Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#461
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bqt1pv4jjdu3ilc96cv0rshs7rgg2dfrei@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >you to believe.
>
> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>
Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >you to believe.
>
> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>
Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#462
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bqt1pv4jjdu3ilc96cv0rshs7rgg2dfrei@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >you to believe.
>
> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>
Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >you to believe.
>
> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>
Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#463
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bqt1pv4jjdu3ilc96cv0rshs7rgg2dfrei@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >you to believe.
>
> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>
Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >you to believe.
>
> If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> >Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
>
> Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
>
Because you say so? Who is this guy who keeps crashing small SUVs
anyway? Did you go on a bunch of test drives last weekend?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#464
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F91BFF6.8040104@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Marc wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >>you to believe.
> >
> >
> > If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> > vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> Why?
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Marc wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >>you to believe.
> >
> >
> > If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> > vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> Why?
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#465
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F91BFF6.8040104@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Marc wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >>you to believe.
> >
> >
> > If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> > vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> Why?
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Marc wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >>you to believe.
> >
> >
> > If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> > vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> Why?
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#466
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F91BFF6.8040104@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Marc wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >>you to believe.
> >
> >
> > If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> > vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> Why?
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Marc wrote:
> > "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcgeorge@frontier.net> wrote:
> >
> >>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
> >>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
> >>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
> >>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
> >>you to believe.
> >
> >
> > If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
> > vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>
> Why?
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Because in the world according to Marc, there were not 400,000
collisions involving large commercial trucks last year in the USA. I
guess if you drive a KIA you stand a 50/50 chance of passing under the
oncoming semi.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#467
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#468
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#469
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <c4v1pvgldtt2aq8o1kmm6lqcu2qdip1ov4@4ax.com>,
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
whineryy@yifan.net says...
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
> >one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
> >boasts about.
>
> I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
> a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
> actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
> similar price point.
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
Speaking of point, was there one in that post?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#470
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nBekb.306369$mp.245290@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin@el.net says...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >
> >>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>
CAFE is the oil industry's bitch, working hard to make you think the
government is taking car of you.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Kevin@el.net says...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >
> >>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>
CAFE is the oil industry's bitch, working hard to make you think the
government is taking car of you.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.