On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:59 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>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.
>
The seat is connected to the vehicle's structure.
When the seat moves in relation to the cage, the cage is just
something else to hit.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:59 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>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.
>
The seat is connected to the vehicle's structure.
When the seat moves in relation to the cage, the cage is just
something else to hit.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:21:59 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>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.
>
The seat is connected to the vehicle's structure.
When the seat moves in relation to the cage, the cage is just
something else to hit.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:16:09 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>> A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
>> that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
>> and safety.
>
>Not really, as the relationship between accident avoidance ability and
>accident survivability is not linear. That is, with SOME certain SUVs, you
>might have a SLIGHTLY better chance of surviving a collision with SOME
>certain other vehicles. But then again, with any decent handling car (not
>necessarily a performance oriented car, either), your chances of avoiding
>the accident in the first place are much better, and your odds of surviving
>one are not significantly decreased.

Did you not read what I wrote?
That handling advantage is useless if it's not used.
>
>In short, the SUV bulk gives some drivers a false sense of security just as
>the better handling of cars gives some drivers a false sense of security,
>ALSO. But even a below-average driver will NEED to crank hard on the
>steering wheel EVENTUALLY, to save someone's life. This is an unavoidable
>eventuality, even if you drive your SUV as if it is the piece of chit that
>it is. So WHEN (not if) that moment comes, you're better off to be driving
>a car. -Dave
>
*IF* you recognize that moment, and actually take proper action.
Which is what I said above.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:16:09 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>> A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
>> that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
>> and safety.
>
>Not really, as the relationship between accident avoidance ability and
>accident survivability is not linear. That is, with SOME certain SUVs, you
>might have a SLIGHTLY better chance of surviving a collision with SOME
>certain other vehicles. But then again, with any decent handling car (not
>necessarily a performance oriented car, either), your chances of avoiding
>the accident in the first place are much better, and your odds of surviving
>one are not significantly decreased.

Did you not read what I wrote?
That handling advantage is useless if it's not used.
>
>In short, the SUV bulk gives some drivers a false sense of security just as
>the better handling of cars gives some drivers a false sense of security,
>ALSO. But even a below-average driver will NEED to crank hard on the
>steering wheel EVENTUALLY, to save someone's life. This is an unavoidable
>eventuality, even if you drive your SUV as if it is the piece of chit that
>it is. So WHEN (not if) that moment comes, you're better off to be driving
>a car. -Dave
>
*IF* you recognize that moment, and actually take proper action.
Which is what I said above.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:16:09 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>> A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
>> that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
>> and safety.
>
>Not really, as the relationship between accident avoidance ability and
>accident survivability is not linear. That is, with SOME certain SUVs, you
>might have a SLIGHTLY better chance of surviving a collision with SOME
>certain other vehicles. But then again, with any decent handling car (not
>necessarily a performance oriented car, either), your chances of avoiding
>the accident in the first place are much better, and your odds of surviving
>one are not significantly decreased.

Did you not read what I wrote?
That handling advantage is useless if it's not used.
>
>In short, the SUV bulk gives some drivers a false sense of security just as
>the better handling of cars gives some drivers a false sense of security,
>ALSO. But even a below-average driver will NEED to crank hard on the
>steering wheel EVENTUALLY, to save someone's life. This is an unavoidable
>eventuality, even if you drive your SUV as if it is the piece of chit that
>it is. So WHEN (not if) that moment comes, you're better off to be driving
>a car. -Dave
>
*IF* you recognize that moment, and actually take proper action.
Which is what I said above.

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:46:04 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>>
>> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
Really?
Tell that to my SUVs.. I'm sure they'd like to know that they are
doing so well in the mileage department.
Where did you get this 8 mpg figure?

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:46:04 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>>
>> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
Really?
Tell that to my SUVs.. I'm sure they'd like to know that they are
doing so well in the mileage department.
Where did you get this 8 mpg figure?

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 02:46:04 GMT, "Dave C."
<spammersdie@slowlyandpainfully.com> wrote:

>>
>> SUVs get 8mpg. Ya that's a good generalization. Keep'em coming.
>
>Actually, that's pretty accurate, if we're talking about the SUVs that SELL
>WELL. The ones that get good mileage are enough like cars that they don't
>appeal to SUV buyers. -Dave
>
Really?
Tell that to my SUVs.. I'm sure they'd like to know that they are
doing so well in the mileage department.
Where did you get this 8 mpg figure?

 

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 00:08:24 -0800, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:

>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?

Given my druthers, I'd like to see a system of licensing that actually
keeps incompetent drivers off the roads.
Failing that (which is the reality), I'd like to see a system that at
the least tests for some sort of driving ability, instead of the
present American system that seems to believe that driving is a
necessity, and passes everyone who knows their ZIP code (and has the
testers prompt those who are in danger of failing even that criteria).