Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

Matthew S. Whiting 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? 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.
>
>
> Matt
>

Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.

nate

--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>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.

Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not the
case.

My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.

>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?

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>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.

Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not the
case.

My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.

>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?

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@hornytoad.net>
wrote:

>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.

Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not the
case.

My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.

>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?

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

In article <3F9064DD.4030202@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting 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.

Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
and drive them were younger and driving them.

This latest report follows the same trends for what must be a couple
decades by now.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

In article <3F9064DD.4030202@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting 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.

Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
and drive them were younger and driving them.

This latest report follows the same trends for what must be a couple
decades by now.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

In article <3F9064DD.4030202@computer.org>, Matthew S. Whiting 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.

Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
and drive them were younger and driving them.

This latest report follows the same trends for what must be a couple
decades by now.

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting 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? 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.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>
> nate
>

Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well. Probably
the best available indication would be their respective performance in
crash tests. These are imperfect to be sure, but they are about the
best we have at present.


Matt

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting 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? 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.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>
> nate
>

Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well. Probably
the best available indication would be their respective performance in
crash tests. These are imperfect to be sure, but they are about the
best we have at present.


Matt

Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
 

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Matthew S. Whiting 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? 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.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>
> nate
>

Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well. Probably
the best available indication would be their respective performance in
crash tests. These are imperfect to be sure, but they are about the
best we have at present.


Matt