Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <1jl5pvgg99lqtsan080pnt0knucn06rufi@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>> >consistent in your inconsistencies.
>>
>> Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
>> advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
>> striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
>>
>> But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
>> all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net>
>"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of ---- and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.
Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <1jl5pvgg99lqtsan080pnt0knucn06rufi@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>> >consistent in your inconsistencies.
>>
>> Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
>> advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
>> striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
>>
>> But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
>> all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net>
>"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of ---- and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.
Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <1jl5pvgg99lqtsan080pnt0knucn06rufi@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>> >consistent in your inconsistencies.
>>
>> Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
>> advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
>> striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
>>
>> But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
>> all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net>
>"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of ---- and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.
Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <1jl5pvgg99lqtsan080pnt0knucn06rufi@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>> >consistent in your inconsistencies.
>>
>> Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
>> advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
>> striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
>>
>> But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
>> all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net>
>"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of ---- and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.
Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <1jl5pvgg99lqtsan080pnt0knucn06rufi@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>> >consistent in your inconsistencies.
>>
>> Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
>> advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
>> striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
>>
>> But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
>> all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net>
>"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of ---- and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.
Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <1jl5pvgg99lqtsan080pnt0knucn06rufi@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
>> >consistent in your inconsistencies.
>>
>> Then you thought wrong. I never said any such thing. There is an
>> advantage when you strike a lighter vehicle and a disadvantage when
>> striking a heavier vehicle. I've never said anything to contradict that.
>>
>> But then, if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. That's
>> all you have left, since the facts are opposite all your claims.
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>>
>
>I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:
>
>__________________
>From: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net>
>"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
>Robert Said:
>
>>The large
>>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
>vehicle.
>
>MARC said: That is simply false.
>
>
>You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
>names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
>of ---- and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
>most sociopaths do. Have a good day.
Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <sfm5pvkvatttba2obrs2i5sut974paeqas@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>> >SELL
>> >> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> >> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>> >>
>> >
>> >My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.
I never claimed that. You are lying again.
>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.
It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <sfm5pvkvatttba2obrs2i5sut974paeqas@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.
I never claimed that. You are lying again.
>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.
It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <sfm5pvkvatttba2obrs2i5sut974paeqas@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>> >SELL
>> >> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> >> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>> >>
>> >
>> >My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.
I never claimed that. You are lying again.
>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.
It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <sfm5pvkvatttba2obrs2i5sut974paeqas@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.
I never claimed that. You are lying again.
>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.
It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Chris Phillipo <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>In article <sfm5pvkvatttba2obrs2i5sut974paeqas@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that
>> >SELL
>> >> WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>> >> appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>> >>
>> >
>> >My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.
I never claimed that. You are lying again.
>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.
It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>In article <sfm5pvkvatttba2obrs2i5sut974paeqas@4ax.com>,
>whineryy@yifan.net says...
>> "Douglas A. Shrader" <dshrader@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote in message
>> >news:MVmkb.2269$np1.130@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> >> >
>> >> > 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
>> >>
>> >
>> >My 91 GMC K2500 pickup with a 350 engine gets 17.6 MPG highway and you think
>> >saying an SUV geting 8 MPG is accurate?
>> >Just what SUV are you thinking of here?
>> >Even the largest of them should get 14 or better, though I don't have
>> >accurate numbers handy at the moment.
>>
>> The EPA estimates city mileage to be between 10 and 15 for full-size
>> pickups. From my driving experience, I think that the EPA numbers are high
>> for city and low for highway, at least for my driving style. My
>> brother-in-law's F-350 gets 6 mpg city and 8mpg highway, but most of the
>> time it was on the highway, it was towing something.
>>
>
>
>So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
>valuable insight into your thought processes today.
I never claimed that. You are lying again.
>P.S. that F350 is
>broken, get it fixed you environment raper.
It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>>you to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
>> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
>> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
>> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
>> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
>> be more able to avoid crashes.
>
>Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
>capabilities of the vehicle.
Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.
>They are more often related to the driver
>being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
>surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
>impact.
I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.
Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>>you to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
>> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
>> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
>> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
>> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
>> be more able to avoid crashes.
>
>Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
>capabilities of the vehicle.
Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.
>They are more often related to the driver
>being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
>surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
>impact.
I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.
Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>>you to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
>> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
>> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
>> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
>> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
>> be more able to avoid crashes.
>
>Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
>capabilities of the vehicle.
Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.
>They are more often related to the driver
>being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
>surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
>impact.
I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.
Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>>you to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
>> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
>> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
>> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
>> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
>> be more able to avoid crashes.
>
>Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
>capabilities of the vehicle.
Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.
>They are more often related to the driver
>being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
>surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
>impact.
I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.
Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>>you to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
>> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
>> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
>> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
>> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
>> be more able to avoid crashes.
>
>Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
>capabilities of the vehicle.
Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.
>They are more often related to the driver
>being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
>surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
>impact.
I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.
Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>>>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>>>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>>>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>>>>you to believe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>>>>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>
>> Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
>> are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
>> being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
>> extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
>> weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
>> be more able to avoid crashes.
>
>Very few crashes, at least in the US, are related to the handling
>capabilities of the vehicle.
Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.
>They are more often related to the driver
>being drunk, asleep, going to fast for conditions, etc. I'd ve very
>surprised if changing the weight of vehicles had any measureable safety
>impact.
I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.
Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#1160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nYTkb.4410$S52.1693@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>do, too.
Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>
"Dave C." <spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
>do, too.
Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.
> They are now SUV owners. -Dave
>
>