L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

Take your Ford in and have it aligned, before you kill someone.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice). My
> current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and it's
> not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave

L.W.(=?iso-8859-1?Q?=DFill?=) Hughes III

Take your Ford in and have it aligned, before you kill someone.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"Dave C." wrote:
>
> What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice). My
> current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and it's
> not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave

Dianelos Georgoudis

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<R%Zjb.1068$zb5.8079543@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

If you travel with your family, then the chance of a fatality grows.
Also the numbers I posted from the study only count the dead. If one
would take into account the injured too then the probabilitiy of
someone you love getting hurt in a traffic accident starts looking
scary.

Also, consider how many people drive. If people were better informed
about the safety of the vehicle they are about to buy then thousands
of lives per year would be spared. What I find so tragic is that
precisely those people who are prepared to pay top dollar for the
safety of their families are deceived into buying vehicles that are
less safe.

I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
fight against cancer. Political decisions seem to be more emotional
than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

Dianelos Georgoudis

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<R%Zjb.1068$zb5.8079543@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

If you travel with your family, then the chance of a fatality grows.
Also the numbers I posted from the study only count the dead. If one
would take into account the injured too then the probabilitiy of
someone you love getting hurt in a traffic accident starts looking
scary.

Also, consider how many people drive. If people were better informed
about the safety of the vehicle they are about to buy then thousands
of lives per year would be spared. What I find so tragic is that
precisely those people who are prepared to pay top dollar for the
safety of their families are deceived into buying vehicles that are
less safe.

I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
fight against cancer. Political decisions seem to be more emotional
than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

Dianelos Georgoudis

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message news:<R%Zjb.1068$zb5.8079543@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

If you travel with your family, then the chance of a fatality grows.
Also the numbers I posted from the study only count the dead. If one
would take into account the injured too then the probabilitiy of
someone you love getting hurt in a traffic accident starts looking
scary.

Also, consider how many people drive. If people were better informed
about the safety of the vehicle they are about to buy then thousands
of lives per year would be spared. What I find so tragic is that
precisely those people who are prepared to pay top dollar for the
safety of their families are deceived into buying vehicles that are
less safe.

I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
fight against cancer. Political decisions seem to be more emotional
than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
of times larger than the risk of dying in a --------- attack, but the
amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

Dianelos Georgoudis

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> > The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> > lighter passenger cars.
>
> Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
> do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> their agenda is correct.

Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.

This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
or even of considerable less weight.

It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.

Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
perceived safety, and this is wrong.

<snip>

> > 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.
>
> This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
> offered for it.

Well, don't you think that the truth of my statement is rather
obvious? Do you really think that people who can afford and do buy a
SUV were thinking of buying a small or very small car at first?

<snip>

> There are much larger, more
> pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
> you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.

You are right of course. Smoking for example is much riskier than
driving a SUV.

Dianelos Georgoudis

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> > The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> > lighter passenger cars.
>
> Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
> do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> their agenda is correct.

Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.

This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
or even of considerable less weight.

It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.

Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
perceived safety, and this is wrong.

<snip>

> > 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.
>
> This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
> offered for it.

Well, don't you think that the truth of my statement is rather
obvious? Do you really think that people who can afford and do buy a
SUV were thinking of buying a small or very small car at first?

<snip>

> There are much larger, more
> pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
> you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.

You are right of course. Smoking for example is much riskier than
driving a SUV.

Dianelos Georgoudis

"Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
> On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> > The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> > lighter passenger cars.
>
> Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
> sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
> do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
> reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
> political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
> their agenda is correct.

Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.

This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
or even of considerable less weight.

It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.

Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
perceived safety, and this is wrong.

<snip>

> > 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.
>
> This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
> offered for it.

Well, don't you think that the truth of my statement is rather
obvious? Do you really think that people who can afford and do buy a
SUV were thinking of buying a small or very small car at first?

<snip>

> There are much larger, more
> pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
> you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.

You are right of course. Smoking for example is much riskier than
driving a SUV.

Bill Funk

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:04:11 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>> And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
>> to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
>> The junk yards are full of such cars.
>>
>
>If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
>---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
>upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
>fringe benefits. -Dave
>
That's not the point at all.
The point is this: far too many people who buy those fleas think that
the car will enhance their driving performance.
It won't.
Inattention can be deadly in either a flea or SUV. It's not the
vehicle that causes or avoids crashes; it's the driver. Those who
think thgat they can avoid crashes because they are driving a flea (or
even a *really* good-handling car) are fooling themselves.
Avoiding crashes has far more to do with the driver than the car.
Saying "It's kept me out of crashes so far" is sort of like saying "So
far, so good" after jumping off a roof.
A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
and safety.

Bill Funk

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:04:11 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>> And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
>> to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
>> The junk yards are full of such cars.
>>
>
>If your point is that ---- happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
>---- happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
>upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
>fringe benefits. -Dave
>
That's not the point at all.
The point is this: far too many people who buy those fleas think that
the car will enhance their driving performance.
It won't.
Inattention can be deadly in either a flea or SUV. It's not the
vehicle that causes or avoids crashes; it's the driver. Those who
think thgat they can avoid crashes because they are driving a flea (or
even a *really* good-handling car) are fooling themselves.
Avoiding crashes has far more to do with the driver than the car.
Saying "It's kept me out of crashes so far" is sort of like saying "So
far, so good" after jumping off a roof.
A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
and safety.