Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

When I said who is on top I mean ON TOP OF THE LIST WITH THE MOST
FATALITIES. Jesus Christ you people are blind.

 

So Marc, the average of 10 and 15 is 8. Hmm. I'm getting a lot of
valuable insight into your thought processes today. P.S. that F350 is
broken, get it fixed you environment raper.

 

And in your ignorance you think that's going to help you when you are
hit by someone who does not hold a valid driver's license. There are a
lot of them on the road now, there will be many more if it becomes
harder to get a license. Anyone ever thing of making safer roads??? Do
you really think that two cars each going 60mph passing 2 feet from each
other with no barrier to separate them is really the safest road design
available today?

 

works for us, and our roadways are a hell of a lot more crowded than yours..

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: In article <>,
Anyone ever thing of making safer roads??? Do
: you really think that two cars each going 60mph passing 2 feet from each
: other with no barrier to separate them is really the safest road design
: available today?
: --
: ____________________
: Remove "X" from email address to reply.

 

Dear Marc, I see you have not read the study to which this thread is
devoted too. Here is crow, please try not to choke on it:

Driver Fatalities per Billion Vehicle Miles
Very small 4-door cars 11.56
Small 4-door cars 7.85
Mid-size 4-door cars 5.26
Large 4-door cars 3.30
Compact pickup trucks 6.82
Large (100-series) pickup trucks 4.07
Small 4-door SUVs 5.68
Mid-size 4-door SUVs 6.73

 

What pro SUV nuts? I only see one group of nuts cross posting new
threads on a weekly basis and you are their poster boy.

 

I hope your foot-in-mouth disease is not contagious:

__________________
From: Marc <>

Robert Said:

vehicle.

MARC said: That is simply false.


You talk in circles Marc, you claim to have driven every SUV anyone
names here, you ignore statistics you yourself have quoted, you are full
of shit and now kill filed. I'm sure you will continue to reply to me,
most sociopaths do. Have a good day.

 

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.

 

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

: In article <qLBkb.74$>,
: 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.

 

sorry, 5 thousanths of one percent.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: 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
:
: : : In article <qLBkb.74$>,
: : 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.
:
:

 

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

 

Sorry, but that can mean a whole lot more than crash safety. It can
mean that the vehicle is harder for a carjacker to gain access to than
is a car. It can mean the security of getting through the blizzard as
compared to a car. It can mean many other things as well. Security
does not equal crash safety.

I've not seen a single commercial that claims that a SUV is safer in a
crash than a car. Can you point out even one? Please describe it
enough so I can pick it out from the hundreds of car commercials that
are running.


Matt

 

That's the reality of the real world. Crash worthiness design and
testing are not exact sciences. This is just one reason that crash
tests that use a sample size of one should be taken with a huge grain of
salt!

I don't disagree with any of this. I didn't see any comment in the
tests regarding door jambing. Seems like they would mention that if it
occurred.

Hardly, buckling and other modes of structural failure are anything but
linear. Often the structural element will hold right to the point of
buckling, crushing, etc. and then fail completely. If you knew anything
about structures, you would not have written the above. However, lets
assume that what you wrote above is true. Then...

At twice the energy, the deceleration forces would likely kill the
occupants regardless what the passenger compartment does. And if your
theory above were true, the occupants in the car would suffer much
higher g forces than the truck. Once the crush zone is exhausted and
you reach the passenger cage with the point of impact (barrier,
whatever), if the cage holds intact it means that the g forces will rise
very dramatically at that point. If the Chevy truck continues with
progressive deformation of the passenger space, the g forces will be
lessened greatly.

Matt

 

Which should make us all wonder what explains the difference since most
large SUVs are based on a full-size pick-up. So, I return to my
previous comment that there is a lot more to these statistics than
vehicle type. Most full-size four-wheel drive trucks have handling
characteristics not all that far from SUVs, and probably worse
characteristics when they are loaded. So how do all you statistics
believers explain this 50% discrepancy between vehicles of very similar
design? And since minivans have poorer handling characteristics than
almost any car, why are they so much safer? Just points out that these
stats must be taken with a large dose of skepticism.


Matt

 

Are you in Scotland or aren't you?

 

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?

 

those were UK figures, including Scotland.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: In article <zrCkb.132$>,
: jeep@_nospam_milne.info says...
: > We have about 3,400 deaths per year for 60,000,000 people. That is 5 ten
: > thousandths of one percent.
: > Big deal.
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > : > : In article <qLBkb.74$>,
: > : 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.

 

Oh please - if I was so chicken that I worried about that, I wouldn't get
out of bed in the morning. Apart from the much more real threat of cancer,
we have GM crops, fluoride in water, BSE/CJD etc for the government to spend
money worrying about rather than trying to reduce a 0.005% problem that we
all live with and most of us (clearly not you) accept as being part and
parcel of modern life. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages hugely.


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: 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
:

 

I kind of doubted there was sixty million people in Scotland, more like
five million. With so few people is it really that crowded? There were
around 20,000 road casualties in Scotland last year (sorry I said deaths
before, that was incorrect), even with the short distances driven there
don't you think better designed roads would cut that 20,000 figure down?
Your fortunate in that you don't have many opurtunities there for high
speed head on collisions to occur. A quick look at used cars for sale
in Scotland shows about 8-10,000 miles per year on them, I drove about
that much last month.