Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#441
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
>
>
> 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.
#442
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
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.
>
>
> 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.
#443
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sin1pvkjm881k3p79ibjte60ee9b7lm1g7@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#444
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sin1pvkjm881k3p79ibjte60ee9b7lm1g7@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#445
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sin1pvkjm881k3p79ibjte60ee9b7lm1g7@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "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...
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#446
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ien1pvg6n2un9k9e8jqqteq1re0j2vdb6j@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#447
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ien1pvg6n2un9k9e8jqqteq1re0j2vdb6j@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#448
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <ien1pvg6n2un9k9e8jqqteq1re0j2vdb6j@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >You are an idiot bud.
> >
> >If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
> >numbers below indicate.
>
> Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
> vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
I thought you said there was no size advantage. At least you're
consistent in your inconsistencies.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#449
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> 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"?).
>
And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
> If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
Then your name might be Marc and you should stay the hell out of an SUV.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#450
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >> 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"?).
>
And yet 20,000 pound 18 wheelers do it every day. Isn't that odd. Must
be the extra wheels. Or maybe it's the amphetamines.
> If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
Then your name might be Marc and you should stay the hell out of an SUV.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.