Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#471
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nBekb.306369$mp.245290@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net> ,
Kevin@el.net says...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >
> >>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>
CAFE is the oil industry's bitch, working hard to make you think the
government is taking car of you.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
Kevin@el.net says...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> >
> >>CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> >>been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
> >
> >
> > This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> > to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
> > year
> > as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> > one
> > thing are balanced by the other.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >
> CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
>
>
CAFE is the oil industry's bitch, working hard to make you think the
government is taking car of you.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#472
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <nBekb.306369$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.
#473
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >>
> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >
> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
> 60s crap.
>
> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#474
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >>
> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >
> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
> 60s crap.
>
> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#475
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> >>
> >CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
> >
> Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
> 60s crap.
>
> CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
>
And don't get anything decent that runs on diesel.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#476
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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.
But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.
And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.
Matt
> "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.
But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.
And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.
Matt
#477
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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.
But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.
And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.
Matt
> "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.
But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.
And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.
Matt
#478
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Marc wrote:
> "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.
But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.
And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.
Matt
> "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.
But good where it counts ... injuries expected. I don't care if the
truck looks good after the accident or if the passenger space is less
after the crash, as long as I don't get hurt. My truck rates the same
as your car in all four injury metrics. The passenger space may be
smaller in the truck than before the crash, but since it is so much
larger than the car's space to start with, it could get reduced by 20%
and still be as big as your car.
And your dummy hit its head on the B pillar. Even though in this case the
acceleration forces from that impact are said to be neglible, it could
be much
different in the next similar crash.
Matt
#479
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
> road; your SUV rolls over.
>
> >I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
> >My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
> >(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
> >large SUV.
>
> Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
>
>
Haha you boys sure you live in quite a world not based on physics. did
the last SUV you drive have a 18 ft steel mast on the roof or something?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#480
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
> No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
> road; your SUV rolls over.
>
> >I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
> >My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
> >(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
> >large SUV.
>
> Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
>
>
Haha you boys sure you live in quite a world not based on physics. did
the last SUV you drive have a 18 ft steel mast on the roof or something?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.