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.
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] 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.

But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> 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"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <[email protected]>
>"Robert A. Matern" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of **** and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.

Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >
>> >> > 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 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.

I never claimed that. You are lying again.

>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.

It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.

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:
>>>
>>>>"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.

Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.

>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.

I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.

Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
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.
>

Of course, right-wing radicals like Putney and bin Laden just have to spew
hatred.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"CRWLR" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> > > 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
>>
>>
>
>You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
>different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.
>
>CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
>specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
>that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
>engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
>It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
>we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
>problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
>forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
>getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
>were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
>point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
>no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.
>
>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>not play.

And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
are used.


>And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
>countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
>truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
>trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
>consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
>anything to help the work they were doing.
>
>Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
>early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
>like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
>into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
>want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
>economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
>technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
>giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
>short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
>double what we could get in years past.
>
>Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
>Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
>realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
>gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
>is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
>that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
>takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
But most SUVs are used for solo commuting (note how few of them can drive in
an HOV lane), or running errands. Buying an 8-mpg behemoth for the one time a
year you may need to carry 8 people, as I said earlier, is like buying a Cray
supercomputer for your desktop just in case you need to decrypt a message from
Andromeda.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <[email protected]> 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
>
>My '01 V8 Grand Cherokee get's 23+. They sell pretty well, don't you think?
>
>
Then my Mercedes gets 120 mpg.
 
>
> No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
> high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we
were
> in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.

And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
do, too. They are now SUV owners. -Dave


 
> >
> Different driving styles, I suppose.
> Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
> :)
>

Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
mileage improves? :) -Dave


 
>
> There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
>

Man oh man did you step in it that time. :) -Dave


 
> > 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!
> :)

Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.

Mike


 
Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
> >just bearly sells at all.
> Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
> H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
> Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.

I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.

Ed

 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:46:53 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:

>P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
>Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
>as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
>blinders.

Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com
 
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>
>
>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.

It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
People like you tend to think that way.

You're wrong, though.

 
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:33:12 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
>>significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
>>not play.
>
>And we should have adjusted CAFE for trucks as they started being used as cars
>are used.

And what would the buyers have done then?
Gone to >8000lb trucks?

You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
Why should you get to do that?
Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
people should live there.

 
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:07:16 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>
>>And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
>>last few years.
>>There must be more incentive than you see.
>>
>>
>And what do they advertise? How "stiff" the frame is.

Uh, that's 'torsional' stiffness, Lloyd.
Keep up.

 
Plenty decent that runs on diesel, they're just not released in the US cause
petrol is so cheap and people don't buy em.

rhys

"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >> >
> >> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
> >> 60s crap.
> >>
> >> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
> >>
> >
> >And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
>
> There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
>
>
> --
> 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.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
>> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>>
>>>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>>>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>>>
>>
>>No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
>>high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
>>in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
>
> It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
> instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
> People like you tend to think that way.
> You're wrong, though.

That's lloyd's politics, and that clouds everything he posts.

What actually happened, started before 1976. With the gasoline crunches
people started buying imported cars with different characteristics
in handling, braking, etc. When all that ended people stayed with them.
The big three had to react, government or not.

Now let's say the big three never reacted and managed to stay in business.
We'd still be able to buy the kinds of cars we have today from the
overseas manufacturers.

But what would have really happened without CAFE? I think we'd have
some really great choices in I6 and V8 RWD cars. Basically the kinds
of cars ford and GM offer in Austrailia.

 
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:22:12 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>> >
>>> > 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>>just bearly sells at all.
>Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
>H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
>
>Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.

yeah, lets:
http://money.cnn.com/pf/autos/features/mileage/page3.html


 
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