Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-18-2003, 11:02 AM
#261
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> ...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.
So does that mean that when we negotiate for a vehicle, that we should
try to negotatie the price *upward* instead of downward to make it
safer? 8^)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
10-18-2003, 11:02 AM
#262
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> ...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.
So does that mean that when we negotiate for a vehicle, that we should
try to negotatie the price *upward* instead of downward to make it
safer? 8^)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
10-18-2003, 11:59 AM
#263
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
10-18-2003, 11:59 AM
#264
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
10-18-2003, 11:59 AM
#265
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <fdg0pvoo8om6uv9qk76q1b12n3mf32e0g0@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
Bill Funk <bfunk33@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
10-18-2003, 12:01 PM
#266
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
10-18-2003, 12:01 PM
#267
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
10-18-2003, 12:01 PM
#268
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
Kevin <Kevin@el.net> 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.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
10-18-2003, 12:07 PM
#269
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
"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? 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.
>
>
>Matt
>
But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
"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? 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.
>
>
>Matt
>
But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
10-18-2003, 12:07 PM
#270
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F9066F8.7030500@computer.org>,
"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? 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.
>
>
>Matt
>
But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
"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? 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.
>
>
>Matt
>
But most trucks aren't designed with crumple zones to absorb impact energy as
most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.