Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#351
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> 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).
I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.
Matt
> 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).
I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.
Matt
#352
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> 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).
I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.
Matt
> 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).
I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.
Matt
#353
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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?
Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.
I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
Matt
> "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?
Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.
I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
Matt
#354
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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?
Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.
I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
Matt
> "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?
Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.
I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
Matt
#355
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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?
Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.
I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
Matt
> "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?
Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.
I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
Matt
#356
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
#357
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
#358
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
>
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
> And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has
been
> several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
#359
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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.
Why?
Matt
> "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.
Why?
Matt
#360
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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.
Why?
Matt
> "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.
Why?
Matt