Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-17-2003, 01:22 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
10-17-2003, 01:22 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
10-17-2003, 01:37 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
10-17-2003, 01:37 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
10-17-2003, 01:37 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
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
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
10-17-2003, 03:25 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 ***
> 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 ***
10-17-2003, 03:25 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 ***
> 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 ***
10-17-2003, 03:25 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
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 ***
> 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 ***
10-17-2003, 03:26 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
10-17-2003, 03:26 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.