Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Which was quickly refuted by Honda, showing the flawed methodology used. The
study didn't take into account safety improvements each year, for example, and
lumped vehicles into large discrepancy weight classes (every 500 pounds, or
some such).

So you send them in one that kills other people and kills the planet?

Are you saying the studies don't use death RATES? I suspect they do.

Lots of big trucks on 2-lane roads, though. Their limited-access (like our
interstates) system is much less extensive.

Wrong. The IIHS and CR are hardly a "green conspiracy."

Considering that fewer than 5% of SUV owners ever go off road anyway...

Yeah, sure. Did he tell you where Elvis is living too?

But a much higher % of fatalities, and a much higher % of SUV accidents.

Both, actually.

 

Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.

 

And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?

 

I agree. I've driven a loaner ML320, and while it handled and drove fairly
pleasantly, you never forgot it was a big, heavy, high-cg truck.

 

Yeah, bring back carburetors, 4-speed manuals, drum brakes, and all the other
60s crap.

CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.

 

And the simple solution is to raise the truck CAFE, as the car CAFE has been
several times, or better yet, to have one CAFE for both cars and trucks.

 

CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.

 

CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has

You trade large cars for larger trucks, and you think the net result is less
fuel burned? Here's a clue: if large cars were still unrestricted by CAFE,
those large cars would benefit from some of the same technology that has
allowed all vehicles (SUVs included) to pollute less, per gallon burned.
AND, the large cars would STILL get better MPG compared to the SUVs that
replaced them.

In other words, CAFE has cost lives both by reducing weight of vehicles AND
by causing vehicles to burn MORE fuel, as many people are buying large
trucks for the specific reason that they can not buy large cars
ymore. -Dave

 

Check out the "Highway Loss Data Institute" web site. This is an insurance
industry clearing house that compiles crash cost data on all vehicles. They
compile and compare things like claims cost for after-crash vehicle repairs,
and claims costs for injuries. This is real world data, in other words, it
compares costs of real crashes, not just some formulas, and it's apolitical.
In these studies SUVs in general have far lower costs for medical claims
than do small cars. Small cars often have medical claims costs 3-4 times
higher than do SUVs and larger cars & trucks.

 

Dianelos..... you are one dorky cross-posting son of a bitch.

Would it be too much to ask some folks to peek at the headers sometimes???

 

I wish I had a four speed manual in my three quarter ton four wheel drive
1989 Suburban, but even by 1989 they were few and far between. I wish also
that you would go back to torturing graduate students or begging for grant
money.

Earle

 

It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.

 

I know of no enviro-wackos that like it. In fact, the only people that
liked it when it was passed were the Big 3 (though they said otherwise).
They has a medium percentage of the car market, but falling. They had a
large percentage of the truck market. With the split-level CAFE, more
people bought vehicles labeled as trucks and the Big-3 benefited.

Everyone that likes the idea of CAFE hates the way it was implemented. I
know of no one that supports the way it is, other than claiming that
changing it would be worse than leaving it alone, so it continues to
persist.

When there are two separate standards for minor cosmetic differences in
passenger vehicles, there will be an inequitable and arbitrary (to the
point of being counter-productive) application of rules.

So, whine all you like about CAFE, but the enviro-wackos don't like CAFE as
it stands any more than you do.

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

 

I wouldn't own a Ford truck. I drive a K1500 Chevy. The ratings on it
are much better:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0107.htm

I suspect you searched around to find the worst SUV/truck model you
could to try to prove your point. That only serves to lesson your
credibility.


Matt

 

I don't drive simply to avoid crashes. I drive to get places, haul
things, plow snow, etc. My K1500 does all these things well. A car
wouldn't. End of discussion.


Matt

 

Certainly this is part of the equation, but my point is that it isn't as
simple as you make it out to be. Trucks and SUVs do handle differently
and not as well on pavement as cars. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to
figure that out. People who drive them should learn how to drive them.
I've driven pickups almost exclusively (other than my motorcycle in
the summer months) for nearly 30 years and have never had an accident or
a situation I couldn't avoid. Then again, I don't try to drive my K1500
like it was a BMW 7 series. However, in the winter in PA, my truck will
out handle most cars when there is 6" or more of snow on the road.

I don't buy this crap about vehicles being inherently bad just because
of their design criterion. The problem is idiots that don't learn the
characteristics of their vehicle and then drive it accordingly.


Matt

 

I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave

 

Why?


Matt

 

But a problem then arises...
Those who want to tow will need to buy even BIGGER trucks to do what
they can now do with the regular pickups.

If you ignore market forces, you end up with even worse problems than
we have now with the current CAFE.

 

And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.