Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-18-2003, 07:51 PM
#421
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
<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.
10-18-2003, 07:52 PM
#422
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:26:58 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
10-18-2003, 07:52 PM
#423
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:26:58 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
10-18-2003, 07:52 PM
#424
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:26:58 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
>If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
>vehicle was 6000 lbs.
So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?
10-18-2003, 07:59 PM
#425
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:<3F9064DD.4030202@computer.org>...
> 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.
You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
> 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.
You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
10-18-2003, 07:59 PM
#426
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:<3F9064DD.4030202@computer.org>...
> 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.
You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
> 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.
You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
10-18-2003, 07:59 PM
#427
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message news:<3F9064DD.4030202@computer.org>...
> 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.
You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
> 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.
You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.
10-18-2003, 08:08 PM
#428
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 18 Oct 2003 16:50:07 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.
Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.
Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!
Georgoudis) wrote:
>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.
Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.
Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!
10-18-2003, 08:08 PM
#429
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 18 Oct 2003 16:50:07 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.
Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.
Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!
Georgoudis) wrote:
>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.
Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.
Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!
10-18-2003, 08:08 PM
#430
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
On 18 Oct 2003 16:50:07 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
Georgoudis) wrote:
>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.
Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.
Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!
Georgoudis) wrote:
>Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
>Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.
Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.
Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!