|
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world stats prove it. This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it! "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org... > Chris Phillipo wrote: > > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >, > > dianelos@tecapro.com says... > > > >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their > >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based > >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or > >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact > >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in > >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight. > >> > > > > > > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to > > read the report that is being MIS-quoted? > > > > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles > > Very small 4-door cars 11.56 > > Small 4-door cars 7.85 > > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26 > > Large 4-door cars 3.30 > > Compact pickup trucks 6.82 > > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07 > > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68 > > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73 > > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79 > > Minivans 2.76 > > > > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own > > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and > > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07). > > > > Look who's on top. > > Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of > vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given > class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences > between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class > average in any event. > > Matt > |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world stats prove it. This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it! "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org... > Chris Phillipo wrote: > > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >, > > dianelos@tecapro.com says... > > > >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their > >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based > >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or > >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact > >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in > >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight. > >> > > > > > > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to > > read the report that is being MIS-quoted? > > > > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles > > Very small 4-door cars 11.56 > > Small 4-door cars 7.85 > > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26 > > Large 4-door cars 3.30 > > Compact pickup trucks 6.82 > > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07 > > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68 > > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73 > > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79 > > Minivans 2.76 > > > > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own > > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and > > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07). > > > > Look who's on top. > > Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of > vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given > class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences > between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class > average in any event. > > Matt > |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
While you are partly right, I again refer everyone to the HLDI studies of
actual loss information, SUVs come out very well compared to medium, and small cars. The latter HORRID in any form of crash, and the real-world stats prove it. This is all just a stupid argument, bigger is safer, get over it! "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:3F92C2E8.1080003@computer.org... > Chris Phillipo wrote: > > In article <5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.com >, > > dianelos@tecapro.com says... > > > >>You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their > >>detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based > >>on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or > >>real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact > >>died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in > >>passenger cars of comparable or even less weight. > >> > > > > > > I'll tell you who is wrong in their specifics. Am I the only one to > > read the report that is being MIS-quoted? > > > > Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles > > Very small 4-door cars 11.56 > > Small 4-door cars 7.85 > > Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26 > > Large 4-door cars 3.30 > > Compact pickup trucks 6.82 > > Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07 > > Small 4-door SUVs 5.68 > > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73 > > Large 4-door SUVs 6.79 > > Minivans 2.76 > > > > The Four vehicle groups with the lowest fatality rates for their own > > drivers were minivans (2.76), large cars (3.30), large SUVs (3.79), and > > large (100-series) pickup trucks (4.07). > > > > Look who's on top. > > Another consideration is that these are averages across a class of > vehicles and I'll bet a steak dinner that the ranges within a given > class are quite large and likely much larger than the differences > between the classes. What really matters is YOUR vehicle, not a class > average in any event. > > Matt > |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <jhi4pv8kqhvgq240echbl3r4kkgkop6up7@4ax.com>, >whineryy@yifan.net says... >> Lon Stowell <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote: >> >> > Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try >> > to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan. >> >> I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare >> a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be >> economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a >> stated sporty goal would be able to impress. >> >> Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me. >> Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about >> price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo. >> >> Marc >> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" >> > >Neither car can tow worth a damn. Not in the requirements of the other poster. Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <jhi4pv8kqhvgq240echbl3r4kkgkop6up7@4ax.com>, >whineryy@yifan.net says... >> Lon Stowell <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote: >> >> > Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try >> > to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan. >> >> I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare >> a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be >> economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a >> stated sporty goal would be able to impress. >> >> Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me. >> Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about >> price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo. >> >> Marc >> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" >> > >Neither car can tow worth a damn. Not in the requirements of the other poster. Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <jhi4pv8kqhvgq240echbl3r4kkgkop6up7@4ax.com>, >whineryy@yifan.net says... >> Lon Stowell <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote: >> >> > Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try >> > to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan. >> >> I've driven modern SUVs. Compare apples to apples. If you want to compare >> a $60,000 truck designed to be sporty with a $15,000 car designed to be >> economical, I'd hope that the truck priced at 4 times the cost and with a >> stated sporty goal would be able to impress. >> >> Now, compare the cheaper Boxter S with the Cayenne and get back to me. >> Note that the Boxster is cheaper. Or, since you don't seem to care about >> price in your comparisons, compare the 911 Turbo with the Cayenne Turbo. >> >> Marc >> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" >> > >Neither car can tow worth a damn. Not in the requirements of the other poster. Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy" |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:59:44 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33 >@qwest.net says... >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" >> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message >> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. . >> >> >> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things. >> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the >> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do) >> >> the same thing others do. >> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing >> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply >> >> ignores reality. >> > >> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated >> >with driving a car. >> >> No offense, but I was referring to reality. >> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is >> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources >> that driver uses wheile on the road. >> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered? >> > >What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying >it. the more you use the more you are paying. Gas taxes seem nice, but they are subject to the same law of unintendced consequences as most other things. For example, the higher gas tax means one thing in the Northeast corridor, but something very different in many areas of the West, where distances to anywhere are much longer. Europe is much like the American Northeast corridor; they simply don't have the vast areas that the US has, and the population density is higher than in vast areas of the American West. What works well there won't translate well to here. So, yes, a high gas tax does mean the more you use, the more you pay. But that doesn't make it fair when other things (like the distances that need to be travelled) are taken into consideration. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:59:44 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33 >@qwest.net says... >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" >> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message >> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. . >> >> >> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things. >> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the >> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do) >> >> the same thing others do. >> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing >> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply >> >> ignores reality. >> > >> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated >> >with driving a car. >> >> No offense, but I was referring to reality. >> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is >> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources >> that driver uses wheile on the road. >> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered? >> > >What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying >it. the more you use the more you are paying. Gas taxes seem nice, but they are subject to the same law of unintendced consequences as most other things. For example, the higher gas tax means one thing in the Northeast corridor, but something very different in many areas of the West, where distances to anywhere are much longer. Europe is much like the American Northeast corridor; they simply don't have the vast areas that the US has, and the population density is higher than in vast areas of the American West. What works well there won't translate well to here. So, yes, a high gas tax does mean the more you use, the more you pay. But that doesn't make it fair when other things (like the distances that need to be travelled) are taken into consideration. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:59:44 -0300, Chris Phillipo
<Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: >In article <j125pvsmhb5lf23c37195irqubf---rh03@4ax.com>, bfunk33 >@qwest.net says... >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:24 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt" >> <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"Bill Funk" <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote in message >> >news:g4g3pvcq3aad38k3ljgf39n5a0p5hk1j4v@4ax.com.. . >> >> >> >> That's becasue they are designed to do different things. >> >> Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the >> >> same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do) >> >> the same thing others do. >> >> The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing >> >> them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply >> >> ignores reality. >> > >> >No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated >> >with driving a car. >> >> No offense, but I was referring to reality. >> You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is >> allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources >> that driver uses wheile on the road. >> Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered? >> > >What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying >it. the more you use the more you are paying. Gas taxes seem nice, but they are subject to the same law of unintendced consequences as most other things. For example, the higher gas tax means one thing in the Northeast corridor, but something very different in many areas of the West, where distances to anywhere are much longer. Europe is much like the American Northeast corridor; they simply don't have the vast areas that the US has, and the population density is higher than in vast areas of the American West. What works well there won't translate well to here. So, yes, a high gas tax does mean the more you use, the more you pay. But that doesn't make it fair when other things (like the distances that need to be travelled) are taken into consideration. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:51:33 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
<m.whiting@computer.org> wrote: >No, he was attempting to, but failed miserably. I often think we'd be a >lot better off if we didn't feel compelled to rebuild every country we >defeat ... and stick to only engaging in wars where we really need to be >engaged. After Pearl Harbor, we needed to go after Japan, but I'm not >convinced we should have participated in the wars in Europe, or Vietnam, >or Korea, etc. > >Matt As far as the war in Europe is concerned, we declared war on Germany *after* Germany declared war on us. http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/germwar.html http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/us_war.htm |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands