Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#811
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.
And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.
The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).
Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Why do you think that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
>>>>pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
>>>>such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
>>>>than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>>>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>>>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>>>>drastically less.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
>>>>us. My favorites are:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
>>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>>>>
>>>>I happen to own the car that I linked to...
>>>
>>>I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
>>>are much better:
>>>http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>>
>>
>> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
>But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
>truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
>after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
>as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
>smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
>larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
>and still be as big as your car.
>
>And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
>acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
>be much
>different in the next similar crash.
And with a greatly reduced passenger compartment, it is much easier in "the
next similar crash" for the compartment to compress in a slightly different
manner and crush the driver.
The current general consensus is that you want the vehicle outside of the
passenger compartment to crush as much as possible, but you want the space
within to crush the least possible. Why? Well, in a much slower crash,
you are going to lose your use of the doors much more quickly with a
vehicle that can't keep the compartment together. Some anti-seatbelt nuts
claim that you are safer if you go in water to not be wearing a seatbelt,
but the greatest single factor is the doors. If they are jammed shut from
impact, then the people inside are much more likely to drown (the
government has claimed that you are more likely to drown in a car if you
aren't wearing a seatbelt because the injuries are more extensive initially
and impair the ability to successfully execute an egress from the vehicle,
but I 've not seen any actual numbers to support this).
Also, if you get 20% compression at this specific energy level and the
Impreza compressed less, at double the energy, the compression should be
roughly double again. That would mean that you would be squashed in the
Chevy, but still have a little space left in the Subaru.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#812
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?
No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?
No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#813
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?
No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?
No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#814
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?
No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
>are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
>out your car?
No. Just a simple comparison to show that, though the ignorant often
blindly claim the opposite, trucks are not necessarily safer than cars.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#815
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.
Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.
Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#816
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.
Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.
Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#817
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.
Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>consistent in your inconsistencies.
Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#818
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#819
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#820
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>> >> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> >> metro.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> >generates more momentum
>>
>> And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
>> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>>
>And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
>be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
Or maybe the safety per mile they see is because they travel a larger
portion of their miles on controlled access roads? But then, it doesn't
appear that critical thinking is your forte.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"