Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #141

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> [email protected] (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>

Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #142

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > newsine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >
> >>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
> >
> >
> CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>
CAFE is the oil industry's bitch, working hard to make you think the
government is taking car of you.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #143

> >>
> >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.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

M

Matthew S. Whiting

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #144

Marc wrote:
> "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.

But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.

And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.


Matt

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #145

> No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
> road; your SUV rolls over.
>
> >I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
> >My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
> >(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
> >large SUV.
>
> Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
>
>

Haha you boys sure you live in quite a world not based on physics. did
the last SUV you drive have a 18 ft steel mast on the roof or something?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #146

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Kevin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>

SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

M

Matthew S. Whiting

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #147

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

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #148

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, [email protected] (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>

A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #149

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:54:22 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> >>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple
> >concept,
> >>> that makes me an ass?
> >>>
> >>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Many ****ty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> >>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?
>

So tells us oh great one, what car do you drive that can out climb, out
tow, has greater cargo capacity and can handle deeper snow than whatever
truck any of us is driving.

--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #150

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> 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.
>

Yes, he should have bought the Hummer with armoured glass. I agree.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

M

Matthew S. Whiting

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #151

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>>>>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.

Most 18 wheelers weigh 20,000 lbs, empty...

Matt

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #152

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > > Nawww, he's likely to be able to steer around it very nimbly. The SUV
> is
> > > more likely to hit another SUV head-on, as neither is nimble enough to
> avoid
> > > the encounter. -Dave
> > >
> > >
> > Don't drive much these days or pay attention to road tests, huh Davie?
> >
>
> What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice). My

Tell me Dave, out of those several (3?), which two rolled over and what
one crashed head on into another SUV? Oh and how did you survive such a
horrendous experience against all odds?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #153

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Not being an SUV driver, I'd simply steer out of the way, knowing that I
> can actually turn sharply without rolling over. With any luck, it would
> be rainy, or on a curve, and I could see evolution in action as a bonus.
>
> Lisa
>

Your ignorance is what will kill you one of these days. Rainy on a
curve with you driving? What is the current record for a small car
rolling over in a ditch? 15 times I think? Let me know if you break
it.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #154

In article <[email protected]>, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 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.

The pollution requirements are gram per mile. Honda civic or Ford crown
victoria, they have to meet the same standard. The only people who die
from CO2 are in a sealed room and don't have to worry about the cars
going down the road.

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #155

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.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #156

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.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #157

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "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.
>

But only half as bad as driving a small 4 door car, so it seems.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #158

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> "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.
>

Maybe the original chuckle head should have posted the whole chart then
huh?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #159

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> >just in case.
> >
> >Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
> Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
> safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
> the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
> availability of large cars.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>

Oh do they? Have you read said statics yet Marc?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

D

Dave C.

Guest

• Oct 19, 2003

• #160

> A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
> that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
> and safety.

Not really, as the relationship between accident avoidance ability and
accident survivability is not linear. That is, with SOME certain SUVs, you
might have a SLIGHTLY better chance of surviving a collision with SOME
certain other vehicles. But then again, with any decent handling car (not
necessarily a performance oriented car, either), your chances of avoiding
the accident in the first place are much better, and your odds of surviving
one are not significantly decreased.

In short, the SUV bulk gives some drivers a false sense of security just as
the better handling of cars gives some drivers a false sense of security,
ALSO. But even a below-average driver will NEED to crank hard on the
steering wheel EVENTUALLY, to save someone's life. This is an unavoidable
eventuality, even if you drive your SUV as if it is the piece of chit that
it is. So WHEN (not if) that moment comes, you're better off to be driving
a car. -Dave