Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#771
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.
Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
average in any event.
Matt
> In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.
Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
average in any event.
Matt
#772
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo wrote:
> In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.
Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
average in any event.
Matt
> In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >,
> dianelos@tecapro.com says...
>
>>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
>>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
>>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
>>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
>>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
>>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>>
>
>
> I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to
> read the report that is being MIS-quoted?
>
> Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
> Very small 4-door cars 11.56
> Small 4-door cars 7.85
> Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3.30
> Compact pickup trucks 6.82
> Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
> Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 6.79
> Minivans 2.76
>
> The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own
> drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and
> large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07).
>
> Look who's on top.
Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of
vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given
class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences
between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class
average in any event.
Matt
#773
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.
Matt
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.
Matt
#774
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.
Matt
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.
Matt
#775
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.
Matt
>>SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>
> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
>
Not even close. I don't even think the Hummer gets mileage that low.
Matt
#776
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.
Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.
Matt
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.
Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.
Matt
#777
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.
Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.
Matt
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.
Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.
Matt
#778
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Aardwolf wrote:
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.
Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.
Matt
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> No the simple solution is to tax gas. Utterly fair, cost dependent on use, no
> arbitrary restrictions as to which types of vehicles can and can't be produced.
> Also the only real way to make people _want_ to use less fuel each and every
> day. Wouldn't even need a huge one like in Europe, or any of thos e
> double-jeopardy diplacement taxes either, just a moderate one like in Australia.
> Unfortunately it won't fly.
Not that simple. Nothing is utterly fair. Taxing gas is unfair to
people who live in rural areas and need to drive longer distances on
average. Just like subsidizing urban mass transit with general tax
revenues is unfair to rural people who don't need such systems. No tax
scheme is ever completely fair, that is just life.
Matt
#779
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> 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.
>>>
>>
>>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>
> problem--probably
>
>>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>
> simply do
>
>>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>
> Charger,
>
>>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>
> drivers
>
>>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>
> new
>
>>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>
>
> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> directly
> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
> However, let's explore your argument a bit.
>
> Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
> car.
> Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
> are gonna
> get a half pound of air pollution.
>
> Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
> CAFE
> forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
> 1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
> putting
> double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
independent issues.
Matt
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> 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.
>>>
>>
>>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>
> problem--probably
>
>>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>
> simply do
>
>>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>
> Charger,
>
>>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>
> drivers
>
>>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>
> new
>
>>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>
>
> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> directly
> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
> However, let's explore your argument a bit.
>
> Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
> car.
> Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
> are gonna
> get a half pound of air pollution.
>
> Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
> CAFE
> forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
> 1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
> putting
> double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
independent issues.
Matt
#780
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> 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.
>>>
>>
>>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>
> problem--probably
>
>>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>
> simply do
>
>>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>
> Charger,
>
>>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>
> drivers
>
>>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>
> new
>
>>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>
>
> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> directly
> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
> However, let's explore your argument a bit.
>
> Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
> car.
> Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
> are gonna
> get a half pound of air pollution.
>
> Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
> CAFE
> forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
> 1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
> putting
> double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
independent issues.
Matt
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
> news:3F9235DC.AD3A628B@itis.com...
>
>>
>>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> 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.
>>>
>>
>>It's been shown more than once that the vast majority of the
>
> problem--probably
>
>>more than 80%--is caused by a very small minority of severely out of tune
>>vehicles, of any age, any engine size, but most less than 10 years old
>
> simply do
>
>>to demographic trends in the vehicle population. Even a 1968 Hemi
>
> Charger,
>
>>running within specifications (if any at all are still used as daily
>
> drivers
>
>>anywhere on this continent), is virtually indistinguishable from a brand
>
> new
>
>>car, emmissions wise, when compared to one of those aforementioned
>>pollution-spewing wrecks.
>>
>
>
> That may be the case with hydrocarbons, but definitely not NOx. NOx is
> directly
> related to combustion temp, and most 60's cars had no EGR valve.
>
> However, let's explore your argument a bit.
>
> Suppose that the 68 Charger emissions are identical to a modern passenger
> car.
> Thus, let's say for for every gallon of gas that is put into either car we
> are gonna
> get a half pound of air pollution.
>
> Now, if both cars are driven the same number of miles each year, because
> CAFE
> forces the modern vehicle to have 28 Mpg, and the Charger gets 14 Mpg, over
> 1 years time the Charger is going to be using double the amount of gas, and
> putting
> double the amount of pollutants into the air.
Not if the polution standards are based on grams per mile, which I
believe they are. The tailpipe sniffer doesn't care how much gas you
put in, only how much pollution per mile you put out. These are
independent issues.
Matt