Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#221
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
#222
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
#224
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#225
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#229
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#230
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
damage to others.
Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
crashes?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
damage to others.
Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
crashes?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"