Is Bigger Better?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Don Quijote, Jun 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 18:11:41 +0000, Dave Simpson wrote:

    > There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger vehicles remain safer than smaller
    > vehicles. The smallest automobiles are the least safe. Safety is defined as relative risk to the
    > vehicles' own occupants.

    Why does this sound like: " That depends on what your definition of 'is',
    is." Bullshit.

    > (they are designed and must always be designed to carry respectably large payloads, which is
    > where the activists are fundamentally wrong when they want to convert trucks into cars as well as
    > to shrink them),

    More parenthetical bullshit. The reason "activists" object to the classification of these "payload
    carrying" vehicles (how often do you see an Explorer with one guy in it on the way to work? ) is
    that they use their "truck" status to avoid modest safety and fuel efficiency standards.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not _`\(,_ | certain, and as
    far as they are certain, they do not refer to (_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein
     


  2. On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:56:14 +0000, Dave Simpson wrote:

    > Safety is defined in terms of the relative risk to the occupants of vehicles.

    That is a myopic definition. It should include the relative risk to those the damn thing hits, too.

    > Pickups, SUVs, and cargo vans are heavier and in addition, they are more sturdy (you can review
    > safety studies which refer to their stiffer frames and such if you are interested), and they
    > overall are safer to their occupants, in all kinds of accidents.

    Again, this is a matter of definition. "Safer in all kinds of accidents" restricts attention to the
    results of accidents, not the likelihood of having one. Rollover statistics are swept under the rug
    in this calculation, and SUVs are notoriously prone to rollover. In a given situation, had the
    driver been driving a sensible vehicle, he/she would not be in the accident statistics at all, since
    it would not have rolled over.

    > Where there is a greater, not smaller, relative risk with the vehicles ... is that their higher
    > centers of gravity present a higher risk of rollover.

    but then you go on to ignore this effect:

    > In typical safety studies, the smallest cars are, as expected, at the very bottom and far
    > riskier than the bigger vehicles. As far as the secondary element of risk to other vehicles (the
    > issue which the leftists currently are flogging to death, and being silly when not irritating or
    > outrageous) is worst with cargo vans, not pickups or SUVs.

    Well, excuse me for voting Democratic, but that is irrelevant. Actually, the "worst" interms of risk
    to other vehicles would be logging trucks. But the number of logging trucks on the road, or cargo
    vans, is a small fraction of the number of Ford Explorers.

    --

    David L. Johnson

    __o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is _`\(,_ | not that they are
    extreme, but that they are intolerant. (_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy
     
  3. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ian St. John wrote:
    >
    > > We'll keep bitching till the two ton mom mobiles ( of whatever design )
    are
    > > dead and the roads are safe.
    >
    > I'll ignore your more silly statements and just address this. By coercing people into smaller
    > vehicles,

    No coercion. I have a right to bitch. You have a right to be ignorant and stupid. It balances out.

    > you are not only anti-American,

    Public debate and protest is the only American institution worth saving.

    > and you are also raising their risk of injury and death, making the roads less rather than
    > more safe.

    Lie. The SUV has higher risks both to the occupant ( in single car 'collisions' ) as well as to the
    occupants of smaller vehicles. They are a perfect example of a lose/lose proposition.

    > Also, no matter what people drive there will still be bad drivers, who will continue to make the
    > roads around them unsafe, which is one of the many reasons why the anti-SUV hysteria and
    > demonization is so utterly stupid.

    OH. Right. Let's outlaw safety glass and regulatiions on air bags because there may be bad drivers
    out there.

    THis is such a non-sequitor that I should save it in a page of silly remarks from a simpleton.

    >
    >
    > Dave Simpleton
     
  4. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ian St. John wrote:
    >
    > > It should be noted that despite their greater mass, the increased
    rollover
    > > and vision blockiing risks of SUVs etc make them equally dangerous to
    their
    > > drivers as cars. Mostly in one vehicle collisions or rollover. The simplicity of their safety
    > > systems ( cheap manufacture, counting on mass
    to
    > > improve safety rating ) tends to balance out any advantage they might
    have
    > > in other collisions.
    >
    > There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger vehicles remain safer than smaller
    > vehicles.

    False. One of the other costly consequences of SUV dangers is the higher cost of insurance.
    http://www.insweb.com/learningcenter/special-reports/suv/risks.htm

    > The smallest automobiles are the least safe.

    An a-priori argument. You have to SHOW that they are safer in actual driving conditions including
    backing up, rollover, single car/immovable object and two car collisions. You make dumb sweeping
    statements pulled wet and steaming from your anus.

    > Safety is defined as relative risk to the vehicles' own occupants.

    Which is higher in SUVs due to the higher risk of single car collison or rollover being more
    dangeroust than the relative safety of two car collisions.

    Rest of Simpletons statements deleted as they hold no value.
     
  5. Dtj

    Dtj Guest

    On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 08:50:28 -0400, "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and 80s were station wagons, which
    >weighed at least two tons, except maybe the compact station wagons like the falcon which probably
    >weight a few hundred pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight in the
    >neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs, because cars used to be just
    >as heavy, and there are quite a few these days that still are two tons or more.

    I realize that your slanted view of reality is blinding the facts, but all cars and vehicles were
    heavier 40 years ago. There were fewer cars on the road. Most females did not drive. Most cars
    weighed the same, give or take 200-500 pounds.

    Today you have twits who are incredibly naive - use a mirror - driving vehicles they can not
    control, talking on the cell phone, applying makeup, while adjusting the speed control on their
    personal vibrating device.
     
  6. Dtj

    Dtj Guest

    On 9 Jul 2003 18:00:08 -0700, [email protected] (Dave Simpson) wrote:

    >Cory Dunkle wrote:
    >
    >> Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and 80s were station wagons,
    >> which weighed at least two tons, except maybe the compact station wagons like the falcon which
    >> probably weight a few hundred pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight
    >> in the neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs, because cars used to
    >> be just as heavy, and there are quite a few these days that still are two tons or more.
    >
    > The demise of those vehicles, blamed by many on federal government fuel efficiency requirements
    > for cars, is also claimed by many to be responsible for the rise of the SUV.

    Nobody intelligent claims that. The reason SUVs are so prevalent is that the CAFE standards do
    not apply.
     
  7. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    David L. Johnson wrote:

    > > There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger vehicles remain safer than
    > > smaller vehicles. The smallest automobiles are the least safe. Safety is defined as relative
    > > risk to the vehicles' own occupants.
    >
    > Why does this sound like: " That depends on what your definition of 'is',
    > is." Bullshit.

    You are wrong. It's not my problem whether it's a deficiency in your hearing, mentality, or
    character. You are wrong, and you ought to know and do better.

    > > (they are designed and must always be designed to carry respectably large payloads, which is
    > > where the activists are fundamentally wrong when they want to convert trucks into cars as well
    > > as to shrink them),

    > More parenthetical bullshit.

    You are wrong again. Do you even know what the meanings of the words you are using are, or are you
    just throwing a tantrum because life and its facts suck?

    > The reason "activists" object to the classification of these "payload carrying" vehicles (how
    > often do you see an Explorer with one guy in it on the way to work? ) is that they use their
    > "truck" status to avoid modest safety and fuel efficiency standards.

    Not everyone uses truck-based vehicles like cars. (* sigh *)

    "Modest" standards: more dressed-up whining, if not real word games.

    (* sigh *)

    Dave Simpson
     
  8. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Ian St. John wrote:

    > > There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger vehicles remain safer than
    > > smaller vehicles.

    > False.

    I am correct. You lose again. Read the studies to correct your ignorance.

    > One of the other costly consequences of SUV dangers is the higher cost of insurance.
    > http://www.insweb.com/learningcenter/special-reports/suv/risks.htm

    The costs of insurance aren't only related to risk but to repair and replacement costs and other
    costs of claims.

    > > The smallest automobiles are the least safe.
    >
    > An a-priori argument. You have to SHOW that they are safer in actual driving conditions including
    > backing up, rollover, single car/immovable object and two car collisions. You make dumb sweeping
    > statements pulled wet and steaming from your anus.

    Ian fails again. Read the statements and cure your ignorance if you can, although your character
    failure may be beneath redemption.

    > > Safety is defined as relative risk to the vehicles' own occupants.

    > Which is higher in SUVs due to the higher risk of single car collison or rollover being more
    > dangeroust than the relative safety of two car collisions.

    Small autos are the most dangerous, the trucks being safer except in a rare case of a large, heavy
    automobile, which already has gone nearly extinct from earlier political correctness eco-drives.
    You lose again.

    > Rest of Simpletons statements deleted as they hold no value.

    Too bad -- I gave you two additional chances to redeem yourself and you instead continue to insist
    on being wrong, a loser, and an asshole piece of Net garbage, typifying the losers and scum that
    form a substantial portion of, and tarnish, the Left as they have for ages.

    Dave Simpson
     
  9. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Ian St. John wrote:

    > > > We'll keep bitching till the two ton mom mobiles ( of whatever design ) are dead and the roads
    > > > are safe.

    > > I'll ignore your more silly statements and just address this. By coercing people into smaller
    > > vehicles,

    > No coercion. I have a right to bitch. You have a right to be ignorant and stupid. It balances out.

    However, you are ignorant and stupid and ill-behaved, while I am correct and better behaved. You
    lose again.

    Too bad -- I gave you two chances on here to stop being an asshole and a piece of garbage on
    USENET but you chose to be pathologically persistent.

    Dave Simpson
     
  10. Brent P

    Brent P Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Dave Simpson wrote:
    > Ian St. John wrote:
    >
    >> It should be noted that despite their greater mass, the increased rollover and vision blockiing
    >> risks of SUVs etc make them equally dangerous to their drivers as cars. Mostly in one vehicle
    >> collisions or rollover. The simplicity of their safety systems ( cheap manufacture, counting on
    >> mass to improve safety rating ) tends to balance out any advantage they might have in other
    >> collisions.
    >
    > There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger vehicles remain safer than smaller
    > vehicles. The smallest automobiles are the least safe. Safety is defined as relative risk to the
    > vehicles' own occupants.

    SUV's do not use their mass well with regards to crash safety. The additional weight is used for
    cargo carrying ability and/or the ability to take loading/shocks of off road usage. If you want a
    vehicle with alot of post-crash safety buy a heavy passenger car where the extra mass is used for
    passenger protecting structure.

    However, you will find the choice of such passenger cars rather limited due to CAFE.
     
  11. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    David L. Johnson wrote:

    > > Safety is defined in terms of the relative risk to the occupants of vehicles.

    > That is a myopic definition.

    It is the standard, customary definition.

    At least you didn't make an ass of yourself about this, this time.

    And you have to understand one thing: what are the relative severity of consequences of different
    collisions? Aside from a non-yielding object that is struck, the worst event normally is colliding
    with another vehicle. Collision safety or relative risk to one's self is not only the customary
    definition but the primary measure of safety for just this reason.

    > It should include the relative risk to those the damn thing hits, too.

    That is, sadly, an excuse used by the whinier leftiests to get vehicles to be shrunk, no matter
    what reality demands. But the concept has always been there, such as when reminding motorists not
    to linger or be risky at railroad crossings, such as trying to beat the train...

    Studies now often address the "threat" to others as well as the risk to one's self as an occupant.
    (See below, bottom of posting.)

    > > Pickups, SUVs, and cargo vans are heavier and in addition, they are more sturdy (you can
    > > review safety studies which refer to their stiffer frames and such if you are interested), and
    > > they overall are safer to their occupants, in all kinds of accidents.

    > Again, this is a matter of definition.

    There is no reasonable complaint about the definition. There is a related, secondary, concept,
    which addresses exactly what you discuss, which is the relative risk of some vehicles to other
    vehicles (and by implication, to other things like cyclists, pedestrians, or buildings, or
    whatever).

    > "Safer in all kinds of accidents" restricts attention to the results of accidents, not the
    > likelihood of having one. Rollover statistics are swept under the rug in this calculation, and
    > SUVs are notoriously prone to rollover. In a given situation, had the driver been driving a
    > sensible vehicle, he/she would not be in the accident statistics at all, since it would not have
    > rolled over.

    They are not swept under the rug; they are smaller than the relative safety to occupants in large
    and sturdy versus small and less-sturdy vehicles. The other issues are there (which include, as I
    mentioned, different vehicle ride heights).

    > > Where there is a greater, not smaller, relative risk with the vehicles ... is that their
    > > higher centers of gravity present a higher risk of rollover.

    > but then you go on to ignore this effect:

    I don't ignore it. I posted it above, and it's part of the entire picture. It's simply not the
    only part and it's not the major part, and activists who push this part are being less than
    completely honest (or mature).

    > > In typical safety studies, the smallest cars are, as expected, at the very bottom and far
    > > riskier than the bigger vehicles. As far as the secondary element of risk to other vehicles
    > > (the issue which the leftists currently are flogging to death, and being silly when not
    > > irritating or outrageous) is worst with cargo vans, not pickups or SUVs.

    (In fact, the term used irritates better people but it is becoming used anyway: the secondary
    risks to others are referred to in studies with the smarmy left-wing-implied sound-bite phrase
    "VEHICLE AGGRESSIVITY.")

    (If you want to do research on your own, a good idea is to do a Web search for the term "vehicle
    aggressivity" both as a phrase and with separate words.)

    > Well, excuse me for voting Democratic,

    That's OK. Nobody's perfect. You have plenty of company, though
    the kind of company it is should make you feel not better, but worse.

    > but that is irrelevant.

    It is not. You are free to read studies on relative risks if you want to learn more. I will add
    some information below (end of posting).

    > Actually, the "worst" [in terms] of risk to other vehicles would be logging trucks.

    I wouldn't want to tangle with a fully loaded moving van, myself. Anything that slows down to a
    crawl on upgrades is something I'd take extra pains to avoid in a collision.

    > But the number of logging trucks on the road, or cargo vans, is a small fraction of the number of
    > Ford Explorers.

    Cargo vans have not been part of the contemporary vehicle preference trend, yes.

    Far too many people don't realize that the real problem with hazards has very little to do with
    the kind of vehicle, and is independent of vehicle choice and especially trends disparaged by a
    strident minority. The main source of vehicle problems remains the nut behind the wheel.

    You may not like the trend toward larger truck-based vehicles and the raised risk to yourselves,
    the non-motorists, but the motorists find them safer* and they are safer given the normal
    definitions. Nobody is ignoring the secondary risks to others from the greater truck-based vehicle
    weights and character of the vehicles (sturdier, higher-riding). However, we live in a free
    country and even if you (as a Democrats, you are more likely to) dismiss this as a worthless
    issue, you also must understand that many purchasers of trucks do so because they need the hauling
    or towing capability, even if only on the weekends to haul a boat, for example, rather than use a
    truck on the job (which many do, with all kinds of equipment or other items in the truck bed).
    Nobody disputes that many people use truck-based vehicles as automobiles (such as for commuting),
    but you cannot treat both apples and oranges as apples (force both to get the same kind of
    emissions, fuel efficiency, or lowered weight). Any alternative lighter-weight vehicle faces the
    same real-world test of seriousness that does alternative sources of motive power -- performance
    must be similar, and so must be price, if not even better for the alternative to induce a switch.
    A titanium or composite-fiber truck that can carry same-sized payloads but is lighter-weight to
    get better fuel efficiency is not the answer if the cost of the vehicle is several times more than
    ordinary steel or a steel and aluminum combination, for example. (And with changing from steel to
    aluminum, one must address the high energy costs for obtaining the aluminum in the first place.)

    * A cynical additional thesis I have encountered is that because the sturdier truck-based vehicles
    can handle poorer roads, some argue that motorists switch from cars to trucks when roads are
    poorly maintained rather than agree to spend more tax money on roadway improvements.

    Some items follow. There's much in there for everybody, but the main issue remains that lowering
    vehicle weights would tend to increase fatalities, and any "safety" argument ends up in against
    weight reductions. Bigger IS better.

    "Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of
    physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and
    lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many
    occupant deaths each year as large cars.

    Size and weight are closely related. Large vehicles typically are heavy, and small ones are light.
    But these two characteristics don't influence crashworthiness the same way. Vehicle size can protect
    you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush
    zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.

    Vehicle weight protects you principally in two-vehicle crashes. In a head-on crash, for example, the
    heavier vehicle drives the lighter one backwards, which decreases forces inside the heavy vehicle
    and increases forces in the lighter one. All heavy vehicles, even poorly designed ones, offer this
    advantage in two-vehicle collisions but may not offer good protection in single-vehicle crashes."

    http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm

    "The results have a clear pattern: reducing a vehicle's weight increases net risk in collisions with
    substantially larger and stronger entities, reduces net risk in collisions with much smaller and
    more vulnerable entities, and has little effect on net risk in collisions with vehicles of about the
    same size. The only entities smaller than passenger cars are pedestrians, bicyclists and
    motorcyclists. Therefore, when car weight is reduced, the modest benefit for pedestrians is far
    outweighed by the increase in most other types of crashes. The latest light trucks, on the average,
    weigh over 900 pounds more than passenger cars. Continued growth in the number and weight of light
    trucks is likely to increase the hazard in collisions between the trucks and smaller road users
    (cars, motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians), while a reduction in the weight of the trucks is
    likely to reduce harm in such collisions.

    Some people believe that small cars attract aggressive drivers because they are more sporty and
    powerful than large cars. They might argue that, to a greater or lesser extent, it's not the cars,
    but rather their drivers that are responsible for the higher fatality rates of small cars in the
    preceding analyses. This belief may have been valid at one time, but today, the typical small car is
    no longer a sports car. The make-models currently associated with high performance, high horsepower,
    or aggressive driving are generally not small, but are of average or even slightly
    heavier-than-average weight. As a result, the high-performance make-models, if anything, biased the
    preceding analyses in favor of smaller cars. In a sensitivity test, the analyses of this report were
    re-run without those sporty and high-performance make-models. The correlation between passenger car
    weight and fatality risk did not diminish. In fact, it became slightly stronger. The predicted
    effect of a 100-pound weight reduction escalated from an increase of 302 fatalities in the baseline
    analysis to an increase of 370 fatalities on the sensitivity test."

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/808570.html

    *** "Vehicle Aggressivity," Compatibility, Various Ideas for Reduction, Etc. ***

    Worldwide

    www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/ esv/esv17/proceed/00135.pdf www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/
    SAE/SAE2002/SSummers_SAE2K2.pdf

    USA

    www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/17ESV_249.PDF www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/esv96cg.pdf
    www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/aggress1.pdf www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/SAE2001-01-1172.pdf
    www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/15ESV_96S4O01.pdf www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/
    1999_SAE_Compatibility_Paper.pdf www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-11/esv98cg.pdf
    www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-50/ ciren/2001/0901nhtsa.pdf

    Rollover Stability and Rollover Crash Protection...

    www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-01/esv/ esv18/AbstractBookletDraft3.pdf

    Dave Simpson
     
  12. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    This has been dealt with at length elsewhere, but merits a repetition here so as to revisit that
    contemporary, left-wing-character term that is often now used when referring to the demonized larger
    truck-based vehicles.

    Safety is normally defined for vehicles in terms of relative risk to their occupants.

    A secondary issue that has been leapt upon by abusive activists is the disparity of vehicle sizes
    with larger, heavier truck-based vehicles (that also are stiffer and have higher ride heights) and
    smaller, lighter auto-based or car "platform" vehicles (which are less stiff and have lower ride
    heights), and the inverse of the traditional view of safety, namely the relative risks each kind of
    vehicle presents to others in collisions -- as well as, tangentially, to motorcyclists, cyclists,
    and pedestrians.

    The contemporary term that has become jargon in studies and which has a left-wing flavor to it, when
    describing the relative risks of vehicles to other vehicles and other people is known nowadays as

    vehicle aggressivity

    and interested readers (as I advised a poster elsewhere on this thread, earlier) can find numerous
    studies and documents by doing a Web search on this relatively new term.

    The term, of course, has a left-wing and naturally childish protest-y flavor to it. A boulder or a
    bridge abutment, or a train, is even bigger and heavier and presents a severe risk to anything
    smaller, but neither these things nor heavier ordinary motor vehicles are inherently aggressive.
    It's sad to see a left-wing junkiness once more even in issues related in any way to science, even
    if only in a relatively lesser-importance issue such as merely conjuring up a new term for a
    long-known concept.

    Dave Simpson
     
  13. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    David L. Johnson wrote:

    > > Safety is defined in terms of the relative risk to the occupants of vehicles.
    >
    > That is a myopic definition. It should include the relative risk to those the damn thing
    > hits, too.

    One of the more interesting studies, and one of among some I have recommended to my very-liberal
    friend in DC, gives you typical numbers on the different kinds of vehicles in the USA but also
    numbers on different vehicle sizes (weights) and also engine displacements in other nations.

    Don't expect these to be a Bible for "harmonization" downward to European or Japanese sizes; this
    is unrealistic for Americans as well as having other faults (if they don't want the smaller
    vehicles, nobody has any right to force them into those vehicles, among other problems with the
    notion). For example, instead of the classification in the study, Americans would consider a
    "large" engine in metric terms of displacement to begin around the 5.0, not 3.0, liter size (see
    Table 2 in the study at the link I provide below).

    For the numbers alone, though, and the over-400-kg difference between typical cars and truck
    vehicles in the USA (430 kg difference in 1997), this study is interesting. There even are numbers
    in it that would tease the most unrealistic and most demanding of the anti-vehicle-size activists
    (the auto equivalent of the "ten times rule," for example). You might find other items in there
    amusing, such as the phrase "catastrophically aggressive."

    http://engineering.rowan.edu/~gabler/Research/crashresearch/990069.pdf

    (No, we don't need or want vehicle-weight or engine-displacement or engine-output taxes. A tax on
    these things already effectively exists in the form of the costs of relatively higher fuel
    consumption.)

    Dave Simpson
     
  14. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "Dave Simpson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ian St. John wrote:
    >
    > > > There is no balancing out or overall negative outcome. Larger vehicles remain safer than
    > > > smaller vehicles.
    >
    > > False.
    >
    > I am correct. You lose again. Read the studies to correct your ignorance.

    I did. You didn't or you would realise that they state the obvious. SUVs are more dangerout to their
    occupants overall than cars.

    >
    > > One of the other costly consequences of SUV dangers is the higher cost of insurance.
    > > http://www.insweb.com/learningcenter/special-reports/suv/risks.htm
    >
    > The costs of insurance aren't only related to risk but to repair and replacement costs and other
    > costs of claims.

    However, the statistics you would have seen if you had been capable of reading the reference would
    show that fatal accidents claim more lives in SUVs than in passenger cars. You are exposed for an
    ignorant asshole with no argument but to repeat ideology that you learned from an industry ad.

    >
    >
    > > > The smallest automobiles are the least safe.
    > >
    > > An a-priori argument. You have to SHOW that they are safer in actual
    driving
    > > conditions including backing up, rollover, single car/immovable object
    and
    > > two car collisions. You make dumb sweeping statements pulled wet and steaming from your anus.
    >
    > Ian fails again. Read the statements and cure your ignorance if you can, although your character
    > failure may be beneath redemption.

    You seem to think that repeating propaganda or ideology can replace facts. It can't. Learn to read.

    >
    > > > Safety is defined as relative risk to the vehicles' own occupants.
    >
    > > Which is higher in SUVs due to the higher risk of single car collison or rollover being more
    > > dangeroust than the relative safety of two car collisions.
    >
    > Small autos are the most dangerous, the trucks being safer except in a rare case of a large, heavy
    > automobile, which already has gone nearly extinct from earlier political correctness eco-drives.
    > You lose again.

    Repeating an error will not change it from being an error. The total risk to the occupants is higher
    in an SUV and this has been shown by study as well as accident statistics. If you want to remain
    ignorant, you may but don't think that anyone else is as dumb as you.

    >
    > > Rest of Simpletons statements deleted as they hold no value.
    >
    > Too bad -- I gave you two additional chances to redeem yourself and you instead continue to
    > insist on being wrong, a loser, and an asshole piece of Net garbage, typifying the losers and
    > scum that form a substantial portion of, and tarnish, the Left as they have for ages.

    Your posts add up to nothing but repeated assertions with no foundation. Industry propaganda or
    urban myth. Not sure where you picked it up but it seems to have infected your brain and shut down
    the higher functions.
    >
    >
    > Dave Simpleton
     
  15. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    DTJ wrote:

    > >Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and 80s were station wagons,
    > >which weighed at least two tons, except maybe the compact station wagons like the falcon which
    > >probably weight a few hundred pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight
    > >in the neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs, because cars used to
    > >be just as heavy, and there are quite a few these days that still are two tons or more.

    > I realize that your slanted view of reality is blinding the facts, but all cars and vehicles were
    > heavier 40 years ago. There were fewer cars on the road. Most females did not drive. Most cars
    > weighed the same, give or take 200-500 pounds.

    The old full-sized station wagons were indeed big. They could haul and tow a good deal, as well.
    Their engines were suitably sized, in addition.

    > Today you have twits who are incredibly naive - use a mirror - driving vehicles they can not
    > control, talking on the cell phone, applying makeup, while adjusting the speed control on their
    > personal vibrating device.

    They have always been around, though perhaps greater in number and even in proportion nowadays.
    (Would children raised earlier be so likely as to commit the faux pas -- to keep it far kinder
    than need be -- to yammer on their cell phones not only when driving or riding a bicycle, but also
    indoors? Our poor society indeed is losing civility as well as intelligence or knowledge.)

    Dave Simpson
     
  16. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    DTJ wrote:

    > > The demise of those vehicles, blamed by many on federal government fuel efficiency requirements
    > > for cars, is also claimed by many to be responsible for the rise of the SUV.

    > Nobody intelligent claims that. The reason SUVs are so prevalent is that the CAFE standards do
    > not apply.

    Actually, the main reason SUVs are so prevalent is that it is the current trend, or fad. But,
    another reason they may be so prevalent is as I alluded to, which is that people desiring a
    larger, heavier vehicle no longer had the choices of larger, heavier cars that used to be
    available. Hence the claims of some that the car CAFE standards are responsible (which is true,
    indirectly), then, for the rise of the SUV.

    As to taking the current apples-and-oranges situation with cars and trucks, I don't object to
    making them consistent and deriving CAFE standards that are the same for all small vehicles
    (making them all apples, or oranges), such as on a gross vehicle weight rating-related fuel
    efficiency standard, which preserves the necessity of trucks to be able to haul and tow the loads
    they're meant to.

    (Gross combined weight rating-related fuel efficiency standards
    would have to be more generous as well as likely be less practical.)

    Dave Simpson
     
  17. Dave Simpson

    Dave Simpson Guest

    Ian St. John wrote:

    > You are exposed for an ignorant asshole with no argument but to repeat ideology that you learned
    > from an industry ad.

    (* sigh *) Describing other as like you, and lying about people, fail.

    Dave Simpson
     
  18. Cory Dunkle

    Cory Dunkle Guest

    "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:D[email protected]...
    >
    > "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Paul" <[email protected]_sucks.don'temailme.net> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "Don Quijote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > Larger vehicles, the argument goes, may guzzle more gas but they
    offer
    > > > > more protection, whether one hits a tree or another car. The
    argument
    > > > > has been a central one when efforts emerge in Congress to raise fuel economy standards.
    > > >
    > > > The two ton mom mobiles are safer, eh. Tell that to the dead girl. See the following.
    > > >
    http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/met_12884481.shtml
    > >
    > > Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and 80s were station wagons,
    > > which weighed at least two tons, except maybe the compact station wagons like the falcon which
    > > probably weight a few
    hundred
    > > pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight in
    the
    > > neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs,
    > because
    > > cars used to be just as heavy, and there are quite a few these days that still are two tons
    > > or more.
    >
    > We'll keep bitching till the two ton mom mobiles ( of whatever design )
    are
    > dead and the roads are safe. Remember that SUVs kill more in two car collisions and yet are not
    > safer for their drivers or passengers because
    of
    > roll instability and vision blockage. This has nothing to do with history
    or
    > what went before. It has to do with creating an unnecessary threat to
    life,
    > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler. It is just ANOTHER bad design.

    In that case _every_ vehicle on the road is "an unnecessary threat to life, as well as a wasteful
    gas guzzler". In times of old people used to live close to work, and for those that lived fartehr
    from work they rode a horse. Cars are _not_ needed at all to survive. Any time a human moves faster
    than he was designed to (i.e. faster than he can run) he risks his life, as the human body wasn't
    made to take the impact of such high speeds. Anything that uses more gas than a horse is wasteful.

    The only reason people die in car accidents is because the accidents occurred in the first place.
    Attack the problem at it's root, unsafe drivers and unsafe laws. The type of vehicle someone drives
    is irrelevant.
     
  19. Cory Dunkle

    Cory Dunkle Guest

    "David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 17:56:14 +0000, Dave Simpson wrote:
    >
    > > Safety is defined in terms of the relative risk to the occupants of vehicles.
    >
    > That is a myopic definition. It should include the relative risk to those the damn thing
    > hits, too.

    That's not the manufacturers responsibility... That is up to the maker of the other vehicle. Geo
    wants their Metro to be able to withstand a 50 MPH head on collision (100MPH combined impact speed)
    with a Ford Excursion it's going to cost a hell of a lot of money to make that happen. It's also
    going to make their Metro heavier, which will necessitate a larger engine. After that the Metro is
    not a cheap econo-box. It's still tiny, but now it's heavier and doesn't get all that great mileage.

    When you buy a vehicle and decide to drive it you are accepting the risk involved in a collision of
    any type with any sort of vehicle on the roads. If your vehicle can't ensure your survivability when
    slammed into a full-size SUV or 18-wheeler then that's your problem. If that's a big issue for you
    in a car then you need to look for a car that will address your concerns. Stop bitching about what
    everyone else is driving and do something about your problems, buy a car that you feel safe in.

    > > Pickups, SUVs, and cargo vans are heavier and in addition, they are more sturdy (you can
    > > review safety studies which refer to their stiffer frames and such if you are interested), and
    > > they overall are safer to their occupants, in all kinds of accidents.
    >
    > Again, this is a matter of definition. "Safer in all kinds of accidents" restricts attention to
    > the results of accidents, not the likelihood of having one. Rollover statistics are swept under
    > the rug in this calculation, and SUVs are notoriously prone to rollover. In a given situation, had
    > the driver been driving a sensible vehicle, he/she would not be in the accident statistics at all,
    > since it would not have rolled over.

    The rollover is usuall the result of an accident (i.e. collision, contact with another vehicle or
    object). Sometimes it is the result of an attempt to avoid a collision and even less often it's the
    result of simply over-driving the vehicle. For the latter two cases that is the responsibility of
    the driver to know the capabilities of his vehicle. My Galaxies are more prone to a rollover than a
    Civic, but who cares. That's my problem, not yours... I know the capabilities of my cars and don't
    exceed them. If I flip my car on it's roof in a stupid maneuver I'll deal with the consequences
    without bitching about how my vehicle was more prone to rollover than a Civic, as I accepted the
    risk. I'm not gonig to start bitching about how my car sits higher than most, and I won't sue Ford
    for designing a great car that has proven it's reliability over 35 years and 100,000 miles but
    flipped over wehn I did something stupid in it.

    > > Where there is a greater, not smaller, relative risk with the vehicles ... is that their
    > > higher centers of gravity present a higher risk of rollover.
    >
    > but then you go on to ignore this effect:
    >
    > > In typical safety studies, the smallest cars are, as expected, at the very bottom and far
    > > riskier than the bigger vehicles. As far as the secondary element of risk to other vehicles
    > > (the issue which the
    leftists
    > > currently are flogging to death, and being silly when not irritating or outrageous) is worst
    > > with cargo vans, not pickups or SUVs.
    >
    > Well, excuse me for voting Democratic, but that is irrelevant. Actually, the "worst" interms of
    > risk to other vehicles would be logging trucks. But the number of logging trucks on the road, or
    > cargo vans, is a small fraction of the number of Ford Explorers.

    In this country we have the freedom to buy and drive any vehicle we want to. I chose a '68 Ford. My
    aunt chose a '02 Durango. If I get into an accident with my aunt and I die (or vice versa), oh well,
    that's life (or death, in this case, heh heh). You won't find anyone suing anyone over the death,

    because of their own mistakes. If you feel unsafe in your current vehicle and it bothers you as much
    as it seems to, then go buy a vehicle you'd feel safer in. Your best bet is probably a larger car
    with modern safety features like the Crown Vic. It's still a car, and is relatively large which
    means in an accident with a heavy vehicle there is more around you that other vehicle must get
    through before touching you.
     
  20. Ian St. John

    Ian St. John Guest

    "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:D[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Cory Dunkle" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "Paul" <[email protected]_sucks.don'temailme.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > > "Don Quijote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > > Larger vehicles, the argument goes, may guzzle more gas but they
    > offer
    > > > > > more protection, whether one hits a tree or another car. The
    > argument
    > > > > > has been a central one when efforts emerge in Congress to raise
    fuel
    > > > > > economy standards.
    > > > >
    > > > > The two ton mom mobiles are safer, eh. Tell that to the dead girl. See the following.
    > > > >
    > http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062603/met_12884481.shtml
    > > >
    > > > Oh, just a little FYI. The "two ton mom mobiles" of the 60s, 70s and
    80s
    > > > were station wagons, which weighed at least two tons, except maybe the compact station wagons
    > > > like the falcon which probably weight a few
    > hundred
    > > > pounds less. Hell, _cars_ (i.e. not station wagons) used to weight in
    > the
    > > > neighborhood of two tons. So stop bitching about the weight of SUVs,
    > > because
    > > > cars used to be just as heavy, and there are quite a few these days
    that
    > > > still are two tons or more.
    > >
    > > We'll keep bitching till the two ton mom mobiles ( of whatever design )
    > are
    > > dead and the roads are safe. Remember that SUVs kill more in two car collisions and yet are not
    > > safer for their drivers or passengers because
    > of
    > > roll instability and vision blockage. This has nothing to do with
    history
    > or
    > > what went before. It has to do with creating an unnecessary threat to
    > life,
    > > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler. It is just ANOTHER bad design.
    >
    > In that case _every_ vehicle on the road is "an unnecessary threat to
    life,
    > as well as a wasteful gas guzzler". In times of old people used to live close to work, and for
    > those that lived fartehr from work they rode a
    horse.
    > Cars are _not_ needed at all to survive. Any time a human moves faster
    than
    > he was designed to (i.e. faster than he can run) he risks his life, as the human body wasn't made
    > to take the impact of such high speeds. Anything
    that
    > uses more gas than a horse is wasteful.

    It is indeed all relative. Check the safety rating of cars before 'Unsafe at any speed". The
    citizens of 1905 were horrified at the breakneck speed and dangerous recklessness of these new
    'horseless buggies'. We have improved the safety and regulation to a point where it is acceptable.
    But like the Chevy Corsair and it's dangerous handling, there are issues where we say 'not good
    enough' which is what is being applied to SUVs.

    >
    > The only reason people die in car accidents is because the accidents occurred in the first place.
    > Attack the problem at it's root, unsafe
    drivers
    > and unsafe laws. The type of vehicle someone drives is irrelevant.

    Unless you are going to 'perfect' humans you are talking through your anus. Is this some sort of
    bioengineering proposal? Otherwise we just have to minimise the danger by improving the instrument.
    Shit happens and you will not get a better breed of human to cut down on the danger. That is really
    far out and weird logic even for you.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...