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 Fri, 17 Oct 2003 23:55:29 -0400, Nate Nagel <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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."

SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.

>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?

What kind of idiotic assumption is that?

How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?

SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.

 
In article <[email protected]>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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.

It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.

And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.


 
In article <[email protected]>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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.

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.


 
Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&willys newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.

Sean


"Brent P" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> > 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.
>
> It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
> And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
> expected.
>
> And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
> be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
>
>


 
In article <[email protected]>, Sean Prinz wrote:
> Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
> 2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
> not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
> rec.autos.makers.jeep&willys newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
> in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
> on the internet only waste bandwidth.

I don't know if you are addressing me, or somebody else, but you replied
to one of my posts, and left it included, so I'll assume it's me. That's
the kind of problem that happens when people top post, can't tell exaxctly
what they are trying to do because they are too damn lazy to trim anything
or bother with context.

I don't give a **** what you think your jeep is or how many fing doors
it has. And while you are at learn what a troll post is. Hint: the post
you replied wasn't one.

Continuing on to your next dumbass post, I am reading a different
newsgroup, rec.autos.DRIVING. I'd love to see alot less SUV and other
light truck crap in the group. But it's not like it's going to go
unchallenged when it comes around either.


 
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?

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

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

Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
 
"Robert A. Matern" <[email protected]> wrote:

>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).

In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. 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.

>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.

That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.

So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
spread them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop spreading any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.

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

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"?).

If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"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"
 
"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.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
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.

Every study I've seen on the subject indicates that cars are more safe than
trucks in one-vehicle crashes. Every study I've seen on the subject
indicates that cars are safer than trucks when striking something of the
same mass. Every study I've seen on the subject indicates that the *real
world* safety favors the smaller, lighter, less safe car for actual
fatality rates compared with a similarly sized truck. Most studies
indicate that the cars are safer than slightly larger trucks. A few
indicate that the cars are safer than much larger trucks.

If you have seen studies that contradict this, please post them. If you
think they studies are flawed, please post why. If you think the studies
are flawed, please post what you think the results would be if the studies
weren't done in this flawed manner.

marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
"Kevin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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

Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================================
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================================


 
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"
 
[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"
 
Chris Phillipo <[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.
>
>I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
>so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.

Right. CR, the IIHS, the NHTSA, FARS, and every other place that crashes
vehicles or keeps stats. But then, don't let the facts get in the way of
your fantasy.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
 
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"
 

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pine.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


 
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 3
Replies
50
Views
8K
Squonker
S
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
52K
Alibro
Alibro
Back
Top