Nate Nagel

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> 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
>

Fixed-barrier crash tests, that is. And I agree.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> 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
>

Fixed-barrier crash tests, that is. And I agree.

nate

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

Nate Nagel

Matthew S. Whiting wrote:

> 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
>

Fixed-barrier crash tests, that is. And I agree.

nate

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

Dave Milne

Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:xyZjb.25$uG.124095@news.abs.net...
: 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.
:
: nate
:
: Mike Romain wrote:
:
: > You are an idiot bud.
: >
: > If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
: > numbers below indicate.
: >
: > I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are
: > they something like 10 fatalities?
: >
: > Mike
: > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
: > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: >
: >>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: >>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: >>weight. See:
: >>
: >>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
: >>
: >>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
: >>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
: >>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
: >>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
: >>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
: >>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
: >>
: >>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
: >>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
: >>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
: >>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
: >>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
: >>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
: >>others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
: >>numbers are:
: >>
: >>Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
: >> (pounds) per billion miles
: >>
: >>Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
: >>Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
: >>Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
: >>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
: >>Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
: >>
: >>So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
: >>SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
: >>safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
: >>than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
: >>
: >>These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
: >>account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
: >>even worse.
: >>
: >>The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
: >>cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
: >>heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
: >>thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
: >>is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
: >>passengers.
: >>
: >>Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
: >>Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
: >>SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
: >>SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
: >>disadvantages of the SUV design.
: >>
: >>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.
: >>
: >>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,
: >>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
: >>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
: >>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
: >>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. 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.
:
:
: --
: remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
:

Dave Milne

Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:xyZjb.25$uG.124095@news.abs.net...
: 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.
:
: nate
:
: Mike Romain wrote:
:
: > You are an idiot bud.
: >
: > If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
: > numbers below indicate.
: >
: > I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are
: > they something like 10 fatalities?
: >
: > Mike
: > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
: > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: >
: >>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: >>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: >>weight. See:
: >>
: >>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
: >>
: >>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
: >>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
: >>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
: >>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
: >>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
: >>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
: >>
: >>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
: >>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
: >>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
: >>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
: >>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
: >>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
: >>others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
: >>numbers are:
: >>
: >>Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
: >> (pounds) per billion miles
: >>
: >>Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
: >>Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
: >>Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
: >>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
: >>Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
: >>
: >>So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
: >>SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
: >>safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
: >>than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
: >>
: >>These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
: >>account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
: >>even worse.
: >>
: >>The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
: >>cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
: >>heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
: >>thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
: >>is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
: >>passengers.
: >>
: >>Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
: >>Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
: >>SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
: >>SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
: >>disadvantages of the SUV design.
: >>
: >>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.
: >>
: >>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,
: >>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
: >>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
: >>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
: >>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. 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.
:
:
: --
: remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
:

Dave Milne

Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
an acceptable risk in a chicken ---- society. Cancer on the other hand ...

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:xyZjb.25$uG.124095@news.abs.net...
: 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.
:
: nate
:
: Mike Romain wrote:
:
: > You are an idiot bud.
: >
: > If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
: > numbers below indicate.
: >
: > I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are
: > they something like 10 fatalities?
: >
: > Mike
: > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
: > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: >
: >>Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: >>Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: >>weight. See:
: >>
: >>http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/...pdf/809662.pdf
: >>
: >>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
: >>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
: >>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
: >>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
: >>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
: >>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
: >>
: >>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
: >>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
: >>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
: >>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
: >>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
: >>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
: >>others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
: >>numbers are:
: >>
: >>Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
: >> (pounds) per billion miles
: >>
: >>Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
: >>Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
: >>Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
: >>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
: >>Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
: >>
: >>So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
: >>SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
: >>safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
: >>than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
: >>
: >>These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
: >>account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
: >>even worse.
: >>
: >>The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
: >>cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
: >>heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
: >>thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
: >>is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
: >>passengers.
: >>
: >>Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
: >>Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
: >>SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
: >>SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
: >>disadvantages of the SUV design.
: >>
: >>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.
: >>
: >>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,
: >>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
: >>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
: >>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
: >>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. 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.
:
:
: --
: remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
:

Bill Putney

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,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.

Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.

My guess is that you're posting this to several newsgroups as some trial
balloon for a political think-tank. Report back to them that they suck.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney

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,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.

Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.

My guess is that you're posting this to several newsgroups as some trial
balloon for a political think-tank. Report back to them that they suck.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bill Putney

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,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.

Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.

My guess is that you're posting this to several newsgroups as some trial
balloon for a political think-tank. Report back to them that they suck.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Nate Nagel

P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:

> 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.

yes, actually, it is.

>
> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
>>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.

nate


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