Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dianelos Georgoudis
Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
weight. See:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf
As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
others, without much any advantage for themselves. The relevant
numbers are:
Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
(pounds) per billion miles
Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
even worse.
The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
passengers.
Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
disadvantages of the SUV design.
If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
car.
Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
other vehicles on the asphalt.
Brent P
> http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/pdf/809662.pdf
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
> safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
> than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
> These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
> account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
> even worse.
These numbers are in no way amazing. Large passenger cars have come
out on top in every study I've seen of this type. However, it is these
safest vehicles are discouraged by regulations on the books. (CAFE)
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Is this with or without a repeal of CAFE? Passenger car weight is
effectively capped with CAFE. Also where would that cap be? 2000lbs?
4000lbs? 6000lbs? Given political implementations your weight cap
could easily result in making things worse.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
Georgoudis) wrote:
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
bought a very safe SUV.
Go figure.
Jeff Gross
- Jeff G
67 Kaiser Jeepster Commando
50 Willys 4x4 Station Wagon
http://jeffgross.com/willys
Robert A. Matern
The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers). The large
vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
Attempts to deny that simple fact based on the laws of Physics using all
kinds of clever statistical manipulations are simply absurd. Different
vehicles enjoy advantages in different types of accidents based on their
characteristics; wide-brush prejudicial generalizations don't help rational
folk in the task of making informed decisions. This, and messages like it,
are just political propaganda... plain & simple.
Rollover:
advantage: low center of gravity
REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever angle)
winner: lower - heavier makes it better
loser: higher - lighter makes it worse
advantage: wide wheelbase
REASON: increases leverage required to roll (lever length)
winner: lower - heavier makes it better
loser: narrow - lighter makes it worse
Collision:
advantage: high MASS
REASON: more mass reduces accelerational forces after collision
winner: heavier - good crash test performance makes it better
loser: lighter - poor crash test performance makes it worse
Spinout:
advantage: long wheelbase
REASON: increases leverage required to spin
winner: long - heavier makes it better
loser: short - lighter makes it worse
Mixing the statistics for these VERY different types of accidents is poor
statistics at best... and deceitful or even outright dishonest at worst.
But these are the political times we live in...
The comment about limiting size for everyone is socialist at best, communist
at worst... and very authoritarian for sure! There's no reason that large
vehicles can't be A LOT more economical... why not concentrate on that?
The comment about limiting speeds for trucks, etc., is just absurd. Can you
imagine the outcry from the truckers? We can't even get them to obey the
speed limits now! Not to mention that while the standards for my vehicle's
exhaust have become draconian, nothing at all has been done about truck and
bus exhaust. Nor are there any CAFE standards for their fuel efficiency.
If this was a real effort to increase safety & ecological concerns then
TRUCKS & BUSES are the place to start!
And, just to top it all off, do you really think you're safer hitting a
large truck with your tiny car just because you made the truck drive slower?
If so, THEN YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PHYSICS AT ALL!
And this is just the beginning... counting casualties in OTHER vehicles is
just GOOFY... penalizing your choice because the other guy failed to make a
similarly good choice is RIDICULOUS!
Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as
well.
Bob
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:5ac380ce.03101...@posting.google.com...
Mike Romain
If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
numbers below indicate.
I do note you don't show any numbers for little econo boxes. Why, are
they something like 10 fatalities?
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Daniel J. Stern
> The NHTSA study prove that the overall safety of SUVs is worse than of
> lighter passenger cars.
Studies cannot prove or disprove. There are so many variables in data
sampling and collection and analysis and interpretation that all they can
do is suggest. They can strongly suggest, but they cannot prove. Any
reputable and ethical scientist will tell you this -- it's only the
political latchers-on who run around claiming to have a study "proving"
their agenda is correct. Nevertheless, let's move on to your further
"analysis":
> Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
> Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
> Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
> Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
> Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
> Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
>
> So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
> SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less.
Fortunately, your odds of being killed as the driver of ANY of the listed
type of vehicle are reassuringly tiny. 6 deaths per billion VMT is indeed
double 3 deaths per billion VMT, but so is two molecules double 1
molecule. It's important to keep numbers like this in context: You're
extremely, extremely unlikely to be killed as the driver of any of the
above vehicles.
> These are amazing numbers.
Only to the ignorant and to the politically opportunistic. They're not
amazing at all. They're perfectly predictable and logical numbers.
> The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars
The study *suggests* that SUVs are safer than small and very small cars.
> which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much heavier
> vehicles around.
Nope. The study doesn't reach that conclusion. This sounds like
editorializing on your part. It most certainly isn't supportable by fact.
Small cars collide with all kinds of more massive objects, not all of
which are larger vehicles.
> Very few people who end up buying a SUV were thinking of maybe buying a
> small or very small car, so this advantage is irrelevant.
This sounds like more editorializing on your part. No factual support is
offered for it.
> Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their passengers.
Whoops, no. We were were discussing *driver* deaths by vehicle type per
billion VMT. In fact, small cars are less safe for their *passengers*.
Y'know, Dianelos, I'm getting the sneaking suspicion you are ignorant,
politically opportunistic, or both. I think you have an agenda and are not
simply reporting facts as you claim.
> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> strategy
...cannot be determined by death rates measured on the order of single
digits per billion vehicle miles travelled. There are much larger, more
pervasive everyday threats to real-world personal safety than whether
you're the driver of a large car or a large SUV.
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars
This is your uninformed opinion, unsupportable by facts.
> then we all would drive safer,
This is your uninformed guess, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less money on cars,
Pure conjecture, unsupportable by facts.
> spend less on gas,
Wishful speculation, unsupportable by facts.
> Limiting the weight of vehicles is a win-win-win-win-win-win
> proposition.
CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason. When you're done
learning about the basic principles of science and statistics, you need to
go study the law of unintended consequences, and when you're done doing
that, spend some time thinking up a way to limit the "weight" (you mean
mass) of bridge abutments, old oak trees, freight trucks, power pylons,
long-haul buses, moose, deer, and other things people hit while driving.
> Vehicles that have to be heavy (such as trucks, heavy duty
> off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their top speed electronically
> limited to low levels as to not endanger other vehicles on the asphalt.
There is no support for the notion this would improve safety at all.
DS
Lon Stowell
> Recently (October 14, 2003) the National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA) released a study about vehicle safety and
> weight.
NHTSA. Your government agency working against Darwin to keep
alive yet more fools who can't be bothered to buckle up, check
the air in their tires, or tell the difference between a
Ford Explorer and a Porsche in cornering capability. Great work
guys.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ass
Bill Funk
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
>
>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>
>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
Not so.
I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
crashes.
I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
large SUV.
>The relevant
>numbers are:
>
>Vehicle type Average weight Driver fatalities
> (pounds) per billion miles
>
>Mid-size 4-door car 3,061 5.26
>Large 4-door cars 3,596 3.30
>Small 4-door SUVs 3,147 5.68
>Mid-size 4-door SUVs 4,022 6.73
>Large 4-door SUVs 5,141 3.79
Only relevant for some fictional person who is a conglomerant of all
drivers. Such a person doesn't exist.
>
>So it is more probable that you will be killed in a small or mid-size
>SUV than in a mid-size car that weights less. Only large SUVs are
>safer for their drivers than mid-size cars, but they are less safe
>than large cars, even though large SUVs are 1,500 pounds heavier!
Not so!
Trying to apply such numbers to individual drivers is false; they
apply to a *class* of drivers, not to individuals.
>
>These are amazing numbers. The prorated figures, which take into
>account the fatalities in other vehicles involved, are, as expected,
>even worse.
>
>The study does show that SUVs are safer than small and very small
>cars, which have a disadvantage only because there are so many much
>heavier vehicles around. Very few people who end up buying a SUV were
>thinking of maybe buying a small or very small car, so this advantage
>is irrelevant. Pound for pound SUVs are always less safe for their
>passengers.
The figures above are for drivers; they do not apply (nor do they
purport to apply) to passengers.
>
>Even when comparing SUVs only, more weight is not always better.
>Significantly, small SUVs are safer for their drivers than mid-size
>SUVs, even though the latter weight 900 pounds more. I suppose small
>SUVs are more car-like and therefore avoid some of the safety
>disadvantages of the SUV design.
Again, you are trying to apply figures that apply to a *class* to
individuals.
Do you conform to figures that apply to any large class of people? I
doubt it.
>
>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>car.
Really? Driver ability has nothing to do with it?
Or needs?
>
>Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
>limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
>(such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
>top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
>other vehicles on the asphalt.
Vehicle weight is already limited by CAFE.
Lowering the speeds of heavier vehicles like trucks is more dangerous,
since that would increase the speed differential of colliding
vehicles, worsening the effects all around. Not a good idea. It's been
considered countless times, and rejected.
vlj
<snip>
> Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition. Vehicles that have to be heavy
> (such as trucks, heavy duty off-roaders, buses, etc) should have their
> top speed electronically limited to low levels as to not endanger
> other vehicles on the asphalt.
Get thee astride a motorcycle and do even so much more ...
Good ridin' to ya,
VLJ
--
If it has tits or tires, its gonna be trouble.
Kevin
cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
bullet proof as you can get.
Nate Nagel
Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
handling for crash safety.
What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their intended
purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for commuting
or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
nate
--
remove "horny" from my email address to reply.
Matthew S. Whiting
These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
Matt
Nate Nagel
dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
nate
Mike Romain wrote:
Brent P
> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
> bullet proof as you can get.
The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
metro.
Matthew S. Whiting
> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
Why do you think that? The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
drastically less.
Matt
Nate Nagel
Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
nate
P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dian...@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>> Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
passenger
>>>car.
>>
>>
>> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>> bought a very safe SUV.
>>
>> Go figure.
>>
>
>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>handling for crash safety.
Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not the
case.
My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts like
yours I suppose.
>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
intended
>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
commuting
>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
What a great country, eh?
Brent P
> These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
> drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
> on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
> ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
> safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
> function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
> the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
and drive them were younger and driving them.
This latest report follows the same trends for what must be a couple
decades by now.
Matthew S. Whiting
Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well. Probably
the best available indication would be their respective performance in
crash tests. These are imperfect to be sure, but they are about the
best we have at present.
Matt
Nate Nagel
Fixed-barrier crash tests, that is. And I agree.
Dave Milne
years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
an acceptable risk in a chicken shit society. Cancer on the other hand ...
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
"Nate Nagel" <njn...@hornytoad.net> wrote in message
news:xyZjb.25$uG.1...@news.abs.net...
: Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
:
Bill Putney
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
> ...Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
> limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
> spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
> the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
> countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
> win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.
Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
My guess is that you're posting this to several newsgroups as some trial
balloon for a political think-tank. Report back to them that they suck.
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Nate Nagel
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:52:34 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@hornytoad.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dian...@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>>Georgoudis) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
>
> passenger
>
>>>>car.
>>>
>>>
>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>
>>>Go figure.
>>>
>>
>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>handling for crash safety.
>
>
> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not the
> case.
yes, actually, it is.
>
> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>
>
> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts like
> yours I suppose.
>
>
>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>
> intended
>
>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>
> commuting
>
>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>
>
> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>
> What a great country, eh?
>
To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make an
ass out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at you
though.
Bill Putney
"Robert A. Matern" wrote:
>
> ...Politically motivated propaganda isn't just bad science, it's USELESS as
> well.
Actually, if you're sending up trial balloons to see how gullible,
stupid, or ready for the next legislative step in your political agenda
the public is, it could prove useful to a particular political movement,
party, presidential candidate, etc.
Bill Putney
Brent P wrote:
>
> Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
> measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
> demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
> and drive them were younger and driving them.
I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
accidents.
Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
would they stay the same?
Nate Nagel
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>>measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>>demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>>and drive them were younger and driving them.
>
>
> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.
>
> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?
>
Basically, yes. An auto crash is fairly inelastic, the safety of the
vehicle occupants will primarily depend on how progressively the
vehicles crush. The amount of energy dissipated will increase
(dramatically) but the end result will be the same. Since energy
increases linearly with increased mass, it ought to scale fairly roughly
as you describe it.
This is, of course, a fairly simplistic explanation and the crash
performance characteristics of the vehicles will be the primary factor
in whether the occupants walk away or not. A head-on collision between
two identical vehicles is essentially the same thing as a head-on crash
into an immovable wall at the same speed; so crash test performance is
the best gauge of safety in your scenario.
Kevin
generates more momentum
Bill Putney
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > ... I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
Thanks for the reply.
On the "two identical vehicles head-on = one vehicle into an immovable
wall" thing, it seems self-evident that you could also extend that
analogy and say that a heavier vehicle and a lighter vehicle head-on
would be equivalent to the lighter vehicle hitting a wall that is moving
at some advancing speed (i.e., more damage than head-on into a
same-weight vehicle), and the heavier vehicle hitting a wall that is
receding at some speed (i.e., less damage than head-on into a
same-weight vehicle)
Gerald G. McGeorge
safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
you to believe.
Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
When I worked for VWoA I got close enough to the liability side of the
business to realize one of the industry's dirty little secrets was simply
"small cars kill". Bill Clinton'e NHTSA released a report in 2000 that
concluded the near-mandated downsizing of vehicles through the 80's & 90's
had resulted in the unnecessary deaths of over 16,000 people. The study
concluded the savings in fuel economy over the same period have more to do
with improved engine and systems efficiency than did the reduction in
average vehicle weight.
All I know is, no kid of mine would be sent off to college in a Dodge Neon
or other such death-trap!
Greens often try to muddy the water by citing European studies that show a
similar fatality rate for their small cars as out larger ones. (I'm
surprised wasn't cited in the report,) Comparisons to European statistics
are not valid, because they drive far fewer miles than North Americans and
there is far less disparity in vehicle sizes on European roads, that is,
they drive a lot more small cars than we do.
The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
more to do with idiotic driving than design.
A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
"Bill Putney" <bpu...@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F907AED...@kinez.net...
Nate Nagel
Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly squat
when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than you (like
a semi)
I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.
Matthew S. Whiting
> Driver fatalities of 5 per *billion* miles ? Even if you do 20K miles for 60
> years, that's still a 0.6% chance...
> an acceptable risk in a chicken shit society. Cancer on the other hand ...
Yes, I was wondering about the units as well. I didn't load the file as
it is 3.1MB which takes some time on a dial-up line, but I wonder if
that isn't million miles rather than billion miles.
Matt
Nate Nagel
That's about right, assuming that it's a true head on collision.
Another way to look at it is to consider the point where the bumpers of
the vehicles meet - you can add up the vectors and see which vehicle is
going to get pushed back, and how quickly. (again, collisions - at
least head on ones - are fairly inelastic, so the point of impact can be
considered as a new point where you can sum the vectors and determine
where that point will go.) Or yet another way to look at it would be to
calculate a new equivalent speed of crashing into a stationary wall.
However, if one vehicle crumples progressively and one stays fairly
rigid that will throw off your calcs and occupants of *both* vehicles
will actually fare less well than when both vehicles crush in a
progressive manner.
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
>
>>...Of course, the safest strategy for society would be to put an upper
>>limit to the weight of passenger cars: then we all would drive safer,
>>spend less money on cars, spend less on gas, protect others, protect
>>the environment, and be less dependent on unstable oil-producing
>>countries. Limiting the weight of vehicles is a
>>win-win-win-win-win-win proposition.
>
>
> Hmmm - that would really inconvenience people like Babs Streisand who
> goes shopping in a motor home (not just an SUV for "special" progressive
> people) so that she won't have to use public restrooms.
That is good to hear. I'd hate to think that someone of Streisand's ilk
was out contaminating public restrooms...
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>>measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>>demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>>and drive them were younger and driving them.
>
>
> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.
I may be missing a subtlety, but it should scale linearly as the
momentum scales linearly with mass.
> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?
I believe the stats would remain about the same, or improve a little as
some crashes are against moveable objects (telephone poles, sign posts,
etc.) and they would yield more readily to heavier vehicles. Obviously,
hitting a bridge abutment wouldn't be much affected by having a heavier
vehicle! :-)
Matt
Matthew S. Whiting
Yes, I believe that is correct. The speed of the advancing wall would
need to be equal to the speed of the combined wreckage of the two
vehicles, assuming they are both fused together during the crash. This
would result in the same total change in velocity for the vehicles -
from a high positive speed to a lower positive speed for the heavy
vehicle and from a high positive speed to a low negative speed for the
lighter vehicle. The acceleration experienced is equal to the change in
velocity and thus should be the same whether you hit a heavier vehicle
or a wall moving toward you assuming that the speed after impact is the
same in both cases.
Matt
Kevin
> In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Ke...@el.net says...
> ultra safe!
excellent point
John T. Waisanen
>>
>>
>> Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>> generates more momentum
>>
>
> Only helps you if you collide with another vehicle. Does exactly squat
> when you hit something immovable, or significantly larger than you (like
> a semi)
>
> I'll take my cars light and nimble, thanks, so I don't wreck at all.
sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the guy who
hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is light
and nimble.
john
Lon Stowell
So buy a Porsche Cayenne Turbo and get a nimble vehicle that
weighs over a coupla tons.
--
My governor can kick your governor's ass
John T. Waisanen
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dian...@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>> Georgoudis) wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
>>> strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
>>> car.
>>
>>
>>
>> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>> bought a very safe SUV.
>>
>> Go figure.
>>
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
> What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
nate....didn't you notice that this whole thread is cross-posted to 5
different NGs? just because you're reading r.a.driving doesn't mean
everyone else is....and besides. from all my experience, everyone who
has wrecked a car was certainly driving....
john
John T. Waisanen
>
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>>measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>>demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>>and drive them were younger and driving them.
>
>
> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.
>
> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?
yes. it is linear, because a car's kinetic energy KE = 1/2 * mass *
velocity^2. mass is a linear term, so proportionally heavier cars are
the same. speed is a different story...it is exponential, meaning a
little more speed can do a LOT more damage.
john
Nate Nagel
No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
Nate Nagel
I did... but I know Fagerlin is reading it from RAD because he's been
posting there semi-regularly.
I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>> measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>> demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>> and drive them were younger and driving them.
> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
> accidents.
It has to do with far more factors than weight. Design plays a very
big roll. This is why I'd rather be in a 5000lb car than a 5000 lb truck
if I were to crash. So there is no real scaling with weight, there are
too many factors to consider. The one generality that is clear is the
structures that protect the passengers in cars like the crown victoria,
the old caprices, etc are where the extra mass ends up, even if it's
there just to hold the car together and make bigger. In light trucks
alot of that extra mass goes to things that don't help in a crash. Such
as suspension arms that can hold up to off road use.
> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
> would they stay the same?
I would expect fewer deaths if CAFE was abolished and traditionally
sized cars returned with all the benefits of modern knowledge.
Brent P
> The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
> scared enough not to buy them. It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
> worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
> the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
> (The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
> official.) Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents, and have
> more to do with idiotic driving than design.
> A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
> than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
Meanwhile we are stuck with roads full vehicles that can't be turned
and accelerate any decent rate at the same time thanks to their CG height
and others can't see beyond them so traffic lights process fewer vehicles
and more congestion results, which wastes fuel, yadda yadda yadda. (see
previous threads with cite)
Brent P
Go put some lead blocks in your vehicle and see they make you safer.
They'll add momentum.
Nate Nagel
And what's with the premise that people who don't like seeing SUVs on
the roads don't like off roading? Personally I'd be HAPPY if I could go
to a dealership and buy a basic, manual-transmission SUV with a manual
transfer case, vinyl seats, and hose-clean rubber floormats. I just
wouldn't drive it to work every day. Until such time as that happens
I'll just wait until my dad gets sick of the old Scout II rotting in his
barn and save my ducats for a fiberglass body tub.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>handling for crash safety.
>>
>>
>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
the
>> case.
>
>yes, actually, it is.
Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
just in case.
Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>> My SUV is quite safe and handles quite well.
>>
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>
>>
>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>
>>
>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
like
>> yours I suppose.
>>
>>
>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>
>> intended
>>
>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>
>> commuting
>>
>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>
>>
>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>
>> What a great country, eh?
>>
>
>To paraphrase, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to make
an
>ass out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
you
>though.
So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple concept,
that makes me an ass?
I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:
>I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that
this
>would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the
salesman
>told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers.
Whatever.
My comments have nothing to do with "salesman's claims" and everything
to do with pure fact.
Despite that fact that you find my claims incomprehensible.
P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:
>> sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other cars
>> go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
guy who
>> hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
light
>> and nimble.
>>
>> john
>>
>
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
ROTFLMAO!
Key words:
"so far"
If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
Nate Nagel
Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either well.
Nate Nagel
"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
awareness."
Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
didn't he?
P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:
>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>> many passenger cars, and you can't seem to grasp that simple
concept,
>> that makes me an ass?
>>
>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>
>
>Many shitty passenger cars, maybe. Good passenger cars, I doubt it.
>Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
>supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either
well.
Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
idiot than you already have.
Cheers!
P e t e F a g e r l i n
wrote:
>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 22:26:10 -0400, Nate Nagel
<njn...@hornytoad.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>sounds like nate has an amazing ability to control where other
cars
>>>>go....just because your car is light and nimble doesn't mean the
>>
>> guy who
>>
>>>>hits you when you're waiting to turn left is driving a car that is
>>
>> light
>>
>>>>and nimble.
>>>>
>>>>john
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and
*avoid*
>>>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>>
>> Key words:
>>
>> "so far"
>>
>> If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>> predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>> hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
>>
>
>"hopelessly clueless?" I don't think so. Try "has good situational
>awareness."
SA is a good thing but still doesn't make you immune from the acts of
others. To claim otherwise is very clueless.
>Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand anything about skill.
>Heck, that guy just pulled right out in front of you with no warning,
>didn't he?
What kind of idiotic assumption is that?
How can you possibly assume that I don't "understand anything about
skill" because I've challenegd your silly assumptions?
SA doesn't make you immune idiot. Since you apparently think it does,
hopefully you won't have a rude awakening that causes you any bodily
harm.
Brent P
It's real easy to tell the real off roaders from the general population.
And those guys can usually turn their trucks as decently as can be
expected.
And 2nds on the scout. If I ever needed/wanted to go off road it would
be an old scout or some other proper off-road truck.
Brent P
If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
boasts about.
Sean Prinz
2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
rec.autos.makers.jeep&willys newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
on the internet only waste bandwidth.
Sean
"Brent P" <tetraet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:TA3kb.164473$%h1.160314@sccrnsc02...
Brent P
> Let me try to help you folks out...My Jeep doesn't have 4 doors....only
> 2...and part of the year it has none. My jeep is not an SUV, your SUV is
> not a jeep. PLEASE stop cross posting your trolling drivel to the
> rec.autos.makers.jeep&willys newsgroup. If we agreed with you we would be
> in a different newsgroup than we are and this debate will never get solved
> on the internet only waste bandwidth.
I don't know if you are addressing me, or somebody else, but you replied
to one of my posts, and left it included, so I'll assume it's me. That's
the kind of problem that happens when people top post, can't tell exaxctly
what they are trying to do because they are too damn lazy to trim anything
or bother with context.
I don't give a shit what you think your jeep is or how many fing doors
it has. And while you are at learn what a troll post is. Hint: the post
you replied wasn't one.
Continuing on to your next dumbass post, I am reading a different
newsgroup, rec.autos.DRIVING. I'd love to see alot less SUV and other
light truck crap in the group. But it's not like it's going to go
unchallenged when it comes around either.
Bill Funk
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Kevin wrote:
>
>> Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>> cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>> bullet proof as you can get.
>
>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>metro.
>
>
I don't think so.
When that Geo crumples, what does the roll cage connect to?
Bill Funk
wrote:
>No, just to *predict* what other drivers are going to do and *avoid*
>being collected by them. Works pretty well so far.
>
>nate
Isn't that what the guy was heard to say on the way down after jumping
off the roof?
"So far, so good."
Marc
>These stats alone tell you next to nothing. It is also well know that
>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
damage to others.
Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
crashes?
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
Marc
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that?
Because the crash tests that simulate a crash with a deformable object are
pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
Could be, but they aren't. Look at actual crash results and get back to
us. My favorites are:
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
I happen to own the car that I linked to...
Marc
>This is just ridiculous... comparing apples & oranges isn't helpful.
>
>The advantage in a large vehicle is in vehicle to vehicle collisions; there
>is no advantage in single-vehicle accidents (i.e., rollovers).
In one-vehicle crashes, trucks generally do much worse than similarly
weighted cars. I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
larger, but cheaper vehicle.
>The large
>vehicle ALWAYS enjoys the advantage in any collision with a smaller vehicle.
That is simply false. A Ford pickup, for example, is crap. Watch the
crash tests of it. The driver's seat is pushed into the dash by the bed
and the driver is crushed. This can happen even if they are hitting a
Civic. The Civic is worse off than if they hit another Civic, and the
F-150 is better off than if they hit another F-150, but the driver in the
Civic is still better off than the driver in the F-150.
So go make up some more of your false statements on large vehicles and
spread them where people don't know that you don't know what you are
talking about. Better yet, stop spreading any such crap unless you know
what you are talking about.
Marc
>Brent P wrote:
>> In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Kevin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>
>>
>> The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
>> metro.
>>
>>
>generates more momentum
And with the large SUV, you will be unable to avoid crashes, as your boat
handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
at fault).
Marc
>You are an idiot bud.
>
>If everyone drove heavier vehicles, fatalities would go down just as the
>numbers below indicate.
Nope. If all cars were heavier, then you'd be more likely to hit a large
vehicle and you'd lose your size advantage.
Marc
>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>you to believe.
If every vehicle was 2000 lbs, everyone would be safer than if every
vehicle was 6000 lbs.
>Fact is, many of these small cars aren't even safe in single car accidents.
Fact is, more of the small SUVs aren't even safe in single car crashes.
Ian Smith
news:hE0kb.490765$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> > In article <zg%jb.578254$Oz4.554133@rwcrnsc54>, Ke...@el.net says...
> >
> >>Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Kevin
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a
roll
> >>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close
to
> >>>>bullet proof as you can get.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The same could be said of practically any motor vehicle, even a geo
> >>>metro.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
> >>generates more momentum
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ultra safe!
>
>
> excellent point
Extra internal weight doesn't mean seriously reduced top speed. It just
means poorer acceleration and handling. My 1 litre Fiat manages a top speed
of 95MPH whether there are 5 people in it or just myself. The only way to
reduce top speed significantly is to increase aerodynamic drag, reduce
engine output, or try climbing a hill with all that extra weight!
Sorry to be a pedant!
--
================================================================
= Ian Smith, Renfrew, Scotland. 55.868733°N 4.399517°W, 7m ASL =
= nuhin wan fower wan fyve eicht seevin fower nuhin fyve eicht =
= Yekinfoanus here^ or emails tae ianinhoose at ntlworlddotcom =
================================================================
Marc
>> I really should have known what with all the x-posted groups that this
>> would be yet another "SUVs REALLY REALLY are safe, 'cause the salesman
>> told me so!" thread and should have bitten my tongue. Fingers. Whatever.
>
>I knew it was going to be another SUVs are not safe because CR told me
>so thread. I'm biting my sandwich.
Right. CR, the IIHS, the NHTSA, FARS, and every other place that crashes
vehicles or keeps stats. But then, don't let the facts get in the way of
your fantasy.
Marc
>If I remember right petey has one of those MB ones. I haven't driven
>one, but riding in one doesn't inspire the sort of confindence petey
>boasts about.
I have driven one of the MB ones. I was unimpressed. It handles well for
a truck, but it is beat by most cars. The ML55 AMG that I drove would
actually beat a large number of cars, but certainly not those cars of a
similar price point.
Marc
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Because the statistics indicate that a similarly weight in a car would be
safer than what you bought. If you bought something that is heavier than
the heaviest car available, then the problem is obviously CAFE reducing the
availability of large cars.
Marc
>If you think you can avoid accidents because you think that you can
>predict what other drivers are going to do then you are even more
>hopelessly clueless than your other posts indicate.
Then I guess everyone that teaches defensive driving should just give up,
as all crashes are inevitable and we should just drive tanks and put on our
blinders.
Ted Mittelstaedt
"Daniel J. Stern" <das...@engin.umich> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.4.44.0310171205180.4904->
> CAFE has effectively limited the weight of passenger vehicles. CAFE has
> been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying each
year
as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
one
thing are balanced by the other.
Ted
Bill Putney
Marc wrote:
> ...I've read multiple places that the best correlation to
> safety is not even weight, but cost. That is a small car that is expensive
> is safer (according to real world crash data that they evaluated) than a
> larger, but cheaper vehicle.
So does that mean that when we negotiate for a vehicle, that we should
try to negotatie the price *upward* instead of downward to make it
safer? 8^)
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Kevin
Dave C.
> > been shown to cost lives for exactly this reason.
>
> This may be true, but CAFE has also saved lives, because forcing vehicles
> to use less fuel helps to reduce pollution, and thus fewer people dying
each
> year
> as a result of pollution-related illnesses. Most likely the lives lost by
> one
> thing are balanced by the other.
>
> Ted
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
Lloyd Parker
Bill Funk <bfu...@qwest.net> wrote:
>On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dian...@tecapro.com (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
>>
>>As expected, the NHTSA study did find that heavier vehicles are safer
>>for their occupants when they crash with a lighter vehicle. This is
>>well known, and many people buy SUVs thinking that their weight gives
>>them a safety advantage. Some publications stress this fact (for
>>example one by USA Today is titled "Lighter cars mean more deaths" so
>>many people who drive SUVs may feel reassured).
>>
>>In fact, as far as SUVs go, the NHTSA study could not have been more
>>unfavorable. Using real world statistics about tens of millions of
>>vehicles over several years they prove that the overall safety of SUVs
>>is worse than of lighter passenger cars. One of the reasons is that
>>SUVs have a much higher tendency to roll over. This means that many
>>people spend more to buy a SUV, spend more on gas, and also endanger
>>others, without much any advantage for themselves.
>
>Not so.
>I can control my own vehicle, especially in single-vehicle type
>crashes.
No you can't. You swerve to avoid another car, or a child who runs out in the
road; your SUV rolls over.
>I *can't* control other drivers who hit me.
>My own record shows that the latter is *FAR* more likely to happen
>(and overall statistics show the same), so I am, in fact, safer in my
>large SUV.
Another SUV hits your SUV in the side; your SUV rolls over.
Jim Warman
Would it be too much to ask some folks to peek at the headers sometimes???
--
Jim Warman
mech...@telusplanet.net
Lloyd Parker
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say,
>>>> two VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> distance over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration
>>> forces could be drastically less.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>
>> nate
>>
>
>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
>Probably
>the best available indication would be their respective performance in
>crash tests. These are imperfect to be sure, but they are about the
>best we have at present.
>
>
>Matt
>
Lloyd Parker
"Matthew S. Whiting" <m.wh...@computer.org> wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>> dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>> VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>
>Why do you think that? The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>drastically less.
>
>
>Matt
>
most cars are. The full frames also don't crumple like unitized bodies do.
Lloyd Parker
>wrote:
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dian...@tecapro.com (Dianelos
>>> Georgoudis) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large
>passenger
>>>>car.
>>>
>>>
>>> I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>> bought a very safe SUV.
>>>
>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>
>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>handling for crash safety.
>
>Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not the
>case.
>
LOL!
Lloyd Parker
Kevin <Ke...@el.net> wrote:
>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>bullet proof as you can get.
>
Until it rolls over.
Driving an 8-mpg rolling tank for the one time you might get hit by a lighter
car is like using a Cray supercomputer at work for the one time you might have
to decrypt a message from Andromeda.
Lloyd Parker
"Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcg...@frontier.net> wrote:
>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>you to believe.
>
>business to realize one of the industry's dirty little secrets was simply
>"small cars kill". Bill Clinton'e NHTSA released a report in 2000 that
>concluded the near-mandated downsizing of vehicles through the 80's & 90's
>had resulted in the unnecessary deaths of over 16,000 people.
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).
>The study
>concluded the savings in fuel economy over the same period have more to do
>with improved engine and systems efficiency than did the reduction in
>average vehicle weight.
>
>All I know is, no kid of mine would be sent off to college in a Dodge Neon
>or other such death-trap!
So you send them in one that kills other people and kills the planet?
>
>Greens often try to muddy the water by citing European studies that show a
>similar fatality rate for their small cars as out larger ones. (I'm
>surprised wasn't cited in the report,) Comparisons to European statistics
>are not valid, because they drive far fewer miles than North Americans
Are you saying the studies don't use death RATES? I suspect they do.
>and
>there is far less disparity in vehicle sizes on European roads, that is,
>they drive a lot more small cars than we do.
Lots of big trucks on 2-lane roads, though. Their limited-access (like our
interstates) system is much less extensive.
>
>The whole buzz about SUV rollovers is a smokescreen to try & get people
>scared enough not to buy them.
Wrong. The IIHS and CR are hardly a "green conspiracy."
>It's a hidden agenda by the greens, who 1)
>worry about fuel consumption, and 2) want to ban off roading and fear that
>the more people have off road capable vehicles they more they'll use them.
Considering that fewer than 5% of SUV owners ever go off road anyway...
>(The latter point was confirmed to me a number of years ago by a Sierra Club
>official.)
Yeah, sure. Did he tell you where Elvis is living too?
>Roll overs represent only around 2.5% of all accidents,
But a much higher % of fatalities, and a much higher % of SUV accidents.
>and have
>more to do with idiotic driving than design.
Both, actually.
>A few years ago the Corvette had the highest rollover rate per miles driven
>than any other vehicle. Why? Idiots behind the wheel!
>
>
>
>
>
>"Bill Putney" <bpu...@kinez.net> wrote in message
>news:3F907AED...@kinez.net...
>>
>>
>> Brent P wrote:
>> >
>> > Large passenger cars come out ahead in every type of post-crash safety
>> > measure I've seen, including those that are not dependent upon driver
>> > demographics. And they were also safer when those who are now old
>> > and drive them were younger and driving them.
>>
>> I'm curious: Does this stuff scale linearly? By that, I mean, in two
>> otherwise identical two-vehicle crashes, one crash comprised of, say a
>> vehicle that weighs 2000 pounds and the other vehicle at 3500 pounds,
>> and the second crash with the two vehicles exactly twice (or apply any
>> ratio you want) as heavy (i.e., 4000 pounds and 7000 pounds as in the
>> other crash, will the outcome statistically be the same for
>> corresponding drivers and passengers of both cars in the two different
>> accidents.
>>
>> Another way of asking this is: If everyone in the nation became
>> convinced that bigger is better and got rid of their existing vehicle
>> and bought a vehicle that weighed 50% again as much as their previous
>> vehicle, would the safety statistics change for multiple vehicle
>> accidents (involving the now 50% heavier-across-the-board-vehicles), or
>> would they stay the same?
Lloyd Parker
>wrote:
>
>>P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
>>>>>I care not only about my safety, but the safety of my family, so I
>>>>>bought a very safe SUV.
>>>>>
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
>>>>handling for crash safety.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nah, despite your wish that things were that simplistic, it's not
>the
>>> case.
>>
>
>Uh, nope. I don't expect to wreck but I bought a very safe vehicle
>just in case.
>
>Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
>
>>>
>>
>
>Your cluelessness apparently knows no bounds.
>>
>>>
>>>>What are you doing reading rec.autos.DRIVING then?
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, part of it is the amusement derived from reading funny posts
>like
>>> yours I suppose.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got no problem with SUVs, as long as they are used for their
>>>
>>> intended
>>>
>>>>purpose(s) - i.e. hauling stuff, towing, off-roading. But for
>>>
>>> commuting
>>>
>>>>or store running, it's just freaking retarded.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately Nate doesn't make up the rules.
>>>
>>> What a great country, eh?
>>>
>>
>an
>>ass out of yourself in public. That won't stop me from laughing at
>you
>>though.
>
>So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>many passenger cars,
Unless you're driving an Infiniti FX, a BMW X5, or a Porsche Cayenne, you're
sadly mistaken.
>
>I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>
Lloyd Parker
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.
Lloyd Parker
60s crap.
CAFE is one reason we get cars like the M3, E55, S4, etc.
Lloyd Parker
>wrote:
>
>
>>> So because I drive a very safe SUV, that outhandles and outperforms
>concept,
>>> that makes me an ass?
>>>
>>> I guess I'll have some of what you've been smoking.
>>>
>>
>>Either that, or it's one of those horrible car-based SUVs that are
>>supposed to look like SUVs, handle like cars, and don't do either
>well.
>
>Nope. Not car-based. Full ladder frame in fact. Low range, etc.
>
And you think it outperforms may cars? Hey, want to buy a bridge in Brooklyn?
>Watch your assumptions lest you make yourself look like an even bigger
>idiot than you already have.
>
>Cheers!
>
Lloyd Parker
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.
>
>
Earle Horton
news:bms79l$6me$1...@puck.cc.emory.edu...
1989 Suburban, but even by 1989 they were few and far between. I wish also
that you would go back to torturing graduate students or begging for grant
money.
Earle
Trentus
news:FwZjb.24$uG.1...@news.abs.net...
> P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
>
> > On 17 Oct 2003 08:52:47 -0700, dian...@tecapro.com (Dianelos
> > Georgoudis) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>If you care about your personal safety then, clearly, the best
> >>strategy is not to use a SUV but to use a mid-size or large passenger
> >>car.
> >
> >
> > bought a very safe SUV.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> Obviously, then you *expect* to wreck, as you've apparently traded
> handling for crash safety.
>
It isn't posted only in rec.autos.driving, it's posted in about a dozen
newsgroups.
Marc
>CAFE is a result of the enviro-wackos.
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.
Matthew S. Whiting
> "Matthew S. Whiting" <m.wh...@computer.org> wrote:
>
>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>>Really? I expect that a collision between two SUVs would be more
>>>dangerous to the vehicles' occupants than a collision between, say, two
>>>VW Golfs (Golves?) due to the construction of the various vehicles.
>>
>>Why do you think that?
>
>
> pretty close to real-world crashes with vehicles of similar weight. In
> such crashes, medium-small cars (like Golfs and Civics) generally do better
> than vehicles such as pickups and other heavier trucks.
>
>
>>The SUVs have a lot more distance between the
>>drivers and the front of the vehicle meaning that there is more distance
>>over which to decelerate and this means the deceleration forces could be
>>drastically less.
>
>
> us. My favorites are:
>
> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0110.htm
> http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0126.htm
>
> I happen to own the car that I linked to...
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
Matthew S. Whiting
> Kevin <Ke...@el.net> wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, Kevin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Heaver is better. Take a large SUV, spend a few bucks and put in a roll
>>>>cage, fire bottle system, and 5 point belts and you will be as close to
>>>>bullet proof as you can get.
>>>
>>>
>>>metro.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes but with the metro you would not have the extra weight which
>>generates more momentum
>
>
> handles like a brick (or is that, "your brick handles like a boat"?).
>
> If you are an incompetent driver that expects to run into lots of things,
> then you need a tank. If you are actually a competent driver, you should
> be in a better handling vehicle and avoid the crashes. Though in both
> cases, a roll cage and 5-point harness will protect you from a much wider
> variety of crashes. The only ones where weight would matter is when you
> hit a moving vehicle head-on or when someone hits you in the side (and a
> good driver should be able to avoid most t-bones when the other driver is
> at fault).
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
Matthew S. Whiting
>>drivers are involved in accidents in substantially different rates based
>>on age. If the large cars are being driven by people in the safer age
>>ranges (very likely) and the SUVs are being driven by people in less
>>safe age ranges (a good chance), then death rates (which are typically a
>>function of accident rates), will be higher for the vehicles driven by
>>the class of driver that has higher accident rates.
>
>
> Then we should move everyone currently in an SUV into a Metro because they
> crash at an exorbitantly high rate and in the smaller vehicle will do less
> damage to others.
>
> Since many of the pro-SUV nuts claim that everyone that doesn't like SUVs
> is jealous because they are too expensive and exclusive for the peons, I'd
> tell you that you aught to get with them and present a unified pro-SUV
> front, as you are claiming that the younger drivers (generally with less
> money than older drivers) are buying up the SUVs.
>
> And did you stop to think that the reason the SUVs are crashing more is
> because they handle poorly and the drivers are unable to avoid avoidable
> crashes?
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
Dave C.
> 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.
>
>
I think you meant lower, didn't you? -Dave
Matthew S. Whiting
> "Gerald G. McGeorge" <gmcg...@frontier.net> wrote:
>
>>The results aren't linear, but it's safe to say that even with enhanced
>>safety design, a 2000 lb vehicle won't fare well when hit by something with
>>twice as much mass. There's a limit on what can be achieved with design,
>>simply a matter of physics, no matter what the greens & safety mavens want
>>you to believe.
>
>
> vehicle was 6000 lbs.
Why?
Matt
Bill Funk
wrote:
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.
Bill Funk
wrote:
>>> Probably not, as most cars are now unibody and a "real" SUV has a beefy
>>> full frame. So the car will "crumple" better, unless it's a really
>>> beefy (i.e. very high speed) smack.
>>>
>>> nate
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily. The frames are designed to crumple as well.
>
>Not necessarily. Because the old designs sell so well and much so much money
>for the makers, there's little incentive to make cutting-edge designs.
And yet, all light truck makers have redesigned their frames in the
last few years.
There must be more incentive than you see.
Matthew S. Whiting
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
Bill Funk
wrote:
>In article <3F9066F8...@computer.org>,
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!
Bill Funk
wrote:
>In article <VQYjb.489624$2x.2...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
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.