is also called a "truck" in America. The confusion stems from the fact that
in the United States, *pickup* trucks (slang "truck", see the link below)
are wildly popular vehicles to both own and drive. Unfortunately, many SUVs
have been created on pickup truck platforms, and 99% of them are used as
commuters for one person, who invariably drives it like a sports car. Thus,
the horrid SUV problem in the United States. Anyway, we have so many crappy
SUVs based on pickup truck platforms here, that even car-based SUVs are
often mistakenly referred to as "trucks". That's why you are so amused, I
bet. :) -Dave

http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/index.asp?bhcp=1


 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
>goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
>people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.

I could understand this in a lot of places, but I'd think the places
Babs shops would have decent restrooms.
--
Matthew T. Russotto [email protected]
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
 
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