Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#371
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:07:16 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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.
You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.
That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!
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.
You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.
That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!
#372
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:07:16 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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.
You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.
That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!
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.
You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.
That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!
#373
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:07:16 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (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.
You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.
That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!
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.
You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.
That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!
#374
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:01:21 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.
#375
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:01:21 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.
#376
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 16:01:21 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.
#377
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 15:59:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
>>>weight. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>>>
>>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>>
>>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>>
>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.
No, it didn't.
>
>>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.
You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.
wrote:
>In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
>>>weight. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>>>
>>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>>
>>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>>
>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.
No, it didn't.
>
>>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.
You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.
#378
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 15:59:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
>>>weight. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>>>
>>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>>
>>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>>
>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.
No, it didn't.
>
>>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.
You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.
wrote:
>In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
>>>weight. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>>>
>>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>>
>>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>>
>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.
No, it didn't.
>
>>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.
You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.
#379
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 03 15:59:12 GMT, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
>>>weight. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>>>
>>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>>
>>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>>
>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.
No, it didn't.
>
>>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.
You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.
wrote:
>In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
> Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
>>>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
>>>weight. See:
>>>
>>>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
>>>
>>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>>
>>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>>
>>Not so.
>>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>>crashes.
>
>No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
>road; your SUV rolls over.
No, it didn't.
>
>>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.
You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.
#380
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> > 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
current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and it's
not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave
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
current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and it's
not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave