Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Yep, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and all the other founding fathers.
Like John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, FDR, and all the other great presidents.
Like Jesus and Ghandi, for that matter.

 

Your SUV uses more natural resources, increases our dependence on foreign oil,
forces us to spend more on defending those countries, forces us to risk lives
defending those countries, hurts our balance of payments, and increases global
warming. It's laughable that people doing so much to hurt our country drive
around with American flags on their SUVs.

 

Hear hear!

DAS

 

I gather that the diesel fuel available in the US is still the old-style
sulfurous stuff, which would preclude many/all modern diesel engines.

DAS

 

I think you mis-spelt "for the good of the children".

My SUVs consistantly test far cleaner than the laws permit.
And I still get to drive what I want.
You want to end that, based on what *you* think is good for society.

 

Where are these built/sold?

DAS

 

They need to carry their bales of hay from their Chelsea and Upper West Side
farms to the markets of Harrods and Bloomingdale's respectively....

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---

[........................]

[...............]

 

True, and I sincerely thank the flea-drivers for leaving more for us.

The point remains, Billy Bob's truck doesn't appreciably wear the road
(and other infrastructure) more than the fleas do. It's the bigger
trucks that do the damage.

Which is included in the risk assessment, like I said.
You figured it out, right? So did the insurance companies.

I certainly didn't mean to give that impression.
What I tried to say is that they ar epopular.
And they are.

So are the purchasers of performance casrs in such areas, right?

OK.
The same logic can be successfully applied to many other vehicle
classes, too.
Point being, SUVs and light trucks aren't the *only* (nor even,
arguably, the largest class of) vehicles chosen with little regard to
what many see as their primary intended use.

 

If you think your driving style shoulf deliver the opposite of what's
actually delivered, maybe your thinking on your driving styles is
backwards.
You seem to be saying that the world is wrong, and you are right. You
admit freely that your actual results differ from your expected
results, and conclude that everyone else is lying about their results.
??

 

I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
its time for emissions inspection.

 

Which doesn't change the veracity of my original statement.

--Aardwolf.
[/QUOTE]
Thats why you have to modify the newer cars to get any power out of them.

 

On an individual basis, maybe.
It's my observation that there are far more morons driving vehicles
smaller than SUVs out there than those driving SUVs.
I don't see SUVs/light trucks zooming in and out of traffic anyway
near as often as I see wannabe ganstas with small cars with loud
exhausts, blue-tinted headlights and theater-sized stereos doing that.
These mental midgets are constantly causing other drivers to move to
avoid hitting them, which just isn't safe.
In all honesty, I just don't see that many SUV/light trucks doing
that.

 

It is, for another year or so, but it doesn't matter; we've been
hearing how much better today's diesels are than those of 10 years ago
for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel won't
change that; a diesel remains a machine for turning fuel into soot.

 

Oh, I was not surprised at all that the stats were misquoted...

My point was simply that statistics attempting to compare apples & oranges
prove little. The physics is far more important. The *actual* stats you've
quoted bear that out quite well...

Thanks for your touch-of-reality contribution ;-)

 

Exactly... no scientific study is truly valid unless external factors can
be held constant. Averages tell you only about broad groups (if the
information is accurate and not distorted). Averages tell you nothing at
all about YOUR vehicle.

There are just too many variables - accident type (front head-on, front
single-car, side-impact, rollover, stopped or parked vehicle collision),
driving style (aggressive driving, speeding, distracted driving), road
conditions (ice, snow, rain), vehicle design (unibody, crash cage, crumple
zones, airbags), other factors (tire type & condition, vehicle maintenance).
Any of these could cause a crash to happen (or not), or cause a fatality (or
prevent one). None of these factors are even acknowledged in the report.

But it's all reduced to vehicle classes that are bad or good... because
that's what the politcally-motivated want to prove. The facts don't
support the conclusions at all, because much of the information has simply
been omitted (the data wasn't used in creating the statistics, nor was it
included in the report). The original post took that even further by
quoting selectively - leaving out some of the items (those numbers later
posted by Chris Phillipo).

It's worse than comparing apples & oranges. It's dividing them into
categories, as well.

 

In what sense?

Performance is surprisingly good and emissions are low and falling. The
main one is soot, as you suggest, but that's being taken care of.

I take it you have driven modern diesel engines.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---

[..........]> for at least 20 years, and they STILL suck. Low-sulfur fuel
won't

..................

 

Obviously you have a social conscience...

DAS[/QUOTE]
I changed to an off road chip in my Jeep to improve the performance.
It runs much better with the hot chip. I only use the stock chip when
its time for emissions inspection.
[/QUOTE]

 

....and they want to win the Traffic Lights Grand Prix.

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---

[...........]

[.................]