Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4611
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:03n1pv820jn8mdogn9m9avba4c3k1s3b1a@4ax.com...
> "Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
> >This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
> >
> >The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions;
there
> >is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
>
> In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
> weighted cars. 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.
Isn't that what I just said? Extra weight gives no advantage when it's a
single-vehicle accident.
The fact that ultra-expensive cars have better safety engineering doesn't
help those of us who cannot afford a $40K vehicle.
> >The large
> >vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
vehicle.
>
> That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
> crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
> and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
> Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
> F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
> Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
No, it is TRUE. The crash-test results are SINGLE-VEHICLE vs FIXED BARRIER.
They tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results of a TWO-VEHICLE
COLLISION!
Using the crash test results to speculate on two-vehicle accidents is worse
than wrong; it's misuse of the data. A fixed barrier returns ALL of the
force applied to it (Newton's Laws) - the collision with a Civic won't
return anywhere near that much! The Civic, being the lighter car,
experiences far higher accelerational force than the truck. It's not a
50-50 proposition; the ratio of force is equal to the ratio of WEIGHT
(MASS). If the truck weighs twice what the Civic does, the Civic will
experience twice the accelerational force after the collision. Simple
Physics. Don't you remember the experiment in High School colliding spheres
of various size and weight?
Note that this principle also applies to any collision with large trucks or
buses. It's why you should always be very careful and courteous to big
rigs: you can get killed very easily in a collision with one, even in the
largest and heaviest car, truck, or SUV. Not even a Hummer will keep you
safe tangling with a 50 ton tandem rig.
> So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
> ------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
> talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
> what you are talking about.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4612
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:03n1pv820jn8mdogn9m9avba4c3k1s3b1a@4ax.com...
> "Robert A. Matern" <MaternRA@SENDME.npt.nuwc.navy.NOSPAM.mil> wrote:
>
> >This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
> >
> >The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions;
there
> >is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
>
> In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
> weighted cars. 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.
Isn't that what I just said? Extra weight gives no advantage when it's a
single-vehicle accident.
The fact that ultra-expensive cars have better safety engineering doesn't
help those of us who cannot afford a $40K vehicle.
> >The large
> >vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller
vehicle.
>
> That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
> crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
> and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
> Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
> F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
> Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
No, it is TRUE. The crash-test results are SINGLE-VEHICLE vs FIXED BARRIER.
They tell you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the results of a TWO-VEHICLE
COLLISION!
Using the crash test results to speculate on two-vehicle accidents is worse
than wrong; it's misuse of the data. A fixed barrier returns ALL of the
force applied to it (Newton's Laws) - the collision with a Civic won't
return anywhere near that much! The Civic, being the lighter car,
experiences far higher accelerational force than the truck. It's not a
50-50 proposition; the ratio of force is equal to the ratio of WEIGHT
(MASS). If the truck weighs twice what the Civic does, the Civic will
experience twice the accelerational force after the collision. Simple
Physics. Don't you remember the experiment in High School colliding spheres
of various size and weight?
Note that this principle also applies to any collision with large trucks or
buses. It's why you should always be very careful and courteous to big
rigs: you can get killed very easily in a collision with one, even in the
largest and heaviest car, truck, or SUV. Not even a Hummer will keep you
safe tangling with a 50 ton tandem rig.
> So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
> ------ them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
> talking about. Better yet, stop ------ing any such crap unless you know
> what you are talking about.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
#4613
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Are we on the verge of another ice age?
The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.
Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...
Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?
What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges1.../lecture5.html
interesting analysis
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/perm...ge_History.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!
http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...
http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...
The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.
Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...
Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?
What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges1.../lecture5.html
interesting analysis
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/perm...ge_History.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!
http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...
http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...
#4614
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Are we on the verge of another ice age?
The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.
Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...
Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?
What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges1.../lecture5.html
interesting analysis
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/perm...ge_History.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!
http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...
http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...
The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.
Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...
Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?
What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges1.../lecture5.html
interesting analysis
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/perm...ge_History.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!
http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...
http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...
#4615
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Are we on the verge of another ice age?
The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.
Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...
Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?
What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges1.../lecture5.html
interesting analysis
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/perm...ge_History.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!
http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...
http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...
The ice ages come in cycles... the variation in tilt (wobble) of the earth
on it rotational axis has a period of 23,000 years... and the 41,000 year
precession of the equinoxes plus other 100,000 and 413,000 year cycles.
Milankovich predicted ice ages every half-cycle (11,500 is half of 23,00)
and since the last ice age ended 11,500 years ago...
Are we now near the end of the cycle(s)... when the ice age cycle begins
again?
What if we're not facing 2 degrees warmer, but 10 degrees colder instead?
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sprecess.htm Milankovich Theory &
the July 1999 Postscript
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html NOAA on Orbital Dynamics
theory of Ice Ages
http://www.geology.um.maine.edu/ges1.../lecture5.html
interesting analysis
http://culter.colorado.edu/~saelias/glacier.html
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/perm...ge_History.htm
http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm Global Warming from
Earth getting closer to the sun!
http://iceagenow.com/index.htm The ICE AGE NOW book... some info links
also...
http://iceagenow.com/QandA.htm The Q&A for the book...
#4616
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
#4617
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
#4618
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
<benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using the
>first nuclear bomb.
Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
#4619
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
#4620
Guest
Posts: n/a
![Default](https://www.jeepscanada.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Nice selection of studies. Unfortunately, rather than accept the well
documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.
documented and monumental forces of nature to explain normal fluctuations in
climate and temperature, socialist green gas (bag) theorists will refute
anything other than "destructive Co2 emissions" from human activities as an
explanation for their totally unproven theories of global warming.