Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#914
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92FD46.3080203@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
> > thousandths of one percent.
> > Big deal.
>
> It is a big deal if you are one of the 3,400.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Wouldn't it be great if we had a land mass the size of Scotland and
didn't have to drive anywhere?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
> > thousandths of one percent.
> > Big deal.
>
> It is a big deal if you are one of the 3,400.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Wouldn't it be great if we had a land mass the size of Scotland and
didn't have to drive anywhere?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#915
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92FD46.3080203@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
> > thousandths of one percent.
> > Big deal.
>
> It is a big deal if you are one of the 3,400.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Wouldn't it be great if we had a land mass the size of Scotland and
didn't have to drive anywhere?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
> > thousandths of one percent.
> > Big deal.
>
> It is a big deal if you are one of the 3,400.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Wouldn't it be great if we had a land mass the size of Scotland and
didn't have to drive anywhere?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#916
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
In article <3F92FD46.3080203@computer.org>, m.whiting@computer.org
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
> > thousandths of one percent.
> > Big deal.
>
> It is a big deal if you are one of the 3,400.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Wouldn't it be great if we had a land mass the size of Scotland and
didn't have to drive anywhere?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
says...
> Dave Milne wrote:
> > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
> > thousandths of one percent.
> > Big deal.
>
> It is a big deal if you are one of the 3,400.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
Wouldn't it be great if we had a land mass the size of Scotland and
didn't have to drive anywhere?
--
____________________
Remove "X" from email address to reply.
#917
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I know these bleeding heart liberals will never look at the facts,
but just there' one here with brains, here's what my insurance company
is willing to gamble on my full sized truck compared my intermediate
sized passenger car: http://www.----------.com/wawanesa02.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
> renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
> party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
> higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
> consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
> Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
> sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
> on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
> liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
> tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
> others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
> correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
>
> Matt
but just there' one here with brains, here's what my insurance company
is willing to gamble on my full sized truck compared my intermediate
sized passenger car: http://www.----------.com/wawanesa02.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
> renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
> party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
> higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
> consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
> Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
> sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
> on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
> liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
> tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
> others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
> correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
>
> Matt
#918
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I know these bleeding heart liberals will never look at the facts,
but just there' one here with brains, here's what my insurance company
is willing to gamble on my full sized truck compared my intermediate
sized passenger car: http://www.----------.com/wawanesa02.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
> renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
> party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
> higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
> consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
> Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
> sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
> on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
> liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
> tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
> others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
> correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
>
> Matt
but just there' one here with brains, here's what my insurance company
is willing to gamble on my full sized truck compared my intermediate
sized passenger car: http://www.----------.com/wawanesa02.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
> renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
> party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
> higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
> consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
> Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
> sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
> on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
> liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
> tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
> others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
> correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
>
> Matt
#919
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
I know these bleeding heart liberals will never look at the facts,
but just there' one here with brains, here's what my insurance company
is willing to gamble on my full sized truck compared my intermediate
sized passenger car: http://www.----------.com/wawanesa02.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
> renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
> party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
> higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
> consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
> Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
> sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
> on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
> liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
> tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
> others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
> correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
>
> Matt
but just there' one here with brains, here's what my insurance company
is willing to gamble on my full sized truck compared my intermediate
sized passenger car: http://www.----------.com/wawanesa02.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> The only thing that counts in the end is money. I just got my insurance
> renewal and my Chevy truck has the lowest cost for liability and first
> party benefits of any of my three vehicles. My minivans are slightly
> higher, the older one is highest by a few dollars. Apparently, they
> consider the newer one safer, but neither matches my trusty old K1500.
> Since insurance companies' financial success rests on getting these
> sorts of things correct (I don't know what the success of IIHS rests
> on), I'll believe this "statistic" more than any other. Since both the
> liability and first person benefit cost are lower on the truck, that
> tells me that they expect the truck to cost them less both in damage to
> others and in damage to its own occupants (if I understand the policy
> correctly, which I'm not entirely confident I do!).
>
> Matt
#920
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
those were UK figures, including Scotland.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcd4f2137a54a3989e36@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: In article <zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: > thousandths of one percent.
: > Big deal.
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: > news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: > : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: > : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: > yours..
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > :
: > : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But
then
: > : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: > : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: > : --
: > : ____________________
: > : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
: >
: >
: >
:
: Are you in Scotland or aren't you?
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.
--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:MPG.19fcd4f2137a54a3989e36@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: In article <zrCkb.132$NG2.1254506@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: > thousandths of one percent.
: > Big deal.
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > "Chris Phillipo" <Xcphillipo@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
: > news:MPG.19fcc664c225db67989e35@news.eastlink.ca.. .
: > : In article <qLBkb.74$Oq2.1029332@news-text.cableinet.net>,
: > : jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > : > works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than
: > yours..
: > : >
: > : > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: > : >
: > :
: > : I would hardly call over 20,000 road deaths a year, "working". But
then
: > : again people have come to accept that sort of number as low and
: > : acceptable, as long as their kid isn't number 19,856.
: > : --
: > : ____________________
: > : Remove "X" from email address to reply.
: >
: >
: >
:
: Are you in Scotland or aren't you?
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.