Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Not true. As another person posted here recently in links to, I think,
the IIHS site, at least one pickup, the F150, crumpled TOO much. A full
frame can be designed to crumple in a controlled fashion.


Matt

 

You're right, they don't.
And cars can't carry or tow the way trucks can, either.
And planes really aren't made to crumple, either.

That's becasue they are designed to do different things.
Those who want them all to do the same thing, and thus be designed the
same, simply forget that not everyone wants to (or, indeed, CAN do)
the same thing others do.
The idea that all vehicles should perform the same way, while bringing
them all down to the level that pleases an idealistic few, simply
ignores reality.
it would be good to remember why light trucks and SUVs are so popular:
it's a direct result of the CAFE rules that were supposed to bring all
vehicles into line with the ideals of a select few.
The problem is that that select few didn't take into account that
there are people out there (a lot of them) who want to do things that
are different from what that select few want to do. So they went out
and bought what let them do the things they want to do.
Uninted consequences strikes again!

 

And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough
to avoid all those big, bad SUVs.
The junk yards are full of such cars.

 

No, it didn't.

You run a stop light (through a moment's inattention) and hit that
SUV. You lose.

 

For normal driving, I'd agree with you. For sudden accident-avoidance
maneuvers, give me a low CG car anyday. Yes, that does make most SUV
designs inherently bad, IMHO. -Dave

 

And yet, people buy those 30+ mpg fleas, thinking they are good enough

If your point is that shit happens, I'll agree with you there. But if the
shit happens to me, I'd rather be riding a vehicle that is likely to stay
upright, at least. The fact that it's more nimble and gets better MPG are
fringe benefits. -Dave

 

Cafe and pollution?? I don't know how they test where you live.....but
here where I live there are 3 test categories....gas less than 8000 lbs, gas
greater than 8000 lbs and diesel engines. Keep in mind that this measures
what comes out of the exhaust pipe...so if my Jeep weighs less than 8000
lbs...it gets the same pass-fail criteria that your moving speed bump does.
In my opinion if my engine which is huge (fuel consumption and displacement)
compared to the little 1-3 liter jobs in the econobox type cars yet meets
the same standard for emissions...my engine must be more efficient. Now I
will admit I burn more gas per mile...but that makes it even more efficient
doesn't it if it still meets the standard for emissions? CAFE did nothing
for pollution by "forcing" cars to get better fuel economy, it improved it
by limiting what can come out the exhaust pipe...which has very little to do
with how much fuel goes in, only how efficient the engine is

Sean.

 

You may be right in many of your specifics, but I think that their
detail confuses the basic question here. The NHTSA study is not based
on arguments about physics, or even on crash tests. It is based or
real world data: it is based on then number of people who have in fact
died in SUVs as compared to the number of people who have died in
passenger cars of comparable or even less weight.

Statistical studies help make better predictions. Consider the
following:

Suppose a thousand people who were going to buy a SUV hear of the
NHTSA study and decide that SUVs are, pound for pound and dollar for
dollar, less safe than a passenger car. So half of them change their
decision and buy a mid-size or large passenger car at a price no
higher then the one they intended to pay for the SUV. The other half
stick with their decision and buy a SUV (because they have other
overriding concerns).

Prediction A: Three years down the road less people out of these
thousand will be killed in traffic accidents than if they had all
bought a SUV as originally intended.

Prediction B: Three years down the road more people out of the group
that decided to buy a SUV will be killed in traffic accidents than out
of the group that decided to buy a passenger car.

Don't you agree that the NHTSA study shows that both these predictions
are correct?

BTW, my motivation is not political at all. We are talking about
people risking death or injury; we should all insist that people be
better informed about their choices no matter where our political
convictions lie. People should know that, on average, SUVs are less
safe than cars.

 

Better than the Ford. Still worse than the car.

And you would be quite incorrect. I actually went for the F-150 and Civic,
but chose the Impreza (though worse in crash tests) because I owned it. I
had made my decision before opening the web browser. Though I'd expect
that there is nothing I can do to convince you of that. My brother-in-law
has an F-350 (they don't test those, that I know of), so I'd pick the
F-150.

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

 

If you travel with your family, then the chance of a fatality grows.
Also the numbers I posted from the study only count the dead. If one
would take into account the injured too then the probabilitiy of
someone you love getting hurt in a traffic accident starts looking
scary.

Also, consider how many people drive. If people were better informed
about the safety of the vehicle they are about to buy then thousands
of lives per year would be spared. What I find so tragic is that
precisely those people who are prepared to pay top dollar for the
safety of their families are deceived into buying vehicles that are
less safe.

I completely agree with you that cancer is by far the greatest threat,
and I believe that society as a whole should invest far more in the
fight against cancer. Political decisions seem to be more emotional
than rational. For example, the risk of dying from cancer is thousands
of times larger than the risk of dying in a terrorist attack, but the
amounts of taxpayer's money being spent on these two issues seems to
be inversely proportional to the risk. But this is another story.

 

Large statistical studies do prove things beyond any reasonable doubt.
Smoking is bad for your health. So, is seems, is driving a SUV.

This study basically counts how many people have been killed in
traffic accidents in the real world. It clearly shows that, per mile,
more people are killed in a SUV than in a car of slightly less weight,
or even of considerable less weight.

It is well known that SUVs are more expensive than cars (just see the
profit margin of automakers when they sell a SUV as compared to a
passenger car), so the net result is that, on average, people who buy
a SUV spend more to drive a vehicle that is less safe.

Also I don't see where the "political agenda" comes into this
discussion. People are being deceived into buying SUVs for their
perceived safety, and this is wrong.

Well, don't you think that the truth of my statement is rather
obvious? Do you really think that people who can afford and do buy a
SUV were thinking of buying a small or very small car at first?

You are right of course. Smoking for example is much riskier than
driving a SUV.

 

That's not the point at all.
The point is this: far too many people who buy those fleas think that
the car will enhance their driving performance.
It won't.
Inattention can be deadly in either a flea or SUV. It's not the
vehicle that causes or avoids crashes; it's the driver. Those who
think thgat they can avoid crashes because they are driving a flea (or
even a *really* good-handling car) are fooling themselves.
Avoiding crashes has far more to do with the driver than the car.
Saying "It's kept me out of crashes so far" is sort of like saying "So
far, so good" after jumping off a roof.
A driver doing something really stupid, or a moment's inattention, and
that little car will demonstrate the difference between good mileage
and safety.

 

So?
They aren't, and never will be.
If pigs could fly, we'd need better wipers.
So?

 

You have a valid point, but the NHTSA study is normalized for driver
age, gender, urban/rural, annual mileage, and other factors. This is a
very thorough study.

 

Large, statistical studies have shown that life is fatal.

Yes, such studies prove "things" beyond reasonable doubt.
The problem is, what those "things" actually are is open to debate.
Does this study prove that SUVs are more dangerous, or that more
drivers of SUVs die while driving them than drivers of other types of
vehicles do while driving those vehicles?
There is a difference.
The study makes no differentiation as to *why* people died. They do
not, for example, mention seat belt use, or alcohol involvement.
Neither of these are a consequence of being in a SUV, but studies have
shown that drivers of SUVs and light trucks tend to use seatbelts less
frequently that drivers of cars. Why? I dunno, but I do know it's not
a characteristic of the SUV/truck, but of the drivers.
The broader the conclusions of the study, the less it can be used to
prove a specific charge.

Flying is safer than driving.
Should we all, then, fly instead of drive?
I'm starting the first armored roof business!

 

Now, don't get me wrong..... when you were looking for a new vehicle, you
were down to choosing between an F150 and a Civic?

Now I can see the choice being between similar vehicles (F150, C/K1500,
D/RAM1500 and so on) but to be down to two totally disimilar vehicles?

 

Indiana had the lowest number of traffic fatalities in 75 years last year.
No matter how "dangerous" you think SUV's are, they are still far safer than
anything built even a few years ago, so let's stop the useless arguing that
never accomplishes anything, and let people drive whatever they can and want
to buy. Everyone dies from something, and there is no method of travel that
will ever be 100% safe, including walking. All this online bickering only
makes one look foolish, say what you have to say in one post, then drop the
subject, posting further replies never convinces anyone of anything, and
makes you look foolish.
Peace people, let it drop.

 

I guess those that study self defense technics never get into fights
either.

 

Yes, I want and air bag here, here, over there, one under here, one up
there, two in here and put a few spare ones in the truck please

 

So now you are worried about your safety in your econo box when the SUVs
are crashing into barriers? Wtf??? Worried about flying glass taking
out your car?