Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#781
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
#782
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:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.
Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.
Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.
Matt
#783
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:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.
Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.
Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.
Matt
#784
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:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.
Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
>
> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
> be more able to avoid crashes.
Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
capabilities of the vehicle. They are more often related to the driver
being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
impact.
Matt
#785
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:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?
I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?
I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.
Matt
#786
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:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?
I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?
I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.
Matt
#787
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:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?
I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.
Matt
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> 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?
>>
>>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
>
>
> Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
> number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
> you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
> inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
> center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
> they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
> vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?
I'd rather require people to learn how to drive than to mask the problem
by attacking the vehicle.
Matt
#788
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmue0s02fkb@enews4.newsguy.com>, gmcgeorge@frontier.net
says...
> Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
> industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
> compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
> and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
> compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
> In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
> than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
> higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.
>
>
> "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> news:t9v1pv4mjmhav7rnvhc6uei5ekqcjkpbj9@4ax.com...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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"
>
>
>
>
Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
> industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
> compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
> and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
> compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
> In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
> than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
> higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.
>
>
> "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> news:t9v1pv4mjmhav7rnvhc6uei5ekqcjkpbj9@4ax.com...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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"
>
>
>
>
Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#789
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmue0s02fkb@enews4.newsguy.com>, gmcgeorge@frontier.net
says...
> Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
> industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
> compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
> and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
> compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
> In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
> than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
> higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.
>
>
> "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> news:t9v1pv4mjmhav7rnvhc6uei5ekqcjkpbj9@4ax.com...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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"
>
>
>
>
Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
> industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
> compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
> and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
> compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
> In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
> than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
> higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.
>
>
> "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> news:t9v1pv4mjmhav7rnvhc6uei5ekqcjkpbj9@4ax.com...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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"
>
>
>
>
Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#790
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bmue0s02fkb@enews4.newsguy.com>, gmcgeorge@frontier.net
says...
> Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
> industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
> compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
> and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
> compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
> In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
> than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
> higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.
>
>
> "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> news:t9v1pv4mjmhav7rnvhc6uei5ekqcjkpbj9@4ax.com...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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"
>
>
>
>
Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
> industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
> compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
> and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
> compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
> In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
> than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
> higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.
>
>
> "Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
> news:t9v1pv4mjmhav7rnvhc6uei5ekqcjkpbj9@4ax.com...
> > Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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"
>
>
>
>
Fact: Most dangerous vehicle to drive in north america: compact 4 door
car.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.