|
Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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. The relevant numbers are: Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities (pounds) per billion miles Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, even worse. The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers. Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety disadvantages of the SUV design. If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger car. Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE) > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs? 4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap could easily result in making things worse. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE) > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs? 4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap could easily result in making things worse. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.com >, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE) > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs? 4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap could easily result in making things worse. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote: >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >car. I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I bought a very safe SUV. Go figure. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote: >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >car. I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I bought a very safe SUV. Go figure. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote: >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >car. I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I bought a very safe SUV. Go figure. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of > lighter passenger cars. Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving" their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further "analysis": > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1 molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the above vehicles. > These are amazing numbers. Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers. > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars. > which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier > vehicles around. Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact. Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of which are larger vehicles. > Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a > small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant. This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is offered for it. > Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers. Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*. Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant, politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not simply reporting facts as you claim. > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy ....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV. > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts. > then we all would drive safer, This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts. > spend less money on cars, Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts. > spend less on gas, Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts. > Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win > proposition. CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons, long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving. > Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty > off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically > limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt. There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all. DS |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of > lighter passenger cars. Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving" their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further "analysis": > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1 molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the above vehicles. > These are amazing numbers. Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers. > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars. > which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier > vehicles around. Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact. Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of which are larger vehicles. > Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a > small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant. This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is offered for it. > Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers. Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*. Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant, politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not simply reporting facts as you claim. > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy ....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV. > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts. > then we all would drive safer, This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts. > spend less money on cars, Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts. > spend less on gas, Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts. > Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win > proposition. CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons, long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving. > Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty > off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically > limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt. There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all. DS |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of > lighter passenger cars. Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving" their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further "analysis": > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1 molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the above vehicles. > These are amazing numbers. Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers. > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars. > which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier > vehicles around. Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact. Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of which are larger vehicles. > Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a > small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant. This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is offered for it. > Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers. Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*. Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant, politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not simply reporting facts as you claim. > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy ....cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV. > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts. > then we all would drive safer, This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts. > spend less money on cars, Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts. > spend less on gas, Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts. > Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win > proposition. CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons, long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving. > Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty > off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically > limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt. There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all. DS |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Please, don't crosspost as you bit on this troll, delete the other
news groups. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: ><snip> |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Please, don't crosspost as you bit on this troll, delete the other
news groups. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: ><snip> |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Please, don't crosspost as you bit on this troll, delete the other
news groups. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: ><snip> |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
.... yawn ...
- Jeff G 67 Kaiser Jeepster Commando 50 Willys 4x4 Station Wagon http://jeffgross.com/willys Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. See: |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
.... yawn ...
- Jeff G 67 Kaiser Jeepster Commando 50 Willys 4x4 Station Wagon http://jeffgross.com/willys Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. See: |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
.... yawn ...
- Jeff G 67 Kaiser Jeepster Commando 50 Willys 4x4 Station Wagon http://jeffgross.com/willys Dianelos Georgoudis wrote: > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. See: |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, are just political propaganda... plain & simple. Rollover: advantage: low center of gravity REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) winner: lower - heavier makes it better loser: higher - lighter makes it worse advantage: wide wheelbase REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) winner: lower - heavier makes it better loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse Collision: advantage: high MASS REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse Spinout: advantage: long wheelbase REASON: increases leverage required to spin winner: long - heavier makes it better loser: short - lighter makes it worse Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. But these are the political times we live in... The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as well. Bob "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om... > 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, are just political propaganda... plain & simple. Rollover: advantage: low center of gravity REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) winner: lower - heavier makes it better loser: higher - lighter makes it worse advantage: wide wheelbase REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) winner: lower - heavier makes it better loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse Collision: advantage: high MASS REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse Spinout: advantage: long wheelbase REASON: increases leverage required to spin winner: long - heavier makes it better loser: short - lighter makes it worse Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. But these are the political times we live in... The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as well. Bob "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om... > 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, are just political propaganda... plain & simple. Rollover: advantage: low center of gravity REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) winner: lower - heavier makes it better loser: higher - lighter makes it worse advantage: wide wheelbase REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) winner: lower - heavier makes it better loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse Collision: advantage: high MASS REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse Spinout: advantage: long wheelbase REASON: increases leverage required to spin winner: long - heavier makes it better loser: short - lighter makes it worse Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. But these are the political times we live in... The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as well. Bob "Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message news:5ac380ce.0310170752.726bdf86@posting.google.c om... > 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You are an idiot bud.
If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the numbers below indicate. I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are they something like 10 fatalities? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You are an idiot bud.
If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the numbers below indicate. I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are they something like 10 fatalities? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You are an idiot bud.
If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the numbers below indicate. I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are they something like 10 fatalities? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hi Bob,
Thank you, but I'm sure we'll get some bleed heart liberal, like Professor Parker: http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130 Saying he will survive a head-on collision killing me in my full size Bronco because of some crumple zone. I can picture Lloyd now, travel instantly backward at eighty mile an hour. Probably looking like that lexus that split in two after hitting a boarder patrol Bronco, a few of years ago, raising a big stink about their chases. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Robert A. Matern" wrote: > > This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful. > > The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there > is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large > vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. > Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all > kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different > vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their > characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational > folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, > are just political propaganda... plain & simple. > > Rollover: > advantage: low center of gravity > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: higher - lighter makes it worse > advantage: wide wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse > > Collision: > advantage: high MASS > REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision > winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better > loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse > > Spinout: > advantage: long wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to spin > winner: long - heavier makes it better > loser: short - lighter makes it worse > > Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor > statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. > But these are the political times we live in... > > The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist > at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large > vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? > > The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you > imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the > speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's > exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and > bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. > If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then > TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! > > And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a > large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? > If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! > > And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is > just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a > similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! > > Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as > well. > > Bob |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hi Bob,
Thank you, but I'm sure we'll get some bleed heart liberal, like Professor Parker: http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130 Saying he will survive a head-on collision killing me in my full size Bronco because of some crumple zone. I can picture Lloyd now, travel instantly backward at eighty mile an hour. Probably looking like that lexus that split in two after hitting a boarder patrol Bronco, a few of years ago, raising a big stink about their chases. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Robert A. Matern" wrote: > > This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful. > > The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there > is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large > vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. > Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all > kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different > vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their > characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational > folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, > are just political propaganda... plain & simple. > > Rollover: > advantage: low center of gravity > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: higher - lighter makes it worse > advantage: wide wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse > > Collision: > advantage: high MASS > REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision > winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better > loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse > > Spinout: > advantage: long wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to spin > winner: long - heavier makes it better > loser: short - lighter makes it worse > > Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor > statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. > But these are the political times we live in... > > The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist > at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large > vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? > > The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you > imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the > speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's > exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and > bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. > If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then > TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! > > And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a > large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? > If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! > > And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is > just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a > similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! > > Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as > well. > > Bob |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hi Bob,
Thank you, but I'm sure we'll get some bleed heart liberal, like Professor Parker: http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130 Saying he will survive a head-on collision killing me in my full size Bronco because of some crumple zone. I can picture Lloyd now, travel instantly backward at eighty mile an hour. Probably looking like that lexus that split in two after hitting a boarder patrol Bronco, a few of years ago, raising a big stink about their chases. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Robert A. Matern" wrote: > > This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful. > > The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there > is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large > vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. > Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all > kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different > vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their > characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational > folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, > are just political propaganda... plain & simple. > > Rollover: > advantage: low center of gravity > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: higher - lighter makes it worse > advantage: wide wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse > > Collision: > advantage: high MASS > REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision > winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better > loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse > > Spinout: > advantage: long wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to spin > winner: long - heavier makes it better > loser: short - lighter makes it worse > > Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor > statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. > But these are the political times we live in... > > The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist > at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large > vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? > > The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you > imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the > speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's > exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and > bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. > If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then > TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! > > And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a > large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? > If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! > > And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is > just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a > similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! > > Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as > well. > > Bob |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work guys. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work guys. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work guys. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos > Georgoudis) wrote: > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > >car. > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I > bought a very safe SUV. > > Go figure. Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos > Georgoudis) wrote: > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > >car. > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I > bought a very safe SUV. > > Go figure. Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos > Georgoudis) wrote: > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > >car. > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I > bought a very safe SUV. > > Go figure. Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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. 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. >The relevant >numbers are: > >Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > >Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 >Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 >Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 >Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 >Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all drivers. Such a person doesn't exist. > >So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size >SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are >safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe >than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! Not so! Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals. > >These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into >account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, >even worse. > >The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small >cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much >heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were >thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage >is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their >passengers. The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they purport to apply) to passengers. > >Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. >Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size >SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small >SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety >disadvantages of the SUV design. Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to individuals. Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I doubt it. > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >car. Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it? Or needs? > >Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper >limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, >spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect >the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing >countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a >win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy >(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their >top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger >other vehicles on the asphalt. Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE. Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous, since that would increase the speed differential of colliding vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been considered countless times, and rejected. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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. 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. >The relevant >numbers are: > >Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > >Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 >Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 >Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 >Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 >Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all drivers. Such a person doesn't exist. > >So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size >SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are >safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe >than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! Not so! Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals. > >These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into >account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, >even worse. > >The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small >cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much >heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were >thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage >is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their >passengers. The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they purport to apply) to passengers. > >Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. >Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size >SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small >SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety >disadvantages of the SUV design. Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to individuals. Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I doubt it. > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >car. Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it? Or needs? > >Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper >limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, >spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect >the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing >countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a >win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy >(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their >top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger >other vehicles on the asphalt. Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE. Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous, since that would increase the speed differential of colliding vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been considered countless times, and rejected. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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. 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. >The relevant >numbers are: > >Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > >Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 >Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 >Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 >Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 >Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all drivers. Such a person doesn't exist. > >So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size >SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are >safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe >than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! Not so! Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals. > >These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into >account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, >even worse. > >The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small >cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much >heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were >thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage >is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their >passengers. The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they purport to apply) to passengers. > >Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. >Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size >SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small >SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety >disadvantages of the SUV design. Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to individuals. Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I doubt it. > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >car. Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it? Or needs? > >Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper >limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, >spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect >the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing >countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a >win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy >(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their >top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger >other vehicles on the asphalt. Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE. Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous, since that would increase the speed differential of colliding vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been considered countless times, and rejected. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> sez:
<snip> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ... Good ridin' to ya, VLJ -- If it has ---- or tires, its gonna be trouble. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> sez:
<snip> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ... Good ridin' to ya, VLJ -- If it has ---- or tires, its gonna be trouble. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> sez:
<snip> > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ... Good ridin' to ya, VLJ -- If it has ---- or tires, its gonna be trouble. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote: > > >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: >> >> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos >> Georgoudis) wrote: >> >> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >> >car. >> >> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I >> bought a very safe SUV. >> >> Go figure. > >Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is >Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton? It's easy to make silly comments such as yours. It's much harder to back them up. Best of luck. pete fagerlin ::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro! ::www.yestubes.com |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote: > > >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: >> >> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos >> Georgoudis) wrote: >> >> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >> >car. >> >> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I >> bought a very safe SUV. >> >> Go figure. > >Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is >Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton? It's easy to make silly comments such as yours. It's much harder to back them up. Best of luck. pete fagerlin ::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro! ::www.yestubes.com |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote: > > >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: >> >> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos >> Georgoudis) wrote: >> >> >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best >> >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger >> >car. >> >> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I >> bought a very safe SUV. >> >> Go figure. > >Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is >Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton? It's easy to make silly comments such as yours. It's much harder to back them up. Best of luck. pete fagerlin ::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro! ::www.yestubes.com |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:31 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands