Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#341
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/18/03 12:19, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>>
>> Let his SUV hit you head on and see who wins.
>>
>
> 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?
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
>>
>> Let his SUV hit you head on and see who wins.
>>
>
> 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?
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#342
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/18/03 12:19, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>>
>> Let his SUV hit you head on and see who wins.
>>
>
> 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?
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
>>
>> Let his SUV hit you head on and see who wins.
>>
>
> 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?
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#343
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/18/03 12:19, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>>
>> Let his SUV hit you head on and see who wins.
>>
>
> 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?
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
>>
>> Let his SUV hit you head on and see who wins.
>>
>
> 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?
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#344
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/18/03 13:12, Dave Milne uttered for posterity:
> Its funny Bill, how everyone who drives a small car seems to think their a
> f*king racing driver..
>
Make the highways safe to drive again, run over a shitbox today.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> Its funny Bill, how everyone who drives a small car seems to think their a
> f*king racing driver..
>
Make the highways safe to drive again, run over a shitbox today.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#345
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/18/03 13:12, Dave Milne uttered for posterity:
> Its funny Bill, how everyone who drives a small car seems to think their a
> f*king racing driver..
>
Make the highways safe to drive again, run over a shitbox today.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> Its funny Bill, how everyone who drives a small car seems to think their a
> f*king racing driver..
>
Make the highways safe to drive again, run over a shitbox today.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#346
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/18/03 13:12, Dave Milne uttered for posterity:
> Its funny Bill, how everyone who drives a small car seems to think their a
> f*king racing driver..
>
Make the highways safe to drive again, run over a shitbox today.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
> Its funny Bill, how everyone who drives a small car seems to think their a
> f*king racing driver..
>
Make the highways safe to drive again, run over a shitbox today.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ***
#347
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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
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.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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
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.
Matt
#348
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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
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.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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
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.
Matt
#349
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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
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.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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
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.
Matt
#350
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , 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).
I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.
Matt
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , 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).
I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.
Matt