Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:

>I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
>things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
>wouldn't. End of discussion.

Then you are not one of the people being discussed. The discussion was
about safety and the people that buy particular vehicles for safety. When
that feature is not on the list of attributes considered, then this current
discussion on safety would be quite irrelevant to your purchase.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Trentus" <The_Super_T@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
>news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>> > Georgoudis) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>> >>car.
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
>newsgroups.
>
Does that somehow prevent P e t e, a regular of r.a.d, from reading the
posts in r.a.d?

Just because you aren't reading it from r.a.d doesn't mean that I don't
know whether Nate or P e t e read it from r.a.d (or more apropos, whether
Nate knows P e t e reads it from r.a.d).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Trentus" <The_Super_T@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
>news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>> > Georgoudis) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>> >>car.
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
>newsgroups.
>
Does that somehow prevent P e t e, a regular of r.a.d, from reading the
posts in r.a.d?

Just because you aren't reading it from r.a.d doesn't mean that I don't
know whether Nate or P e t e read it from r.a.d (or more apropos, whether
Nate knows P e t e reads it from r.a.d).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Trentus" <The_Super_T@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
>news:FwZjb.24$uG.123727@news.abs.net...
>> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dianelos@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>> > Georgoudis) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>> >>car.
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
>newsgroups.
>
Does that somehow prevent P e t e, a regular of r.a.d, from reading the
posts in r.a.d?

Just because you aren't reading it from r.a.d doesn't mean that I don't
know whether Nate or P e t e read it from r.a.d (or more apropos, whether
Nate knows P e t e reads it from r.a.d).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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?

Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
be more able to avoid crashes.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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?

Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
be more able to avoid crashes.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>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?

Because crashes with solid stationary objects and objects of the same size
are roughly the same safety for all sizes of cars (the extremely small
being an exception mainly because they are usually cheaply made, and the
extremely large for the opposite reason). But if all vehicles were 1/3 the
weight of another comparison population, then the smaller vehicles should
be more able to avoid crashes.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>>>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>>>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>>>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>>>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>>>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>>>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
>>
>>
>> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
>> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
>> damage to others.
>>
>> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
>> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
>> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
>> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
>> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>>
>> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
>> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
>> crashes?
>
>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.

Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>>>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>>>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>>>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>>>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>>>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>>>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
>>
>>
>> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
>> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
>> damage to others.
>>
>> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
>> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
>> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
>> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
>> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>>
>> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
>> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
>> crashes?
>
>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.

Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>>>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>>>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>>>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>>>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>>>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>>>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
>>
>>
>> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
>> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
>> damage to others.
>>
>> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
>> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
>> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
>> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
>> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>>
>> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
>> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
>> crashes?
>
>Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
>simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
>and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
>figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.

Simply put, that is all you need to say. We know that there are a large
number of incompetent drivers out there. Would you rather them be hitting
you while driving larger or smaller vehicles? Do you think that their
inferior skills attempt to control a 6000 lb vehicle with a high roll
center that wasn't designed solely for on road use (despite the fact that
they will never take it off-road) or would you rather them be in a 2000 lb
vehicle with a low roll center optimized solely for on-road travel?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"