Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#481
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.
#482
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bms665$6me$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu
says...
> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>
SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>
SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#483
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bms665$6me$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu
says...
> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>
SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>
SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#484
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <bms665$6me$3@puck.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@NOSPAMemory.edu
says...
> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>
SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> ,
> Kevin <Kevin@el.net> wrote:
>
> >Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> >cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> >bullet proof as you can get.
> >
> Until it rolls over.
>
> Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
> car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
> to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
>
SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#485
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>
>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>
>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>their agenda is correct.
>
>
> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>
> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> or even of considerable less weight.
>
> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>
> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
SUVs are safer than cars.
Matt
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>
>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>
>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>their agenda is correct.
>
>
> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>
> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> or even of considerable less weight.
>
> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>
> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
SUVs are safer than cars.
Matt
#486
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>
>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>
>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>their agenda is correct.
>
>
> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>
> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> or even of considerable less weight.
>
> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>
> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
SUVs are safer than cars.
Matt
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>
>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>
>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>their agenda is correct.
>
>
> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>
> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> or even of considerable less weight.
>
> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>
> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
SUVs are safer than cars.
Matt
#487
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>
>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>
>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>their agenda is correct.
>
>
> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>
> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> or even of considerable less weight.
>
> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>
> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
SUVs are safer than cars.
Matt
> "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message news:<Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu>...
>
>>On 17 Oct 2003, Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
>>>lighter passenger cars.
>>
>>Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
>>sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
>>do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
>>reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
>>political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
>>their agenda is correct.
>
>
> Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
> Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.
>
> This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
> traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
> more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
> or even of considerable less weight.
>
> It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
> profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
> passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
> a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.
>
> Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
> discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
> perceived safety, and this is wrong.
Who is deceiving them? I don't recall seeing many ads claiming that
SUVs are safer than cars.
Matt
#488
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sao1pvs52cf1ao6d810d1kudlp0fbmh02o@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>
A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>
A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
#489
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sao1pvs52cf1ao6d810d1kudlp0fbmh02o@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>
A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>
A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
#490
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <sao1pvs52cf1ao6d810d1kudlp0fbmh02o@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>
A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:01:44 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.202488@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net> , Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>> bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>>metro.
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
> When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
>
A good roll cage doesn't need the vehicle's structure.