Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Heard it before. It's clever not to count the emissions diesels put
out (particulates), but it doesn't fool most people.

 

Than what? Your MB?

We don't depend on foreign oil; you should know that.
We have made a choice, for economic reasons, to use oil that is
cheaper to buy than using our own.
Our own oil isn't intrinsically cheaper, but getting iot out of the
ground has been made much more expensive by government fiat.

Hardly; they can use their own oil profits to defend themselves.
Our problem with them is that they want to govern themselves, and make
their own choices as to what friends they make. That we don't like
their choices shouldn't be used as an excuse for military action.

Brought on by government regulations, which in turn are brought on by
those who would rather see other countries use their oil rather than
our own, claiming that "it's for our children."
Tree huggers don't seem to have a problem with "raping" other
countries if it means our children are safe.

That's truly laughable.
What did we do to bring the world out of the last big ice age? BBQ too
many mammoths?
Why do those who claim "global warming" is both unnatural and our
fault completely ignore the past?

It's also laughable that so many who don't seem to understand their
own ideals, and the consequences of them, continue to cry that those
who don't believe as they do are trying to hurt the USA.
For you rinformation, SUVs are not the problem so many seem to think
they are. I'll put the emissions from my SUV against your MB anytime.

 

See above. I've snipped out most of the intervening text to make it
crystal clear.

There's certain fundamentals of physics that can't be changed. Or are
you going to tell me that there's some new SUV on the market that has
a lower CG than a passenger car?

"hilarious" how? Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K
vehicle with a $15K one?

I do not think that I am the one that is confused.

I'm sick of the same misinformation being repeated at 2-3 month
intervals, is all.

I haven't seen a shred of "truth" from you yet, just recycling the
same sales-speak that enticed you to buy your SUV.

<quote>

From: P e t e F a g e r l i n ()
Subject: Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV
drivers


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.autos.4x4, rec.autos.driving,
rec.autos.makers.jeep+willys, rec.autos.makers.chrysler,
rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer
Date: 2003-10-17 09:15:06 PST

I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.

Go figure.

</quote>

You are correct, you didn't use the word "safest" in your message, but
if you were truly had the safety of your family as the highest
priority, surely you would have bought the safest vehicle that you
could afford? No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you
imply, surely you realize the compromises that must be made to allow a
vehicle to be capable off road that impact its on road performance?
Good wheel articulation and good high-speed handling are pretty much
mutually exclusive, you know. The reason the *real* off roaders don't
argue about safety is because they know this. Good ground clearance,
soft or absent sway bars, tires with big sidewalls... all are
detrimental to on road handling. However, they are usually able to
operate their vehicles on road relatively safely, as they take those
factors into account. This is apparently not true of the average
suburban SUV driver, however, who expects their new SUV to handle as
well as the sedan or minivan that it replaced...

If the foo shits...

nate

 

Nate, you asked two seperate questions.

Here's your first question:

"Is it not a fact that a SUV by necessity has a higher CG height to
track
ratio and is therefore more likely to lose control? "

Here's my reply:

"It depends upon which car is being compared to which SUV. Isn't that
obvious?

See my example above and substitute "car" for "SUV" in your inane
question above"

I hope that helps you.

The fact that you focus solely upon a vehicle's CG as the sum of it's
handling characteristics indicates that you really need to educate
yourself.

Fortunately, handling in the real world isn't as simplistic as you
imagine it to be.

Hilarious in that you're completely lost and over your head in this
discussion so your only avenue of escape is to start whining about
inequitable comparisons based upoin cost.


Do you honestly think it's fair to compare a $70K

Do you honestly think "it's fair" to make broad generalizations about
'SUVs" (which are vehicles with a wide price range) in comparison to
passenger cars and then whine when your assumptions don't match the
real world?

Your comments about "rare" SUVs indicate that you're very confused,
don't have a good grasp of the english language, or both.

What misinformation would that be Nate?

I've posted the truth. The fact that you're apparently too dense to
understand it doesn't make it any less valid.

Again, you are hoist by your own assumptions.

How can you have any idea about what "sales speak" I heard and whether
that had any bearing on my purchase decision?

The facts that I've presented aren't "sales-speak" but they are
apparently very difficult for you to understand since you lack the
knowledge and/or the critical thinking skills that are neccessary to
understand these very simple points.

Safety is always a trade-off vs. practicality. My SUV is very safe and
also offers utility that can't be found in other cars that might, or
might not, be as safe or safer.


No assuming that you do take your SUV off road as you

Yes...and your point is?

Ah, the ole "real off-roaders" schtick. If it's not rock crawling it's
not off roading.

LOL.

My SUV has plenty of wheel articulation and off-road capabilty for my
needs and it also has very good high speed (or high G) handling as
well.

Go figure.

Good ground clearance,

Yes. I had a few minivans in the past.

My SUV doesn't handle as well as the minivan.

It handles much better.

Go figure.

Nice attempt at a dodge.

Why are you afraid to answer the question Nate?

Is it because the question highlights another one of your silly
assumptions?

That's certainly plausible given your other posts.

This is the best part I think.

Because I drive an SUV that handles better than many cars, and because
you get yourself all wrapped up in your assumptions and flail about
spectacularly, you assume that someone who disagrees with your myopic
view of SUVs can't be a "driving enthusiast."

Maybe I'll see you and your Stude at the track some day (one with
corners not one of those boring 1/4 mile things) and we can chat
about what makes one a "driving enthusiast."

Be sure to bring your helemt and I'll take you for a ride.

I can bring the SUV or I can bring something a bit faster. Your
choice.

 

Than pretty much any CAR.

Remember what happened the 2 times it was cut off?

And we couldn't replace it tomorrow, could we?

Why did we go to war in Gulf War I? Why do we maintain troops and ships in
the Persian Gulf?

I suggest you learn some science; global warming is as established fact as
evolution, relativity, quantum behavior, etc.

 

Did I insult you Lloyd ?

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: In article <KwXkb.760$>,
: >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
: >
: >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be treated
in
: >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
:
: Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting insulted
: back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
:
: >

 

And at 6 as opposed to 4 deaths per billion miles, it is insignificant
compared to other causes of death.

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

message : 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.
:
:
: : > This study doesn't factor out the driving styles of the people driving
: > the various classes of cars.
: >
: > Ed
: >
: > Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
: > >
: > > Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
: > > Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
: > > weight. See:
: > >
: > > http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf
:
:

 

Built in Australia, sold in Australia and New Zealand and a few other RHD
countries.
Smallest engine in one is 3.8L V6, and goes up to a 5.7L V8. and even the
3.8 can tow 2000Kg, or 4000+ pounds, V8 is up to 3500Kg or so, 7000+ pounds.
www.holden.com.au and www.ford.com.au
They're big cargo haulers, and very popular with farmers, very reliable and
can take some pretty harsh terrain and climate without flinching.
very popular with farmers, and can carry 8 people in the station wagons.
with a big boot (trunk) still.

Commador is the entry level car, then the higher specced Berlina and the
luxary Calais.
then comes the SS, and HSV performance cars.

rhys

 

Dictionary definition of obese is "extremely fat" - no political loading
intended. Whatever you want to call the opposite of thin suits me. I think
it is far too simplistic to say that thin people fund fat (woops obese)
people as you could argue obese people support the economy more (and plenty
of fat/obese people dont make it into hospital with fat related illnesses).
And to be honest, I don't care - if I did I'd start to want refunds for not
getting advantages in areas where my tax money is spend ... Life isn't
absolutely fair, but it's fair enough ..

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

:
: : > you get my point though.
: >
:
: No, actually what your arguing, far from being sarcastic, is the truth.
: Obese
: people (I notice you use the politically loaded term fat, rather than the
: term obese) have more medical problems espically as they age than
: people who aren't obese. If every obese person could completely
: pay their way through every health care facility they go through then
: there would be no problem. But, the fact is that in the US, the majority
: of people are covered under some sort of group health policy. The
: insurance companies that write those are prohibited by law from
: charging more money to obese people, so the thin people end up
: funding the medical problems of the obese people. (can you
: say heart bypass operations?)
:
: And the Billy Bob I was using as an exampe wasn't driving a semi
: truck. He was driving a 40 foot long cracker box, ie: recreational
: vehicle. I forget that our European friends may not be familar with
: all the deragotory slang terms in use in the US. The term cracker
: box came about because the giant RV's look like saltine cracker
: boxes with wheels, going down the road.
:
: And as for semi-truck drivers, do they really pay their way? let's
: see, how many states have repealed weight-mile taxes due to
: pressure from the trucking industry? And as for semitrucks bringing
: me a service, well yes they do, I would prefer to pay for it through
: higher prices for consumer items, than higher taxes paid to the
: government that are then spent on roads. That way I have a choice
: to not purchase the consumer item if I choose.
:
: Ted
:
:

 

Same w/ Georgia if you live outside of Atlanta metro area don't have to test
for emissions, or if your car is more than 25years old. Got another 10 to go
on my Cougar.

 

Move to Atlanta, you'll see lots of both doing that.

 

If you had the audacity to disagree with him you sure did.

 

Liberal? No. He's an Ultra Liberal.

 

Mainly because most SUV drivers don't think a station wagon is "cool" enough
for them even though it could fulfill their needs just as well if not better
than an SUV.
I do find it interesting though that Porsche, VW, Chrysler and a few others
are marketing what amounts to an updated AMC Eagle as SUVs or "Sport
Tourers" now. Nothing but slightly taller station wagons for suckers.

 

I won't deny we have had a few run-ins in the past, but he hasn't called me
an idiot / claimed I haven't attended school / recommended I learn some
science yet, so no unpleasantness so far !

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: If you had the audacity to disagree with him you sure did.
:
: : > Did I insult you Lloyd ?
: >
: > Dave Milne, Scotland
: > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
: >
: > : > : In article <KwXkb.760$>,
: > : >Godwin's law - proposed addendum:
: > : >
: > : >"unfavourable reference to Saddaam Hussein or Bin Laden shall be
: treated
: > in
: > : >the same manner as if it were a reference to Hitler."
: > :
: > : Parker's law -- insult me and liberals, don't whine about getting
: insulted
: > : back. Stones, glass houses, and all that.
: > :
: > : >
: >
: >
:
:

 

Hell Lloyd, Dads old 1978 3/4 ton Chevy Pickup got 12 MPG. No way will you
ever convince me a modern SUV half the size gets lower milage than that.
Even the Full size Suburbans and Excursions have to be capable of better
milage than you think they get.
Now if you look hard, you MIGHT be able to find a SUV that gets 8 MPG,
though I seriously doubt it, but that still doesn't warrant ther blanket
statement that "SUV's get 8 MPG" that you made earlier.