Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-17-2003, 10:55 PM
#171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.
10-17-2003, 10:55 PM
#172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Kevin wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> generates more momentum
Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.
10-17-2003, 11:10 PM
#173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:10 PM
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:10 PM
#175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Brent P wrote:
> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
> In article <bmpv9r0bpt@enews2.newsguy.com>, Gerald G. McGeorge wrote:
>
>
>>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>>scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
>>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>>official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
>>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
>>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
> Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
> and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
> and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
> and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
> previous threads with cite)
>
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:25 PM
#176
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >
> > nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> > different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> > everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> > has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
> >
> > john
> >
>
> I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
> posting there semi-regularly.
>
> I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
> would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
> told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.
>
> nate
>
>
I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:25 PM
#177
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >
> > nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> > different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> > everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> > has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
> >
> > john
> >
>
> I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
> posting there semi-regularly.
>
> I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
> would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
> told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.
>
> nate
>
>
I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:25 PM
#178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >
> > nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
> > different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
> > everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
> > has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
> >
> > john
> >
>
> I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
> posting there semi-regularly.
>
> I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
> would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
> told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.
>
> nate
>
>
I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-17-2003, 11:44 PM
#179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ***?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ***?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
10-17-2003, 11:44 PM
#180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ***?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ***?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
