Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#581
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vp3o3abkm1c8c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
> No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer
than
> anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing
that
> never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and
want
> to buy.
This is a stupid attitude.
These studies are free information of the taking. Consumers can use them to
slightly increase their odds of surviving an auto wreck Auto manufacturers
can
use them to redesign their products to make them safer.
Unfortunately, the auto manufacturers all have your attitude - which is were
gonna
do what we keep doing and ---- whatever anyone else has to say.
Thus, it's up to the consumers to force the automakers to improve their
products.
If comsumers all feel as you do, then their buying habits won't change and
the
automakers won't change. Fortunately, auto purchasers generally do seem to
care
about this kind of information, and their buying habits do change as a
result, and
as a result of that the automakers design safer cars.
There's an excellent chance that you, sir, are alive today because of a
safety
improvement in an automobile, and you may not even be aware of it. If you
ever
had a near miss that you avoided because you saw the headlights quickly
enough,
or stopped in time before smashing into something, or anything like that, or
your
mother or father or their mothers and fathers ever had such an experience,
you
should be more appreciative of the efforts of people trying to publicize
less-safe
vehicles.
Ted
#582
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vp3o3abkm1c8c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
> No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer
than
> anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing
that
> never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and
want
> to buy.
This is a stupid attitude.
These studies are free information of the taking. Consumers can use them to
slightly increase their odds of surviving an auto wreck Auto manufacturers
can
use them to redesign their products to make them safer.
Unfortunately, the auto manufacturers all have your attitude - which is were
gonna
do what we keep doing and ---- whatever anyone else has to say.
Thus, it's up to the consumers to force the automakers to improve their
products.
If comsumers all feel as you do, then their buying habits won't change and
the
automakers won't change. Fortunately, auto purchasers generally do seem to
care
about this kind of information, and their buying habits do change as a
result, and
as a result of that the automakers design safer cars.
There's an excellent chance that you, sir, are alive today because of a
safety
improvement in an automobile, and you may not even be aware of it. If you
ever
had a near miss that you avoided because you saw the headlights quickly
enough,
or stopped in time before smashing into something, or anything like that, or
your
mother or father or their mothers and fathers ever had such an experience,
you
should be more appreciative of the efforts of people trying to publicize
less-safe
vehicles.
Ted
#583
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
news:vp3o3abkm1c8c@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
> No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer
than
> anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing
that
> never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and
want
> to buy.
This is a stupid attitude.
These studies are free information of the taking. Consumers can use them to
slightly increase their odds of surviving an auto wreck Auto manufacturers
can
use them to redesign their products to make them safer.
Unfortunately, the auto manufacturers all have your attitude - which is were
gonna
do what we keep doing and ---- whatever anyone else has to say.
Thus, it's up to the consumers to force the automakers to improve their
products.
If comsumers all feel as you do, then their buying habits won't change and
the
automakers won't change. Fortunately, auto purchasers generally do seem to
care
about this kind of information, and their buying habits do change as a
result, and
as a result of that the automakers design safer cars.
There's an excellent chance that you, sir, are alive today because of a
safety
improvement in an automobile, and you may not even be aware of it. If you
ever
had a near miss that you avoided because you saw the headlights quickly
enough,
or stopped in time before smashing into something, or anything like that, or
your
mother or father or their mothers and fathers ever had such an experience,
you
should be more appreciative of the efforts of people trying to publicize
less-safe
vehicles.
Ted
#584
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:XTjkb.588426$cF.257823@rwcrnsc53...
> Approximately 10/18/03 15:56, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>
> >> > Nawww, he's likely to be able to steer around it very nimbly. The
SUV
> > is
> >> > more likely to hit another SUV head-on, as neither is nimble enough
to
> > avoid
> >> > the encounter. -Dave
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Don't drive much these days or pay attention to road tests, huh
Davie?
> >>
> >
> > What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice).
My
> > current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and
it's
> > not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave
>
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
>
Whenever I look at theses two "SUVs" I keep thinking the AMC Eagle was ahead
of its time.
> --
> My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
#585
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:XTjkb.588426$cF.257823@rwcrnsc53...
> Approximately 10/18/03 15:56, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>
> >> > Nawww, he's likely to be able to steer around it very nimbly. The
SUV
> > is
> >> > more likely to hit another SUV head-on, as neither is nimble enough
to
> > avoid
> >> > the encounter. -Dave
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Don't drive much these days or pay attention to road tests, huh
Davie?
> >>
> >
> > What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice).
My
> > current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and
it's
> > not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave
>
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
>
Whenever I look at theses two "SUVs" I keep thinking the AMC Eagle was ahead
of its time.
> --
> My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
#586
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Lon Stowell" <LonDot.Stowell@ComcastPeriod.Net> wrote in message
news:XTjkb.588426$cF.257823@rwcrnsc53...
> Approximately 10/18/03 15:56, Dave C. uttered for posterity:
>
> >> > Nawww, he's likely to be able to steer around it very nimbly. The
SUV
> > is
> >> > more likely to hit another SUV head-on, as neither is nimble enough
to
> > avoid
> >> > the encounter. -Dave
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Don't drive much these days or pay attention to road tests, huh
Davie?
> >>
> >
> > What are you talking about? I've driven several SUVs (not by choice).
My
> > current daily driver is a Ford 4X4 pickup. It handles like crap, and
it's
> > not nearly as top-heavy as the SUVs that are based on it are. -Dave
>
> Go drive a *modern* SUV, say the new VW or Porsche one. Then try
> to keep up with a Turbo Cayenne with a typical sport sedan.
>
Whenever I look at theses two "SUVs" I keep thinking the AMC Eagle was ahead
of its time.
> --
> My governor can kick your governor's ***
>
#587
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:RP2kb.56$uG.168178@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> >>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Go figure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> >>>>handling for crash safety.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>case.
> >>
> >>yes, actually, it is.
> >
> >
> > Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> > just in case.
> >
> > Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
> >
> >
> >>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
> >>>
> >>
> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> >
> > Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
> >
> >
> >>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>yours I suppose.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
> >>>
> >>>intended
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
> >>>
> >>>commuting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
> >>>
> >>>What a great country, eh?
> >>>
> >>
> >>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
> >
> > an
> >
> >>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
> >
> > you
> >
> >>though.
> >
> >
> > So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> > many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> > that makes me an ***?
> >
> > I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
> >
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
>
> nate
The car based ones used to be called station wagons. Since that designation
isn't considered "cool" to the type of people (trend followers) these
vehicles are aimed at in the market place these overpriced tin cans are
designated as SUVs.
>
> --
> remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>
#588
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:RP2kb.56$uG.168178@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> >>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Go figure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> >>>>handling for crash safety.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>case.
> >>
> >>yes, actually, it is.
> >
> >
> > Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> > just in case.
> >
> > Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
> >
> >
> >>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
> >>>
> >>
> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> >
> > Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
> >
> >
> >>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>yours I suppose.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
> >>>
> >>>intended
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
> >>>
> >>>commuting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
> >>>
> >>>What a great country, eh?
> >>>
> >>
> >>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
> >
> > an
> >
> >>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
> >
> > you
> >
> >>though.
> >
> >
> > So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> > many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> > that makes me an ***?
> >
> > I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
> >
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
>
> nate
The car based ones used to be called station wagons. Since that designation
isn't considered "cool" to the type of people (trend followers) these
vehicles are aimed at in the market place these overpriced tin cans are
designated as SUVs.
>
> --
> remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>
#589
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:RP2kb.56$uG.168178@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 18:36:07 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
> >>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Go figure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> >>>>handling for crash safety.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>case.
> >>
> >>yes, actually, it is.
> >
> >
> > Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
> > just in case.
> >
> > Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
> >
> >
> >>>My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
> >>>
> >>
> >>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> >
> > Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
> >
> >
> >>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>yours I suppose.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
> >>>
> >>>intended
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
> >>>
> >>>commuting
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
> >>>
> >>>What a great country, eh?
> >>>
> >>
> >>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
> >
> > an
> >
> >>*** out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
> >
> > you
> >
> >>though.
> >
> >
> > So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
> > many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
> > that makes me an ***?
> >
> > I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
> >
>
> Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
> Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
> supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
>
> nate
The car based ones used to be called station wagons. Since that designation
isn't considered "cool" to the type of people (trend followers) these
vehicles are aimed at in the market place these overpriced tin cans are
designated as SUVs.
>
> --
> remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
>
#590
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
What would that have to do with vehicle weight? Knowing our cars would be
tin-and-plastic pieces of ---- would we all be mortally afraid to ever
pass anyone? One of the _last_ things we need on the road is an increase
in the number of timid, terrified drivers in gutless mouse-mobiles.
> spend less money on cars,
The amount of money one spends on a car is an individual's choice, up to
their limit--and by the way it is actually _more_ expensive to design a
lighter car, all else equal, than a heavier one. That's one of the main
unfortunate effects of CAFE laws--making large cars so expensive to
engineer that they become uneconomical to produce, so anyone looking for a
large, solid vehicle has to buy a truck, which is much less
crash-compatible and uses far more gas than any similarly hefty car ever
would. The only reason compact cars are less expensive in the first place
is that no one is going to pay more for less metal when they buy a car.
They're actually sold at a loss, by and large. With no large vehicles for
comparison/competition, just exactly how long would _that_ continue?
> spend less on gas, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries.
Variable cylinder displacement and hybrid technologies will vastly reduce
the amount of fossil fuels vehicles will use, and a switch to hydrogen
fuel cell technology will end its use completely. At that point it will
not matter how much vehicles weigh as far as pollution is concerned, nor
how unstable petroleum supplies become.
> protect others,
It is not the problem of the other vehicle owner if the car you _choose_
to buy will put you at a greater disadvantage in a collision; if you don't
like the odds driving a Geo Metro, don't buy one--I certainly won't.
(This does not hold for light truck based vehicles--many of them override
automobile impact guards, which there is no excuse for.)
> Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
This does endanger other vehicles on the asphault--much more so than
having them drive at prevailing traffic speeds. It causes irregularities
in the traffic flow as other vehicles are continuously passing them, and
also a much increased hazard for other traffic as they pull out to pass
each other--both immediately, by moving very slowly in the passing lane,
and indirectly, by creating a rolling block leading to further congestion
in the traffic flow. All of which contributes to a significantly
increased likelihood of collisions at those points.
As much truck traffic as is reasonably possible should be replaced by rail
transport--on main trunk routes the latter is much more efficient.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.
No it isn't, there are and will continue to be far heavier vehicles such
as 20,000-80,000lb busses and semis, that at any remotely reasonable speed
will still have far more impact energy than any car or light truck; the
smaller vehicles will still need to be reasonably sized (e.g. ~4000 lb.
cars, which are rather moderate in weight compared to some that were
rolling off the assembly lines 25 years ago) in order to have strong
enough frames to give their occupants some semblance of a chance in a
passenger vehicle-large truck collision.
--Aardwolf.