Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
10-18-2003, 09:03 PM
#451
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.
10-18-2003, 09:05 PM
#452
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.
At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.
People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.
Matt
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.
At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.
People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.
Matt
10-18-2003, 09:05 PM
#453
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.
At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.
People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.
Matt
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.
At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.
People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.
Matt
10-18-2003, 09:05 PM
#454
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dave C. wrote:
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.
At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.
People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.
Matt
>>I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
>>of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
>>characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>>
>
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
I agree that for this particular situation, a car is much better than a
truck or SUV. But I don't buy any vehicle, even a car, for only one
situation such as this. I buy a vehicle that meets my needs in a wide
range of situations and, for me, a pickup is the only vehicle that meets
my needs. I drive a good part of the year with a snow-plow on my truck.
This degrades the handling substantially, but it is necessary for me.
I drive accordingly and don't try to run slaloms at 65 MPH or drive
fast in urban areas where the need for an evasive maneuver is greater.
At the same speed, a pickup won't make an evasive maneuver as well as a
car. However, there is a speed where the pickup WILL perform as well as
the car does at a higher speed. If I drive the city streets at 30 in my
truck and some bozo who thinks his BMW can handle anthing drives the
same street at 45, chances are I'll be in much better shape to evade an
errant soccer ball chased by an 8 year-old. That is my point about
driving according to the capabilities and characteristics of your vehicle.
People who drive their Expedition like they drive their BMW are idiots
pure and simple.
Matt
10-18-2003, 09:06 PM
#455
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gao1pv4mj5eodue5g2o3076fi6pjpr6ufq@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old shitbox car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old shitbox car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-18-2003, 09:06 PM
#456
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gao1pv4mj5eodue5g2o3076fi6pjpr6ufq@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old shitbox car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old shitbox car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-18-2003, 09:06 PM
#457
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <gao1pv4mj5eodue5g2o3076fi6pjpr6ufq@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old shitbox car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Tell me Marc, which do you think handles better, a 2003 SUV or a 15 year
old shitbox car with bald tires? Which do you think there are more of
on the road today? Think hard.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-18-2003, 09:09 PM
#458
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>
Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>
Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-18-2003, 09:09 PM
#459
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>
Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>
Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
10-18-2003, 09:09 PM
#460
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <fAjkb.2018$np1.1501@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>
Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com says...
> >
> > I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
> > of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
> > characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.
> >
> >
> > Matt
> >
>
> For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
> maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
> designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave
>
>
>
Fortunately the majority of these mythical sudden accident avoidance
maneuvers are only performed by Consumer Reports stunt men and Nissan's
ad agency. Go out into a parking lot with a front wheel drive car and
try to J-turn it without using the parking break. Unless you are a stunt
driver with 5 years of training I bet you can't even get the wheels 10
feet off line before they start to understeer horribly like all front
wheel drive cars do.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.