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
 

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.
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.
>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

Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all
drivers. Such a person doesn't exist.
>
>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!

Not so!
Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they
apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals.
>
>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.

The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they
purport to apply) to 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.

Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to
individuals.
Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I
doubt it.
>
>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.

Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it?
Or needs?
>
>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.

Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE.
Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous,
since that would increase the speed differential of colliding
vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been
considered countless times, and rejected.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

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.
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.
>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

Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all
drivers. Such a person doesn't exist.
>
>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!

Not so!
Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they
apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals.
>
>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.

The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they
purport to apply) to 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.

Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to
individuals.
Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I
doubt it.
>
>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.

Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it?
Or needs?
>
>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.

Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE.
Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous,
since that would increase the speed differential of colliding
vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been
considered countless times, and rejected.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

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.
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.
>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

Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all
drivers. Such a person doesn't exist.
>
>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!

Not so!
Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they
apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals.
>
>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.

The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they
purport to apply) to 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.

Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to
individuals.
Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I
doubt it.
>
>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.

Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it?
Or needs?
>
>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.

Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE.
Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous,
since that would increase the speed differential of colliding
vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been
considered countless times, and rejected.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> sez:

<snip>
> 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.

Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ...

Good ridin' to ya,
VLJ
--
If it has ---- or tires, its gonna be trouble.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> sez:

<snip>
> 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.

Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ...

Good ridin' to ya,
VLJ
--
If it has ---- or tires, its gonna be trouble.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> sez:

<snip>
> 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.

Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ...

Good ridin' to ya,
VLJ
--
If it has ---- or tires, its gonna be trouble.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:

>
>
>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.

What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton?

It's easy to make silly comments such as yours.

It's much harder to back them up.

Best of luck.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:

>
>
>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.

What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton?

It's easy to make silly comments such as yours.

It's much harder to back them up.

Best of luck.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:26:03 -0700, Lisa Horton <Lisa@lisahorton.net>
wrote:

>
>
>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.

What makes you think my purchase was illogical Ms. Horton?

It's easy to make silly comments such as yours.

It's much harder to back them up.

Best of luck.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com