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 Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:28:41 GMT, "Dave C."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >
>> 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
>

Maybe.

I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.

 
On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>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.

Ah, yes.
The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
adhere to my ideas."
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:34:32 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Ah, yes.
> The standard Liberal resposte: "That can't be so, becasue it doesn't
> adhere to my ideas."

Don't you find it odd that Dr. Parker drives a MB, yet favors CAFE?
What is MB's CAFE rating these days anyway?


 


Bill Funk wrote:
>
> 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.

Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.

Lisa
 


Lisa Horton wrote:

> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa

Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
Prove me wrong.

Ed


 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Funk <[email protected]> wrote:
>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,

No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.

>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.
>
So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?
 
In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
[email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Oct 03 11:18:01 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>
>>>In article <1Vlkb.814725$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.

Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.

>
>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.
>
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.


> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>
 
In article <[email protected]>, C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
>> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
>> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>>
>> Lisa
>
> Care to cite any proof of this? I see more moron driving econoboxes making
> unsafe maneuvers in traffic than I see morons doing the same in SUVs. Two times
> this morning alone, I saw small cars force there way from the extreme left lane
> into the extreme right lane to make a last minute exit. I saw no SUVs doing
> this. So I conclude econobox morons are for more dangerous than SUV morons.
> Prove me wrong.

Rutinely I have drivers of light trucks try to force their way in with
their bigger vehicles. Happened as recently as saturday night to me when
an SUV driver decided that my smaller vehicle was who he was going to
shove aside to cut into the queue at the toll booth. He could have tried
this move on the two *BIGGER* SUVs in front of me and been a couple
slots further up but didn't. I made it so he'd have to hit me to take my
spot, so he found someone else behind me to intimidate.

I see people doing what you describe and cutting off other drivers
equally between passenger cars and light trucks.

 
In article <[email protected]>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <msWkb.838268$uu5.148319@sccrnsc04>,
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>>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.

> Yeah, we got Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins.

Read what I wrote again Parker. Keep in mind Pintos and Vegas were
introduced in 1971 *BEFORE* the crunches.

>>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.

 
>
> Maybe.
>
> I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
> all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
>

I know what you're implying, but my driving style in trucks and SUVs SHOULD
maximize gas mileage. In contrast, my driving style in cars SHOULD minimize
gas mileage. Since the exact opposite is true, I'd have to conclude that
trucks (and truck-based SUVs) have somewhat optimistic EPA estimates and
cars have somewhat pessimistic EPA estimates. -Dave


 
Godwin's law - proposed addendum:

"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be treated in
the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: 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.


 
BMW 530d will do 151mph ..

Diesels *can* be very quick: The prototype 3-litre Mercedes C111/3 attained
203.3 mph in tests on the Nardo Circuit Southern Italy,on 5-15th oct 1978,
maintaining an average speed of 195.4 mph over a 12 hour period, covering a
record distance of 2344 miles

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: >
: > There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.
: >
:
: Man oh man did you step in it that time. :) -Dave
:
:


 
Dave C. <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> > Maybe.
> >
> > I often wonder why some people have far worse experience than others,
> > all the while claiming that they are doing everything right.
> >
>
> I know what you're implying, but my driving style in trucks and SUVs SHOULD
> maximize gas mileage. In contrast, my driving style in cars SHOULD minimize
> gas mileage. Since the exact opposite is true, I'd have to conclude that
> trucks (and truck-based SUVs) have somewhat optimistic EPA estimates and
> cars have somewhat pessimistic EPA estimates.

It's a conspiracy, right?
 
Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> Bill Funk wrote:
>
>>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.
>>>
What a shocker that is. Who would have guessed.



>>>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.
>
>
> Quite true of course. But a moron in an econobox represents a much
> smaller danger than a moron in a behemoth.
>
> Lisa

 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >> "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> >>>>lighter passenger cars.
> >>>
> >>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> >>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they
can
> >>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> >>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> >>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> >>>their agenda is correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> >> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
> >>
> >> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> >> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> >> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> >> or even of considerable less weight.
> >>
> >> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> >> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> >> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> >> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
> >>
> >> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> >> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> >> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
> >
> >Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
> >SUVs are safer than cars.
> >
> >
> >Matt
> >
> Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for
9/11.

That's true, he never once claimed that.


 

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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"

18 wheelers pay much higher road use taxes than cars do to offset that extra
damage. Excise taxes run several thousand dollars per year, compared to cars
which, in Indiana, run from around $30.00 for older cars to several Hundred
dollars for new cars.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

To borrow a phrase from you Lloyd, your lying.
And it isn't even a convincing lie.


 

"Dave C." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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
>

The same vehicle will get different milages with different drivers, just as
two identical vehicles can get different milages with the same driver. Many
variables come into play. I get 17.6 on the interstate, 12.5 around town in
a 3/4 ton 4x4, which I consider good for the type of vehicle it is.


 

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.

Another lie. It really is impossible for you to tell the truth isn't it LP?


 
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