Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#361
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> 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
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> 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
#362
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:21:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>>
>>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>each
>>> year
>>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>>> one
>>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>>replaced them.
>>
>>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>>ymore. -Dave
>
>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.
If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.
wrote:
>In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>> > 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 trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>>replaced them.
>>
>>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>>ymore. -Dave
>
>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.
If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.
#363
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:21:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>>
>>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>each
>>> year
>>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>>> one
>>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>>replaced them.
>>
>>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>>ymore. -Dave
>
>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.
If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.
wrote:
>In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>> > 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 trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>>replaced them.
>>
>>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>>ymore. -Dave
>
>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.
If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.
#364
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:21:02 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>> > CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
>>> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>>>
>>> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
>>> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
>>each
>>> year
>>> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
>>> one
>>> thing are balanced by the other.
>>>
>>> Ted
>>
>>You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>>replaced them.
>>
>>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>>ymore. -Dave
>
>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.
If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.
wrote:
>In article <g4fkb.1747$np1.877@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
> "Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>> > 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 trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
>>fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
>>those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
>>allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
>>AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
>>replaced them.
>>
>>In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
>>by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
>>trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
>>ymore. -Dave
>
>And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
>several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.
If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.
#365
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
#366
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
#367
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:08:26 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
#368
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
> "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? 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.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Matt
> In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
> "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? 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.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Matt
#369
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
> "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? 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.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Matt
> In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
> "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? 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.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Matt
#370
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
> "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? 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.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Matt
> In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
> "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? 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.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
> But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
> most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.
Matt