Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...
Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> 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.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...
Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> 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.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...
Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> 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.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...
Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> 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.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...
My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...
Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> 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.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...
Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fbc39414652ced989e12@news.eastlink.ca.. .
> 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.
> --
> ____________________
> Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.
There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).
It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
> This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
> the various classes of cars.
>
> Ed
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.
There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).
It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
> This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
> the various classes of cars.
>
> Ed
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.
There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).
It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
> This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
> the various classes of cars.
>
> Ed
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.
There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).
It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
> This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
> the various classes of cars.
>
> Ed
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.
There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).
It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
> This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
> the various classes of cars.
>
> Ed
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.
There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.
But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. :( The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).
It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6B11F5.D40FA4AE@mindspring.com...
> This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
> the various classes of cars.
>
> Ed
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> >
> > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> > weight. See:
> >
> > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In what sense?
Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.
I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5pSdnaQat4CWowiiRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't
> change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
> --
..................
Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.
I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5pSdnaQat4CWowiiRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't
> change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
> --
..................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In what sense?
Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.
I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5pSdnaQat4CWowiiRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't
> change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
> --
..................
Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.
I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5pSdnaQat4CWowiiRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't
> change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
> --
..................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In what sense?
Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.
I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5pSdnaQat4CWowiiRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't
> change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
> --
..................
Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.
I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:5pSdnaQat4CWowiiRTvUpQ@speakeasy.net...
[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't
> change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.
> --
..................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Obviously you have a social conscience...
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04...
[.................]
> >
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
> It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> its time for emissions inspection.
>
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Kevin" <Kevin@el.net> wrote in message
news:xdalb.843740$uu5.149257@sccrnsc04...
[.................]
> >
> I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
> It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
> its time for emissions inspection.
>
