Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Sign posts yield. Telephone poles essentially don't, at least at SUV
size. And because the force is concentrated over a small area, they
can be more dangerous than your standard bridge abutment.

 

Different driving styles, I suppose.
Maybe you're one of those who drive SUVs as if they were sports cars?

 

Not anymore, because they want it raised to 40 or more.

 

There is nothing decent that runs on diesel. By definition.

 

But damage to the roads is more a function of weight. A loaded 18 wheeler
does much more damage than the sum of small cars that add up to the same
weight. How do you take that into account as well?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

Try reading the sentence after the one you took out of context.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

I never claimed that. You are lying again.

It passed the required emissions tests while getting 6 mpg.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

Yes. Very few of the large number of crashes per year, but still a
reasonably large number by itself.

I'll agree. Inattention and stupidity are by far the two primary causes.
And, given that you hit something immobile or the same size as you, size
doesn't matter, then there would be some safety (even if small) if everyone
was in a more nimble vehicle.

Of course, the feds like to comment on pedacyclist impacts as well, which
are safer for the pedacyclists if the vehicle is shorter and rounder, but
those numbers are relatively small as well.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

Yeah, the same ones who miss carburetors, manual chokes, drum brakes. The
ones who think NASCAR is high-tech.

 

No, there always have to be limitations, for the good of society.

So you'd let people drive vehicles that pollute?

 

Torsional rigidity has very little to do with crush, of course.

 

And I really miss those 5000-lb lumbering land yachts. Lots of other people
do, too. They are now SUV owners. -Dave

 

Actually, I baby the heck out of trucks and SUVs as I know they don't handle
well. In contrast, I drive cars like I HATE them. Maybe I should start
driving my 2003 4.0L 4X4 Ranger like it is a sports car, and see if the
mileage improves? -Dave

 

Man oh man did you step in it that time. -Dave

 

It seems the solution to a long life is not only not driving much,

Reminds me of a news clipping that was put up at my church. It cited
the low accident rate of church services and that what injuries that did
happen were minor. the running joke was that if you wanted to stay safe and
healthy, go to church.

Mike

 

I don't know about all the vehicles on your list, but I do know that Expeditions
get better than 10 mpg. I have owned 2 (1997 and 2003), both 4x4, 3.73 gears and
5.4L engines, and I have never gotten mileage as bad as 10 mpg. The 1997 averaged
15 mpg over 149,000 miles. The 2003 is averaging close to 16 over 35,000 miles. CU
averaged 12 overall and 15 on their 150 mile trip. I have no idea what they did to
claim an 8 mpg city average. I drive mine in bumper to bumper traffic 5 days a
week and have never dropped below 14 mpg. Heck the 1997 averaged over 16 pulling a
24 foot sailboat down I-95.

Ed

 

Nope. Your suggestion is ridiculous (as you know) and doesn't change
the truthfulness of my statement.

pete fagerlin

::Revolutionary! Evolutionary! Yet so retro!
::www.yestubes.com

 

It isn't odd at all that you completely ignore market pressures, and
instead think that the Government is the instigator of all innovation.
People like you tend to think that way.

You're wrong, though.

 

And what would the buyers have done then?
Gone to >8000lb trucks?

You don't seem to want to let others do what they see as needed,
instead wanting to decide for everyone what they should have.
Why should you get to do that?
Maybe you should look into moving to China or Cuba, where your talents
may actually be in demand. They are really into deciding how the
people should live there.