Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1081
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.
#1082
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!
>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.
Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!
>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.
Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
#1083
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!
>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.
Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!
>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.
Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
#1084
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!
>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.
Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> 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
Huh? Small SUVs are safer than mid-size ones? Well, there goes your "weight
= safety" argument!
>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.
Yes, minivans. Note that mid-size cars beat mid-size SUVs (5.26 to 6.73)
#1085
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
#1086
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
#1087
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <MPG.19fbd425bcc7fbbb989e1c@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.n et>,
>spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
>> >
>> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>>
>> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>Wellt here's one that gets below 10mpg that I can think of it that one
>just bearly sells at all.
Suburban, Tahoe, Yukon, Hummer, Escalade, Escalade EXT, Escalade ESL, Hummer
H1, Hummer H2, Expedition, Excursion, Durango, Range Rover.
Try looking at the real mpg reported in road tests.
#1088
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9232A2.8E3296A0@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?
I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.
>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?
I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.
>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
#1089
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9232A2.8E3296A0@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?
I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.
>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?
I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.
>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
#1090
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9232A2.8E3296A0@itis.com>, Aardwolf <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?
I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.
>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX,
>
> I actually like the styling of the Infinity FX, it's Japanese and it's an
SUV.
>What's the world coming to?
I think it's ugly. The only good-looking SUVs, in my opinion? The Murano,
Endeavor, and Liberty.
>
>(Though I do think it'd look better if it was lowered and used slightly
smaller
>wheels, i.e. was a _CAR_. Kinda like the upcoming 300 Touring AWD, although
it
>still wouldn't look quite that good...)
>
>
>--Aardwolf.
>