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.
"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.

>I suspect you searched around to find the worst SUV/truck model you
>could to try to prove your point. That only serves to lesson your
>credibility.

And you would be quite incorrect. I actually went for the F-150 and Civic,
but chose the Impreza (though worse in crash tests) because I owned it. I
had made my decision before opening the web browser. Though I'd expect
that there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. My brother-in-law
has an F-350 (they don't test those, that I know of), so I'd pick the
F-150.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<R%[email protected]>...
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken **** society. Cancer on the other hand ...

If you travel with your family, then the chance of a fatality grows.
Also the numbers I posted from the study only count the dead. If one
would take into account the injured too then the probabilitiy of
someone you love getting hurt in a traffic accident starts looking
scary.

Also, consider how many people drive. If people were better informed
about the safety of the vehicle they are about to buy then thousands
of lives per year would be spared. What I find so tragic is that
precisely those people who are prepared to pay top dollar for the
safety of their families are deceived into buying vehicles that are
less safe.

I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
fight against cancer. 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.
 
"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.

<snip>

> > Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> > small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
>
> This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
> offered for it.

Well, don't you think that the truth of my statement is rather
obvious? Do you really think that people who can afford and do buy a
SUV were thinking of buying a small or very small car at first?

<snip>

> There are much larger, more
> pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
> you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.

You are right of course. Smoking for example is much riskier than
driving a SUV.
 
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:04:11 GMT, "Dave C."
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.
>>
>
>If your point is that **** happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
>**** happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
>upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
>fringe benefits. -Dave
>
That's not the point at all.
The point is this: far too many people who buy those fleas think that
the car will enhance their driving performance.
It won't.
Inattention can be deadly in either a flea or SUV. It's not the
vehicle that causes or avoids crashes; it's the driver. Those who
think thgat they can avoid crashes because they are driving a flea (or
even a *really* good-handling car) are fooling themselves.
Avoiding crashes has far more to do with the driver than the car.
Saying "It's kept me out of crashes so far" is sort of like saying "So
far, so good" after jumping off a roof.
A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
and safety.

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


>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.

So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
 
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
 
On 18 Oct 2003 16:50:07 -0700, [email protected] (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:

>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.

Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.

Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.

Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!
 
Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?

Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?


--
Jim Warman
[email protected]

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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.
>
> >I suspect you searched around to find the worst SUV/truck model you
> >could to try to prove your point. That only serves to lesson your
> >credibility.
>
> And you would be quite incorrect. I actually went for the F-150 and
Civic,
> but chose the Impreza (though worse in crash tests) because I owned it. I
> had made my decision before opening the web browser. Though I'd expect
> that there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. My brother-in-law
> has an F-350 (they don't test those, that I know of), so I'd pick the
> F-150.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"


 

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> Statistical studies help make better predictions. Consider the
> following:
>
> Suppose a thousand people who were going to buy a SUV hear of the
> NHTSA study and decide that SUVs are, pound for pound and dollar for
> dollar, less safe than a passenger car. So half of them change their
> decision and buy a mid-size or large passenger car at a price no
> higher then the one they intended to pay for the SUV. The other half
> stick with their decision and buy a SUV (because they have other
> overriding concerns).
>
> Prediction A: Three years down the road less people out of these
> thousand will be killed in traffic accidents than if they had all
> bought a SUV as originally intended.
>
> Prediction B: Three years down the road more people out of the group
> that decided to buy a SUV will be killed in traffic accidents than out
> of the group that decided to buy a passenger car.
>
> Don't you agree that the NHTSA study shows that both these predictions
> are correct?
>
> BTW, my motivation is not political at all. We are talking about
> people risking death or injury; we should all insist that people be
> better informed about their choices no matter where our political
> convictions lie. People should know that, on average, SUVs are less
> safe than cars.
>

Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer than
anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing that
never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and want
to buy. Everyone dies from something, and there is no method of travel that
will ever be 100% safe, including walking. All this online bickering only
makes one look foolish, say what you have to say in one post, then drop the
subject, posting further replies never convinces anyone of anything, and
makes you look foolish.
Peace people, let it drop.


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


I guess those that study self defense technics never get into fights
either.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
> Marc wrote:
> > ...I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
> > safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
> > is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
> > larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>
> So does that mean that when we negotiate for a vehicle, that we should
> try to negotatie the price *upward* instead of downward to make it
> safer? 8^)
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")

Yes, I want and air bag here, here, over there, one under here, one up
there, two in here and put a few spare ones in the truck please :)
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>

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?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Mike Romain <[email protected]> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>

I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 

> >> 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.

> If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,

Then your name might be Marc and you should stay the hell out of an SUV.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
Dave C. wrote:
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>

I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.

At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.

People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.


Matt

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

Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old ****box car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>

Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> 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.

The irony is burning my eyes!!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "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.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>

Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?

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

Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
 
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