Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #41

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

I'm sure your KIA is much safer than his Mercedes.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #42

In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, [email protected] says...
> 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.
> >
> >
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
>
>

With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
ultra safe!
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

K

Kevin

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #43

Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, [email protected] says...
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>>generates more momentum
>>
>>
>
>
> With the metro and that much extra weight the top speed would be 40mph,
> ultra safe!


excellent point

 

J

John T. Waisanen

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #44

Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> generates more momentum
>>
>
> Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly squat
> when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than you (like
> a semi)
>
> I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.

sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the guy who
hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is light
and nimble.

john

 

L

Lon Stowell

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #45

Approximately 10/17/03 18:44, John T. Waisanen uttered for posterity:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>>> generates more momentum
>>>
>>
>> Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly squat
>> when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than you (like
>> a semi)
>>
>> I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.
>
> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the guy who
> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is light
> and nimble.
>
So buy a Porsche Cayenne Turbo and get a nimble vehicle that
weighs over a coupla tons.

--
My governor can kick your governor's ass

 

J

John T. Waisanen

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #46

Nate Nagel 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.
>>
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?

nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
has wrecked a car was certainly driving....

john

 

J

John T. Waisanen

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #47

Bill Putney wrote:

>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>>measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>>demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>>and drive them were younger and driving them.
>
>
> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.
>
> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?

yes. it is linear, because a car's kinetic energy KE = 1/2 * mass *
velocity^2. mass is a linear term, so proportionally heavier cars are
the same. speed is a different story...it is exponential, meaning a
little more speed can do a LOT more damage.

john

 

N

Nate Nagel

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #48

John T. Waisanen wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>>> generates more momentum
>>>
>>
>> Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly
>> squat when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than
>> you (like a semi)
>>
>> I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.
>
>
> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the guy who
> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is light
> and nimble.
>
> john
>

No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

N

Nate Nagel

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #49

John T. Waisanen wrote:

> Nate Nagel 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.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>> handling for crash safety.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>
> nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
>
> john
>

I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
posting there semi-regularly.

I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #50

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>> measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>> demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>> and drive them were younger and driving them.

> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.

It has to do with far more factors than weight. Design plays a very
big roll. This is why I'd rather be in a 5000lb car than a 5000 lb truck
if I were to crash. So there is no real scaling with weight, there are
too many factors to consider. The one generality that is clear is the
structures that protect the passengers in cars like the crown victoria,
the old caprices, etc are where the extra mass ends up, even if it's
there just to hold the car together and make bigger. In light trucks
alot of that extra mass goes to things that don't help in a crash. Such
as suspension arms that can hold up to off road use.

> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?

I would expect fewer deaths if CAFE was abolished and traditionally
sized cars returned with all the benefits of modern knowledge.

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #51

In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:

> The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
> worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
> the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
> (The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
> official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
> more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
> than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!

Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
previous threads with cite)

 

B

Brent P

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #52

In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin wrote:
> 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.
>>
>>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum

Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.

 

N

Nate Nagel

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #53

Brent P wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>

And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.

nate


--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

C

Chris Phillipo

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #54

> >
> > nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> > different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> > everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> > has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
> >
> > john
> >
>
> I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
> posting there semi-regularly.
>
> I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
> would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
> told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.
>
> nate
>
>

I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

P

P e t e F a g e r l i n

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #55

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.

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?

>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.

>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>ass out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.

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.

 

P

P e t e F a g e r l i n

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #56

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:28:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:


>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.

My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.

Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.

 

P

P e t e F a g e r l i n

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #57

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:


>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.

ROTFLMAO!

Key words:

"so far"

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.

 

N

Nate Nagel

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #58

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>
> the
>
>>>case.
>>
>>yes, actually, it is.
>
>
> 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?
>
>
>>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>>
>>
>>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
> Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>
> like
>
>>>yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>>intended
>>>
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>>commuting
>>>
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>>What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
>
> an
>
>>ass out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>
> you
>
>>though.
>
>
> 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.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

N

Nate Nagel

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #59

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>>>go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
>
> guy who
>
>>>hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
>
> light
>
>>>and nimble.
>>>
>>>john
>>>
>>
>>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> Key words:
>
> "so far"
>
> 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.
>

"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

 

P

P e t e F a g e r l i n

Guest

• Oct 18, 2003

• #60

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.

Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.

Cheers!