Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#231
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"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#232
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"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>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
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>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
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>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
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#237
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#238
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#239
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"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.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>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.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
10-18-2003, 04:26 AM
#240
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"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.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>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.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
