Jim Warman

Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?

Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:lri3pvkmgpuvqcviuubg5fr6pfnvag7nkt@4ax.com...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
> >>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say,
two
> >>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you think that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object
are
> >> pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
> >> such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do
better
> >> than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
> >>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more
distance
> >>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could
be
> >>>drastically less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back
to
> >> us. My favorites are:
> >>
> >> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
> >> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
> >>
> >> I happen to own the car that I linked to...
> >
> >I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
> >are much better:
> >http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>
> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
> >I suspect you searched around to find the worst SUV/truck model you
> >could to try to prove your point. That only serves to lesson your
> >credibility.
>
> And you would be quite incorrect. I actually went for the F-150 and
Civic,
> but chose the Impreza (though worse in crash tests) because I owned it. I
> had made my decision before opening the web browser. Though I'd expect
> that there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. My brother-in-law
> has an F-350 (they don't test those, that I know of), so I'd pick the
> F-150.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Jim Warman

Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?

Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:lri3pvkmgpuvqcviuubg5fr6pfnvag7nkt@4ax.com...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
> >>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say,
two
> >>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you think that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object
are
> >> pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
> >> such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do
better
> >> than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
> >>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more
distance
> >>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could
be
> >>>drastically less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back
to
> >> us. My favorites are:
> >>
> >> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
> >> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
> >>
> >> I happen to own the car that I linked to...
> >
> >I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
> >are much better:
> >http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>
> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
> >I suspect you searched around to find the worst SUV/truck model you
> >could to try to prove your point. That only serves to lesson your
> >credibility.
>
> And you would be quite incorrect. I actually went for the F-150 and
Civic,
> but chose the Impreza (though worse in crash tests) because I owned it. I
> had made my decision before opening the web browser. Though I'd expect
> that there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. My brother-in-law
> has an F-350 (they don't test those, that I know of), so I'd pick the
> F-150.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Jim Warman

Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?

Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?


--
Jim Warman
mechanic@telusplanet.net

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:lri3pvkmgpuvqcviuubg5fr6pfnvag7nkt@4ax.com...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >Marc wrote:
> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
> >>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say,
two
> >>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
> >>>
> >>>Why do you think that?
> >>
> >>
> >> Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object
are
> >> pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
> >> such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do
better
> >> than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
> >>
> >>
> >>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
> >>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more
distance
> >>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could
be
> >>>drastically less.
> >>
> >>
> >> Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back
to
> >> us. My favorites are:
> >>
> >> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
> >> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
> >>
> >> I happen to own the car that I linked to...
> >
> >I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
> >are much better:
> >http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm
>
> Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.
>
> >I suspect you searched around to find the worst SUV/truck model you
> >could to try to prove your point. That only serves to lesson your
> >credibility.
>
> And you would be quite incorrect. I actually went for the F-150 and
Civic,
> but chose the Impreza (though worse in crash tests) because I owned it. I
> had made my decision before opening the web browser. Though I'd expect
> that there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. My brother-in-law
> has an F-350 (they don't test those, that I know of), so I'd pick the
> F-150.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

The Ancient One

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.c om...
> You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>
> Statistical studies help make better predictions. Consider the
> following:
>
> Suppose a thousand people who were going to buy a SUV hear of the
> NHTSA study and decide that SUVs are, pound for pound and dollar for
> dollar, less safe than a passenger car. So half of them change their
> decision and buy a mid-size or large passenger car at a price no
> higher then the one they intended to pay for the SUV. The other half
> stick with their decision and buy a SUV (because they have other
> overriding concerns).
>
> Prediction A: Three years down the road less people out of these
> thousand will be killed in traffic accidents than if they had all
> bought a SUV as originally intended.
>
> Prediction B: Three years down the road more people out of the group
> that decided to buy a SUV will be killed in traffic accidents than out
> of the group that decided to buy a passenger car.
>
> Don't you agree that the NHTSA study shows that both these predictions
> are correct?
>
> BTW, my motivation is not political at all. We are talking about
> people risking death or injury; we should all insist that people be
> better informed about their choices no matter where our political
> convictions lie. People should know that, on average, SUVs are less
> safe than cars.
>

Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer than
anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing that
never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and want
to buy. Everyone dies from something, and there is no method of travel that
will ever be 100% safe, including walking. All this online bickering only
makes one look foolish, say what you have to say in one post, then drop the
subject, posting further replies never convinces anyone of anything, and
makes you look foolish.
Peace people, let it drop.

The Ancient One

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.c om...
> You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>
> Statistical studies help make better predictions. Consider the
> following:
>
> Suppose a thousand people who were going to buy a SUV hear of the
> NHTSA study and decide that SUVs are, pound for pound and dollar for
> dollar, less safe than a passenger car. So half of them change their
> decision and buy a mid-size or large passenger car at a price no
> higher then the one they intended to pay for the SUV. The other half
> stick with their decision and buy a SUV (because they have other
> overriding concerns).
>
> Prediction A: Three years down the road less people out of these
> thousand will be killed in traffic accidents than if they had all
> bought a SUV as originally intended.
>
> Prediction B: Three years down the road more people out of the group
> that decided to buy a SUV will be killed in traffic accidents than out
> of the group that decided to buy a passenger car.
>
> Don't you agree that the NHTSA study shows that both these predictions
> are correct?
>
> BTW, my motivation is not political at all. We are talking about
> people risking death or injury; we should all insist that people be
> better informed about their choices no matter where our political
> convictions lie. People should know that, on average, SUVs are less
> safe than cars.
>

Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer than
anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing that
never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and want
to buy. Everyone dies from something, and there is no method of travel that
will ever be 100% safe, including walking. All this online bickering only
makes one look foolish, say what you have to say in one post, then drop the
subject, posting further replies never convinces anyone of anything, and
makes you look foolish.
Peace people, let it drop.

The Ancient One

"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.0310181518.67be59b4@posting.google.c om...
> You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
> detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
> on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
> real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
> died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
> passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.
>
> Statistical studies help make better predictions. Consider the
> following:
>
> Suppose a thousand people who were going to buy a SUV hear of the
> NHTSA study and decide that SUVs are, pound for pound and dollar for
> dollar, less safe than a passenger car. So half of them change their
> decision and buy a mid-size or large passenger car at a price no
> higher then the one they intended to pay for the SUV. The other half
> stick with their decision and buy a SUV (because they have other
> overriding concerns).
>
> Prediction A: Three years down the road less people out of these
> thousand will be killed in traffic accidents than if they had all
> bought a SUV as originally intended.
>
> Prediction B: Three years down the road more people out of the group
> that decided to buy a SUV will be killed in traffic accidents than out
> of the group that decided to buy a passenger car.
>
> Don't you agree that the NHTSA study shows that both these predictions
> are correct?
>
> BTW, my motivation is not political at all. We are talking about
> people risking death or injury; we should all insist that people be
> better informed about their choices no matter where our political
> convictions lie. People should know that, on average, SUVs are less
> safe than cars.
>

Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer than
anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing that
never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and want
to buy. Everyone dies from something, and there is no method of travel that
will ever be 100% safe, including walking. All this online bickering only
makes one look foolish, say what you have to say in one post, then drop the
subject, posting further replies never convinces anyone of anything, and
makes you look foolish.
Peace people, let it drop.

Chris Phillipo

In article <iev1pv8gq6d6uj50j350b6042tnp8i7gvh@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
> >If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
> >predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
> >hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
> Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
> as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
> blinders.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>


I guess those that study self defense technics never get into fights
either.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Chris Phillipo

In article <iev1pv8gq6d6uj50j350b6042tnp8i7gvh@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
> >If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
> >predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
> >hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
> Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
> as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
> blinders.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>


I guess those that study self defense technics never get into fights
either.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Chris Phillipo

In article <iev1pv8gq6d6uj50j350b6042tnp8i7gvh@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n <pete@petefagerlin.com> wrote:
>
> >If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
> >predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
> >hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>
> Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
> as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
> blinders.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>


I guess those that study self defense technics never get into fights
either.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.

Chris Phillipo

In article <3F915612.8DF9E0C1@kinez.net>, bputney@kinez.net says...
>
>
> Marc wrote:
> > ...I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
> > safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
> > is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
> > larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>
> So does that mean that when we negotiate for a vehicle, that we should
> try to negotatie the price *upward* instead of downward to make it
> safer? 8^)
>
> Bill Putney
> (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with "x")

Yes, I want and air bag here, here, over there, one under here, one up
there, two in here and put a few spare ones in the truck please :)
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.