Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Trucks don't generally handle "poorly"..... however, they do handle like
trucks. This is not a really well kept secret - well not if we actually
stayed awake in school.

 

There is no misquoting. I too quoted the actual stats, but I was
comparing cars to SUVs only, because this is the choice that most
people make when buying a vehicle. Also almost everybody believes that
SUVs are inherently safer than cars, which makes the comparison of the
real-world behavior of these two types of vehicle especially relevant.
Bringing into the discussion other types of vehicle such as pick-up
trucks only confuses an already bewildering situation.

The NHTSA study proves that on average heavier vehicles are safer in
the sense that your are less likely to be killed in a heavy vehicle as
compared to a lighter vehicle.

It also shows that, despite of this, you are more likely to be killed
in a SUV than in a car of slightly less or even considerable less
weight: small and mid-size SUVs are less safe than mid-size cars (even
though mid-size cars weight less), large SUVs are less safe than large
cars (even though large cars weight less). In fact even when comparing
SUVs to SUVs, weight is not always an advantage as small and more car
like SUVs are safer than heavier mid-size SUVs (see bellow for model
list). All of this makes it pretty clear that there is a safety
problem with the SUV design itself (other posters have argued that the
main disadvantage is their relatively high center of gravity).

In other words, weight confers a safety advantage but the SUV design
more than offsets this advantage. These are the facts, let's get over
them and stop blowing smoke.

Now, as automakers make a lot more on SUVs than on cars it follows
that for any budget, as far as safety is concerned, you are better off
buying a car than a SUV. There is nothing actually wrong with buying
a SUV as long as you need their special capabilities (off-roading or
towing) and as long as you know that they are not really safer.

How you drive is even more important than the inherent safety of a
vehicle. If I were to drive a SUV I would be extra careful
particularly where SUVs are especially unsafe such as risking a
roll-over (when making a sharp turn or driving over an obstacle at
high speed) or hitting a solid barrier.

PS. Here is the list of small and mid-size SUVs in the NHTSA study
(they only considered 4-door models). It is rather surprising that on
average small SUVs turned out to be safer that mid-size ones. If you
need off-roading and some towing capability you are safer buying a
small SUV.

Small SUVs: Jeep Cherokee; Chevrolet/Geo Tracker; Subaru Forester;
Toyota RAV4; Suzuki Sidekick, X-90, Vitara, Grand Vitara; Honda CR-V,
Kia Sportaga.

Mid-Size SUVs: Jeep Grand Cherokee, Ford Explorer, Mercury
Mountaineer, Chevrolet S/T Blazer, GMC Jimmy, Oldsmobile Bravada,
Nissan Pathfinder, Isuzu Rodeo, Toyota 4Runner, Mitsubhish Montero,
Honda Passport, Lexus RX300, Infinity QX4.

BTW between small SUVs, Subaru Forester appears to be the safest. See:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smsuv_overall.htm

Beware: these lists include all models in each category. One category
may be safer than another but this does not mean that each model in
one category is safer than each vehicle in the other category. For
safety rating of specific models visit sites such as and www.iihs.org
and www.nhtsa.gov/NCAP

 

Evolution explains how life evolved, not how it started. Evolution is
about as certain as a scientific truth can be.

How life started is not yet known. This is a very difficult scientific
question, because most traces of this event have been eradicated by
now. It is possible that we will never know, but this is rather
unlikely because science has been really very successful in explaining
things so far.

IMHO, evolution does not contradict the idea of God as creator.
Religion teaches that God created the world, and science explains how
God created the world. I think it is a pity that some religious people
don't know more about science, because they would marvel even more
about God's ways. It is also a pity that some scientists misunderstand
what religion is about, because they miss what is best in life.

Creationism as a scientific theory is of course just crap.

And we are very much off topic here.

 

The universe? The sun? The earth?

To claim something we've only got 1 example of can't be because other things
are different is fallacious logic.

 

No, it started the same time CO2 started rising.

CO2 traps heat. Fact. The earth is warming. Fact. CO2 is rising. Fact.

 

That **is** one of the central aspects of relativity -- time is relative. If
time moves more slowly for some observers, by definition, that's relativity.

No, it's as much established fact as gravity. There's gravity, the fact, and
a theory of gravity, explaining it. Similarly, there's evolution, the fact,
and a theory of evolution, explaining it.

Global warming means warming on a global scale, not "in part."

You saw scientific facts and explanation.

I see you're still too dumb to understand what "global" means.

It's a fact; there are theories to explain it, just like gravity and
evolution.

Look, pal, to tell scientists global warming isn't factual is the height of
stupidity.

Then tell us again.

The open mind? Do you keep an open mind that creationism could be correct?
That the earth might be 6000 years old? That evil spirits could be the cause
of disease?

Try learning some science.

 

Apples should not be compared to oranges.

 

We measure air trapped in artic ice cores.

 

Any minivan. You've got to get a Suburban or Excursion to get as much seating
or cargo space as a Town & Country, Sienna, Odyssey, etc.

Town & Country, Caravan, Sienna.

Why, for that one day you might have to tow a house?

 

Wrong. Evolution is as established fact as the existence of atoms.

And you're either ignorant or a liar.

Then you're stupid too.

Yes you can. Try learning some science.

 

Sure, got to make sure. But the UN couldn't find them, and 150,000 US troops
haven't found them.

LOL! Are you that dumb, or do you think we are? Where are they?

Liar. Prove they existed this year.

No, it illustrates you cannot prove a negative.

How do you know? The US does too, but our military is even missing planes
from its inventory.

Yeah, we broke international law, invaded a country, and find out we were lied
to as the reaons.

Thank you for once again proving yourself a war-mongering sheep of a
right-winger.

 

And evolution is supported by a huge mass of data -- facts.

Then I'd demand some evidence of it. Occam's Razor and all.

 

We do. Look up radioactive dating.

 

Evolution. That's different from the origin of LIFE. That's perhaps
cosmology, or a similar field.

Because strict creationists insist God made all life exactly as it is today.

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing, but quoting unscientific web sites just makes you
look stupid.

There's a giant conspiracy involving every biologist, every chemist, every
anthropologist? X-Files time!

Yes, but when so many facts keep piling up, only a fool keeps denying them.

Check out a biology textbook.

 

Sorry, radioactive dating is quite accurate.

 

Yes, but creationists insist the universe is only 6000 years old. Biblical
infallability, you know.

 

The first life got started, then evolution took over. How the first life got
started is paleochemistry, or maybe cosmology, or some. It does have
scientific basis, but it's not really evolution.

Scientific fact is. Theories are subject to refutation and modification.

No, you're just too dumb to understand what science is.

100% flat-out wrong. Earth created in 6 days? Plants before sun? Flood that
covered the earth? (Where did the water run off to?) Sun stood still?

 

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Matt

 

Just make sure she understands the difference between feeling safe and
being safe. Minivans are much safer according to almost every statistic
I've seen.


Matt

 

I actually agree with you here. Trouble is in two places:

1. Many so-called scientists have extrapolated evolution back to life
being created from fundamental constituents.
2. Scientific truth isn't 100% certain, but too many scientists refuse
to admit that.

At least most in the religious community admit that faith plays a
significant role in their beliefs. Too many scientists (but not all by
any means and I certainly don't mean to imply that) draw conclusions
based essential on faith also, but they aren't honest enough to admit it.

Again, I basically agree with you.

Not necessarily. The Bible, and other religious records, have been show
to be quite accurate and correlate well with science ... assuming you
stick with science that is reasonably well known and don't try to
extrapolate to parts unknown.

Yep.


Matt