Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Exactly. They may crush cars into accordion shaped pieces of scrap-metal, but
at least they don't tend to submarine them.

They got dropped, from '82 until '97. A few models still had them but there was
no longer a mandate. And they certainly did work, witness the return of such a
requirement for '97. The old models used beams the size and shape of extra
frame rails, it should be possible to get equivalent levels of protection with
lighter tubular-section guard beams, as most are anyway nowadays. For that
purpose they'd be just as resistant with less mass. But perhaps they'd still
have to be a bit higher-gauge than current standards require--I've not reviewed
them in detail.

As far as I'm concerned the mass should be in the cage, not the doors; it's hard
on the hinges.


--Aardwolf.

 

So you advertise them. People will buy what they're told they want. Those
that actually _need_ to haul big pieces of plywood around, might then still
buy trucks, but what's wrong with that?

--Aardwolf.

 

I had a '68 Camaro 327/350 that was built to CARB specs.
It had an EGR setup.

 

No offense, but I was referring to reality.
You seem to be wanting some sort of system whereby each driver is
allotted a 'tax' payment based on the proportion of all the resources
that driver uses wheile on the road.
Such a system is appealing to some, but how would it be administered?

Yes. That's reality.

But Billy Bob has to do all that, too, and the flea-driver *does* gat
the break you want him to have, simply because he doesn't use (and pay
for) the expendables that Billy Bob is paying for.
Damage to the roads? Billy Bob's pickup and travel trailer (I have to
assume you're not thinking Billy Bob is driving a semi, because you
know semis pay far more in use taxes than light trucks) don't
materially harm the roads more than the fleas do.
And Billy Bob's truck has the same pollution control the fleas do.
Same Federal taxes? Maybe, maybe not. You can't say that the flea's
driver is paying the same, more, or less Federal tax than Billy Bob
based on vehicle choice. Billy Bob, in your scenario, IS paying more
gas tax.

If I could do that, I'd have a job in government, and be set for life!

Rad repair? The roads are built to handle semis.
Fuel? Possibly.
Insurance? I'm sure insurance premiums are based on the risk
presented, so that's already done.
Other costs?

That's sort of strange thinking, to me.
While a minority, they are still popular. They don't need to be a
majority to be popular.
Remember, the Ford F-series is the biggest seller in the US. I'd say
that's a pretty good insdication that they are popular, wouldn't you?

So they *are* popular? Didn't you just say they weren't?

Wait a minute...
Why are so many complaining that light trucks/SUVs are bought just out
of vanity, if, according to you, they are being bought for their
utility?
Are you saying that all (or even most) light trucks/SUVs are bought
for their utility?

 

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.

 

Did you not read what I wrote?
That handling advantage is useless if it's not used.

*IF* you recognize that moment, and actually take proper action.
Which is what I said above.

 

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?

 

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).

 

Yeah, I know it's a decent vehicle. But it's virtually identical to what
she's currently driving, so I don't see the point. -Dave

 

I know you weren't responding to me. I think you are a bit confused. -Dave

 

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!! But actually, we need the station wagons based on that
beast. Oh, and AWD wouldn't hurt, but just limited slip RWD would
uffice. -Dave

 

And over the years, it probably has.

However, if we stopped all progress with cancer and cancer cure
research, we would not be overrun with cancer at orders of magnitude
higher rates than we are today using the treatments that we currently
possess; but if we stopped all anti-terrorism efforts, we would be
quickly over-run and destroyed - guaranteed.

If I'm driving down the road at 60 mph with a severely dented fender,
and the oil light comes on, I would pull over immediately and invest in
whatever it took to get the oil pressure back up. The fender could cost
a couple of thousand dollars to repair and the oil light may take $2 in
motor oil to correct, but the urgency of the fender repair (i.e., cost
of not acting) was not nearly as great and was no reason to pull over.

We have to do both (anti-terrorism and anti-cancer). And in many ways,
terrorism is like cancer.

Speaking as the father of a childhood cancer survivor whose initial
statistical chances of survival were less than 35%...
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
the various classes of cars.

Ed

 

The correct solution is to dump the stupid CAFE rules altogether. Raise
the gas price as necessary to encourage the use of more efficient
vehicles.

Ed

 

I'd rather incompetents were banned full stop. For all of what has been said
here, it isn't difficult to drive a large vehicle.. but it may be impossible
to drive it quickly. Most bad drivers I have met are perfectly capable of
handling their vehicle at the sensible / legal speed, but seem to think they
are driving on a race track..


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: 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?

 

You are entirely correct, except perhaps the cause and effect is slightly
different, or maybe I have another byproduct of CAFE to add.

CAFE has taken buyers of cars and turned them into buyers of trucks. I
specifically remember the arguments of the early to mid '70s where families
that wanted to drive around in Crown Victoria Stationwagons with 427 ci
engines were frowned upon to the point that Detroit stopped building them.
It seemed to me at the time that the idea of people like Lloyd was that if
we could get rid of the Crown Vic stationwagons, then we wouldn't have
problems associated with these kinds of cars. What people like Lloyd seem ot
forget is that families need the space ot haul children and groceries, and
getting rid of Crown Vics simply turned these buyers into SUV buyers. They
were mini-van buyers, and even full sized van buyers for a few years. The
point is not the kinds of vehicles they bought, the point is that they were
no longer buying cars, they bought trucks instead.

When CAFE standards were dreampt up, it was thought that trucks were not a
significant part of the automotive population, trucks were used for work,
not play. And certainly not for hauling families around town, let alone the
countryside. We didn't want or need to impose the same kinds of standards on
truck as we developed for cars because the things that make cars safer make
trucks weaker and more costly. Since truck buyers were working class
consumers, we didn't want to impose costly standards on them that didn't do
anything to help the work they were doing.

Obviously, truck buyers today are not the same as they were in the '70s and
early '80s. But, a large part of this is because of people with an agenda
like Lloyd has. Since we have managed to push a huge segment of car buyers
into the truck marketplace by eliminating the cars that people need and
want, then we have created a consumer that is forced to forgo safety and
economy for size. There have been significant improvements in engine
technology, and that 427 ci carburated engine of the '70s has gone from
giving 7 ~ 10 mpg to being capable of delivering 15 ~ 20 mpg. While still
short of the 40 ~ 60 mpg that Lloyd thinks is a reasonable figure, it is
double what we could get in years past.

Another thing that Lloyd will never admit is the concept of Passenger Miles
Per Gallon. If a car that can carry 2 passengers gets 30 mpg, then we
realize a PMPG of 60. That is, two people that go 30 miles on the same
gallon of gass go 60 PMPG. An SUV that gets 15 mpg, and is carrying 7 people
is getting 105 PMPG. This is a pretty good bargain, if you ask me. If a car
that gets 30 mpg can carry 4 people, then it will deliver 120 PMPG, but it
takes two of them to get the seven passengers where they need to go.

 

Even better, develop new technologies, like hybrid or fuel cells, that can
carry passengers in a truck-sized package more effeciently, and leave the
gas powered trucks alone. We ought to shift the consumers that simply need
size and are forced into trucks, because trucks offer the size they need,
into replacement vehicles that won't be called upon to do the workload that
is traditionally thought of as being needed from a truck. That is, while
hauling people is a truck is overkill, hauling lumber in an hybrid or
fuelcell equipped truck is probably not going to work very well.

 

Let's tax fat people because they consume too much food which is delivered
in large trucks which drive up pollution ... Had it occured to you that
Billy Bob needs that truck to supply a service to you ?

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

:
: : >
: > That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
: > Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
: > same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
: > the same thing others do.
: > The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
: > them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
: > ignores reality.
:
: No problem with that argument if everyone paid all costs associated
: with driving a car.
:
: However, keep in mind that everyone breathes the exhaust of everyone
: else's vehicle, and we all held hostage to OPEC, and I have to move
: my fat ass out of your way on the freeway to give you some room, and
: vis-versa.
:
: In short, the concept of limited resources applies to vehicles.
:
: Therefore, why is it fair that just because Billy Bob has a need of
: hauling a big 50 foot crackerbox trailer down the road that he gets
: to suck up tons of gas (thus driving up the price, see law of supply
: and demand) spew out tons of pollution, and occupy tons of
: space, do lots of road damage due to his vehicle weight, and so on,
: whereas someone else who has an econobox
: that they drive a total of 5 miles a week, doesen't get 3 car lengths
: of room around his car when he gets on the freeway (the same amount of
: space Billy Bob gets) is required to fix the emissions stuff on his
: car that breaks even when broken he's still polluting less than
: Billy Bob, pays the same federal taxes even though he's not
: doing the same damage to the freeway Billy Bob is,
: and doesen't get a price break on fuel because
: he's not sucking up all the fuel supply?
:
: If you can devise a system that hit the wallets of all drivers in
: proportion to the amount of money they cost the rest of us,
: then by all means, let everyone drive whatever the hell they want.
:
: But until that time, the people that drive gas-guzzling, heavy
: trucks and SUV's and do it all day long, they are driving up
: road repair, fuel, insurance, and a host of other associated
: costs for the drivers that aren't doing this. So we all have to
: pay for their "needs"
:
: > it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
: > it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
: > vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
:
: Rubbish. Light trucks and SUV's are still a minority of vehicle traffic
: on the road, they are not "so popular" The reason they are popular
: at all is because they have additional utility than just moving people
: around.
:
: Despite all that was done with the station wagon body, it's still
: easier to haul a stack of plywood and 2x4's in the bed of a
: truck. People that think that everyone who has a light truck or
: an SUV are going to give them up just because CAFE is repealed
: on sedans and a few big fast sedans are produced, are foolish.
:
: Ted
:
:

 

What do you think gas tax is? Unless you live in Kuwait, you are paying
it. the more you use the more you are paying.

 

Again these are great cars, just like many of the great cars that failed
miserably in the US market. If I could get a nice efficient turbo
diesel Land Cruiser here I'd be laughing very time I pulled up to a pump
instead of crying.