Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1071
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbc841b45b685989e05@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.
Need I remind you of:
1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.
>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.
Need I remind you of:
1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.
>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.
#1072
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbc841b45b685989e05@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.
Need I remind you of:
1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.
>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>>
>> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
>> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
>> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
>maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
>ad agency.
Need I remind you of:
1. The "moose" test which Swedish journalists subject cars to, which the
A-class flunked and led to its redesign;
2. The avoidance test in which Autoweek rolled a 2wd Jeep Liberty, which led
to its suspension lowering.
3. The slalom test in which C/D had 2 modified M-classes slide into and
destroy their timing lights.
>Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
>try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
>driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
>feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
>wheel drive cars do.
#1073
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
#1074
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
#1075
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbbdcbbbd459b8989e0b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>> >
>> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the
other
>> 60s crap.
>>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>>
>
>And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
No, CAFE would favor diesels. It's our (1) lousy, high-sulfur diesel fuel,
and (2) particulate and NOx emissions standards. But Mercedes is going to
intoduce an E-class diesel next year, and Jeep will put a diesel in the
Liberty too.
#1076
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F91E695.8080508@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
#1077
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F91E695.8080508@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
#1078
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F91E695.8080508@computer.org>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>>
>> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
>> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
>> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
>> or even of considerable less weight.
>>
>> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
>> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
>> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
>> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>>
>> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
>> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
>> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
>
>Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
>SUVs are safer than cars.
>
>
>Matt
>
Sure, just like Bush never came out and SAID Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
#1079
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>
No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>
No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
#1080
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <1Vlkb.814725$Ho3.223551@sccrnsc03>,
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>
No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.
tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>In article <bms79l$6me$19@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
>No. We get them because their manufacturers (at least BMW) choose to ignore
>CAFE and pass the tax on to the buyers.
>
No, because the makers had to make smaller, lighter, yet still
high-performance vehicles. Without CAFE, we'd still be driving what we were
in the early 70s. 5000-lb lumbering land yachts.