Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You are an idiot bud.
If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the numbers below indicate. I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are they something like 10 fatalities? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
You are an idiot bud.
If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the numbers below indicate. I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are they something like 10 fatalities? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's 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. The relevant > numbers are: > > Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities > (pounds) per billion miles > > Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26 > Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30 > Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68 > Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73 > Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79 > > So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size > SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are > safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe > than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier! > > These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into > account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected, > even worse. > > The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small > cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much > heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were > thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage > is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their > passengers. > > Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better. > Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size > SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small > SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety > disadvantages of the SUV design. > > If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > car. > > Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper > limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer, > spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect > the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing > countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a > win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy > (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their > top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger > other vehicles on the asphalt. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hi Bob,
Thank you, but I'm sure we'll get some bleed heart liberal, like Professor Parker: http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130 Saying he will survive a head-on collision killing me in my full size Bronco because of some crumple zone. I can picture Lloyd now, travel instantly backward at eighty mile an hour. Probably looking like that lexus that split in two after hitting a boarder patrol Bronco, a few of years ago, raising a big stink about their chases. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Robert A. Matern" 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). The large > vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. > Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all > kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different > vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their > characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational > folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, > are just political propaganda... plain & simple. > > Rollover: > advantage: low center of gravity > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: higher - lighter makes it worse > advantage: wide wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse > > Collision: > advantage: high MASS > REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision > winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better > loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse > > Spinout: > advantage: long wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to spin > winner: long - heavier makes it better > loser: short - lighter makes it worse > > Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor > statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. > But these are the political times we live in... > > The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist > at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large > vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? > > The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you > imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the > speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's > exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and > bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. > If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then > TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! > > And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a > large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? > If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! > > And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is > just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a > similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! > > Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as > well. > > Bob |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hi Bob,
Thank you, but I'm sure we'll get some bleed heart liberal, like Professor Parker: http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130 Saying he will survive a head-on collision killing me in my full size Bronco because of some crumple zone. I can picture Lloyd now, travel instantly backward at eighty mile an hour. Probably looking like that lexus that split in two after hitting a boarder patrol Bronco, a few of years ago, raising a big stink about their chases. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Robert A. Matern" 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). The large > vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. > Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all > kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different > vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their > characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational > folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, > are just political propaganda... plain & simple. > > Rollover: > advantage: low center of gravity > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: higher - lighter makes it worse > advantage: wide wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse > > Collision: > advantage: high MASS > REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision > winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better > loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse > > Spinout: > advantage: long wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to spin > winner: long - heavier makes it better > loser: short - lighter makes it worse > > Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor > statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. > But these are the political times we live in... > > The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist > at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large > vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? > > The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you > imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the > speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's > exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and > bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. > If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then > TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! > > And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a > large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? > If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! > > And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is > just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a > similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! > > Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as > well. > > Bob |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Hi Bob,
Thank you, but I'm sure we'll get some bleed heart liberal, like Professor Parker: http://www.oxford.emory.edu/Director...cfm?UserID=130 Saying he will survive a head-on collision killing me in my full size Bronco because of some crumple zone. I can picture Lloyd now, travel instantly backward at eighty mile an hour. Probably looking like that lexus that split in two after hitting a boarder patrol Bronco, a few of years ago, raising a big stink about their chases. God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/ "Robert A. Matern" 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). The large > vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle. > Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all > kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different > vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their > characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational > folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it, > are just political propaganda... plain & simple. > > Rollover: > advantage: low center of gravity > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: higher - lighter makes it worse > advantage: wide wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length) > winner: lower - heavier makes it better > loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse > > Collision: > advantage: high MASS > REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision > winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better > loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse > > Spinout: > advantage: long wheelbase > REASON: increases leverage required to spin > winner: long - heavier makes it better > loser: short - lighter makes it worse > > Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor > statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst. > But these are the political times we live in... > > The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist > at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large > vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that? > > The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you > imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the > speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's > exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and > bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency. > If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then > TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start! > > And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a > large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower? > If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL! > > And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is > just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a > similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS! > > Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as > well. > > Bob |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work guys. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work guys. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Approximately 10/17/03 08:52, Dianelos Georgoudis uttered for posterity:
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and > weight. NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work guys. -- My governor can kick your governor's ass |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos > Georgoudis) wrote: > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > >car. > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I > bought a very safe SUV. > > Go figure. Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. |
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote: > > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos > Georgoudis) wrote: > > >If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best > >strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger > >car. > > I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I > bought a very safe SUV. > > Go figure. Introductions seem to be in order: Pete, this is logic, Logic, this is Pete. Do try to keep in touch at the next car purchase time. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands