Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:bmvgjv030hd@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>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!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:bmvgjv030hd@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>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!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.
#1132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:bmvgjv030hd@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>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!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge> wrote in message
> news:bmvgjv030hd@enews1.newsguy.com...
>
>>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!
>
>
> Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
>
People will buy and drive what they want. The studies be dammed.
#1133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F908A56.7040704@computer.org>,
Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)
Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)
Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F908A56.7040704@computer.org>,
Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)
Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)
Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F908A56.7040704@computer.org>,
Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)
Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Matthew S. Whiting <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
>I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
>some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
>etc.)
Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:00:57 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:-)
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:-)
#1137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:00:57 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:-)
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:-)
#1138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:00:57 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:-)
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> They are *EPA estimates* for those mileages.
>> Check with just about any magazine that does tests on such vehicles,
>> and you will find very few that actually match the EPA estimates.
>> Personally, I usually get from 10% to 20% better mileage than the EPA
>> estimates, depending on what I'm carrying, and type of road travelled.
>>
>
>
>That's odd. Every truck or SUV I've ever driven gets about 20% less than
>the EPA estimates, lightly loaded in mostly highway driving. In contrast,
>I've never driven a car that got less than the EPA estimates, most cars beat
>the estimate by at least 10%. -Dave
>
Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?
:-)
#1139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <en93pv81husu6kok24jpd6f9eqmnsavnk0@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.
Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.
Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
#1140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <en93pv81husu6kok24jpd6f9eqmnsavnk0@4ax.com>,
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.
Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
>>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>I know of no enviro-wackos that like it.
Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.