People buy small cars even though they can be deadly

[EV_Ares]

NOTE: Can you believe this article. What is this a scare tactic for people to not buy small cars and buy big gas guzzling suv's? Maybe they better get those off the road and protect the people who are trying to conserve fuel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Americans are buying more small cars to cut fuel costs, and that might kill them.
As a group, occupants of small cars are more likely to die in crashes than those in bigger, heavier vehicles are, according to data from the government, the insurance industry and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The newest small vehicles, of course, meet today's strict safety standards and can be laden with the latest safety hardware, such as stability control and side air bags. They are safer than ever. And differing designs mean some small cars are safer than average. But even the safest are governed by the laws of physics, which rule in favor of bigger, heavier vehicles, even in single-vehicle crashes.


TELL US: Do you think smaller cars are too big a price to pay for better fuel economy?

If the switch to smaller, lighter vehicles continues to grow, the result could be anywhere from dozens to thousands of traffic deaths that would have been avoided in bigger vehicles, according to fatality records and safety forecasters. The number depends on how many bigger, heavier vehicles ultimately are replaced by smaller, lighter cars.

"People are looking for ways to save fuel, and they need to know that if they decide to buy a much smaller vehicle, they are putting themselves and their families at risk," says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. IIHS, supported by auto insurance companies, follows traffic deaths closely.

(((rest of this article @ link))))

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm

[DS1]

1. People still buying SUVs even though they kill more other drivers

[BanzaiBonnie]

15. That's it... flip the issue

It's a fact that large vehicles are a deadly threat to everyone around them. Let's restrict their use, or at the very least a special endorsement on a driver's license should be required.

This weekend my husband informed me that Escalades must have faulty turn signals because he's never seen one use them when changing lanes or turning a corner. Two of them in the Caustic parking lot: they were both totally oblivious to other drivers and pedestrians and neither of them used their signals.

[slackmaster]

24. SUV driver here - I agree with you on getting a special endorsement

They are not for inexperienced drivers.

[TX-RAT]

20. I'd rather have the vehicle with the best survivability rate.

I've been driving pick-ups for close to 40 years. I actually enjoy the fact that i have a better view over and around other vehicles. I enjoy the fact that, in case of impact, i have a better chance of survival for me and my loved ones. If a person wants to drive a small car, thats none of my business, but i will continue to drive my trucks.

[NoGOPZone]

49. and what makes you think the vehicles with the best "survivability rates"

are necessarily SUVs or pickups?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-04-19-car-chart_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[TX-RAT]

56. Interesting, thanks. It backs up what I'm saying.

Look at full size pickups and full size suv's, not the mid size, which is a vehicle i personal;y have no use for.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

112. I've driven pickups a lot too...

They have abysmal braking.. Even with ABS.

Pickups want to spin out when you hit the brakes hard, unless they are loaded there is way too much weight on the front and far too little on the rear.

Hit the brakes hard, particularly in the wet, and you are likely to find yourself traveling backward down the road.

The rear tires of an unloaded pickup are also very prone to hydroplaning, again due to the fact that there is very little weight in the rear proportional to the front. And again, you end up spinning out when the rear drive tires hydroplane.

With a front wheel drive car though when the drive wheels hydroplane the car keeps going straight.

[slackmaster]

23. SUVs don't kill other drivers

Bad and inexperienced drivers driving SUVs kill other drivers.

[DS1]

25. Bad, inexperienced, or simply unfortunate SUV drivers still more likely to kill

others than bad, inexperienced, or simply unfortunate drivers in small cars.

[TX-RAT]

27. Sounds more like your saying.

Your chances of being injured or killed are higher if your driving a smaller car than a larger one.

[KittyWampus]

26. No, it's SUV's which were designed NOT to have crash compatibility. It's in the actual design

It's a matter of engineering.

A child runs in front of you in your Honda civic, you step on brakes and the SUV behind you ends up totaling your car whilst another Honda Civic behind you would just dent the fender or rear end.

[TX-RAT]

28. Sounds like the person in the Civic, should watch where their driving.

[slackmaster]

33. Same goes for the SUV driver

If you rear-end someone, you were following too close.

[TX-RAT]

37. I agree.

[slackmaster]

32. Two problems with your scenario

1. The Honda driver should have been more attentive. You have to slow down when you are in an area where children might run out in front of you.

2. If the SUV driver could not avoid rear-ending the Honda, he or she was following too close.

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

102. There is NO problem w/my scenario. Accidents happen. CARS are engineered f/crash compatability

SUV's were deliberately designed NOT to have crash compatability. They are not cars.

[slackmaster]

104. Accidents happen, but most are avoidable

Most "accidents" are caused by negligence or distraction. True accidents are rare.

SUV's were deliberately designed NOT to have crash compatability.

True enough - Crash compatibility with passenger cars would render SUVs less useful for their intended purpose. If my Nissan Pathfinder was designed to be crash compatible with passenger cars, I'd bottom out or get stuck quite often, possibly doing serious damage to the vehicle.

Let me reiterate what I have said many times about this: SUVs are not appropriate for inexperienced drivers. I'd be OK with a stricter standard for issuing a license to drive one on the highway.

[meegbear]

2. Been driving a Metro since 2002 ...

my rollerskate ain't the most safest thing on the road, but with 38MPG, I'll deal with it.

[idgiehkt]

141. that is one of the smallest.

:)

and that mpg can't be beat. Plus those mini coopers sure are popular.

[n2doc]

3. As gas climbs to $5 or $6 a gal, the SUV "problem" will go away n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

16. And so will a lot of jobs, food, medicine and homes for lower income people.

In other words, the little guy will get crushed - not the people buying 60k SUVs and Hummers.

[Selatius]

21. The working poor already are crushed by high gas prices. No big news.

At the current rate, the only ones who will end up driving SUVs are the upper crust, and they are few in number, but poor people and middle class folks outnumber the rich by 10 to 1 at any rate.

[n2doc]

39. Gonna happen anyway. The poor always get hit hardest

I do have some hope because people are resourceful, and poor people have had to be resourceful their whole lives to survive.

The smuck who drives a 60K SUV with a 500K house, both mortaged to the hilt, is gonna have to think fast....

[TommyO]

43. Many of those driving SUVs are living paycheck to paycheck

They'll get crushed along with the entire economy.

[Kingshakabobo]

63. Living paycheck to pay-check is a whole lot different.....

....when you are grossing 5,6 or 7k per month versus $1200 per month. It amazes me when people on DU cheer for high gas prices when it will absolutely CRUSH the people making 7 or 10 dollars an hour.

[piedmont]

122. Europe gets by just fine at $5, $6, $7 per gallon. nt

[Kolesar]

4. TELL US: Do you think petro-colonial wars are too big a price to pay for big vehicle safety? ... eom

[FreeStateDemocrat]

5. Best safety factor for any size vehicle is alert, defensive driving.

[InvisibleTouch]

6. Europeans have been driving small cars forever...

...and the traffic there is even crazier than here, in lots of places. Roads are narrow, and parking spaces are small (if you can find one at all). Somehow it all works out.

[dipsydoodle]

10. Started with these I think

mid '30s Fiat Topolino

[Blue_Tires]

65. thanks for bringing that up

this story is mind-boggling ignorant

[splat]

7. We all survived our Volkswagens n/t

[lonestarnot]

8. Those SUVers gona be madder and madder every day. Danger Will Rogers, Danger!

[presspeal]

9. I think your asking the wrong question,

Are high mileage cars just delaying the needed switch to a different tech.

[IDemo]

11. I am in some serious trouble, then. Thanks for warning me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. OTOH, getting the road-hogging behemoths off the road

so the little cars can actually see what's ahead of them on the road, may reduce accidents. When some jackass is sitting 12 feet off the ground, talking on his cell, little cars are invisible. Maybe, those drivers would pay more attention if they were at the same eye level as the rest of us, reducing accidents.

[tanyev]

13. Marge Simpson: I can't see past all the SUVs!

Homer: Don't worry about the SUVs. There's a gentle curve up ahead.

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. LOL!

[W_HAMILTON]

22. Amen!

I just love driving and having the license plate of the vehicle in front of me at eye level. :sarcasm:

[ieoeja]

61. This is the first subthread I have ever seen at DU dealing with the real SUV problem.

I am not much of an environmentalist. Nor does it bother me when somebody flaunts their wealth. Actually, that helps redistribute their wealth which can be a good thing.

My problem is the SUV's impact on rush hour. See an SUV in bumper-to-bumper traffic and you see extra space both in front and behind. The extra space behind is required so normal vehicles can see around the SUV. I would guess it is there in the front because the SUV driver can not see the brake lights if they get too close. Or they worry their heavy vehicle can not come to a stop as quickly.

Certain streets reserved for commuter traffic ban trucks, even pickups. They are banned for two reasons: weighty trucks do more damage to these heavily traveled roads, and they screw up commuter traffic.

But for some reason SUVs are exempted from these bans. I do not want any special laws restricting SUVs. I just want the same laws applied to SUVs as are to other trucks.

[AllegroRondo]

17. Seriously, SUV's are more likely to flip in an accident

and rollovers are the most fatal type of accident. you're taking your life into your hands riding in an SUV.
IIRC, the stat I saw showed that SUV's are FIFTEEN TIMES more likely to flip in an accident than a standard passenger car.

[Lobster Martini]

18. I will not trade in my hamster, but I have occasionally believed I would die within seconds

Having four cylinders and being close to the ground, I am essentially a speed bump. At night, headlights are directly in my eyes. I cannot see around anything, and I have narrowly avoided being squashed like a fly on the window sill...what the hell is the point of this article, buy a Hummer or die?

[LibInternationalist]

19. Cars, generally, are too deadly.

Seriously. You're not going to hit or kill many people or other animals while biking, or walking, or riding a horse.

We need to decrease our reliance on cars, period - not just big cars.

[enki23]

29. sounds like a good excuse to regulate the hell out of SUV traffic

it's past time we did something drastic, to keep most of the large SUVs and trucks off the most traveled freeways and highways. (though shey should be regulated by weight rather than by class.) issue limited work permits allowing people who actually need them to drive them to and from the job sites. allow the purchase of limited permits for other purposes (like going to pick up the new couch). require special licensing endorsements. in general, make it considerably more onerous for people to own and drive them, but not so onerous that those who actually need them for the "utility" aspect are functionally prohibited.

[TX-RAT]

30. I'll drive what i want ,when i want, and you may kiss my exhaust.

[Arugula Latte]

35. Oh, isn't that the American way? "I've got mine, fuck you, and here's some lung cancer for you."

Charming.

[TX-RAT]

42. I guess it is.

I don't tell you what to do, and you don't tell me what to do.

[JuniperLea]

67. Ahhh yes... using more than my fair share and proud of it...

And I'll act like an obstinate eight-year old if you point at me!

I drove power cars all my life, starting with my very first V-8 in a '61 Buick Electra. I HAD to drive hand-me-downs... but when I could, I bought a brand new SUV in 1994... until 2002, when I just felt too damn horrible and selfish about wasting all that gasoline and creating all that pollution. So, I bought a little ULEV (ultra low emissions vehicle). Guess what?? My tits didn't fall off! And I've saved THOUSANDS of dollars... and I've put hundreds of pounds fewer pollutants into the environment for the children of the world to breath, and more importantly, I don't look like a total fucking jackass for driving myself around in that big-assed vehicle.

When I have a job to do, or I want to load up a bunch of people and go on a road trip, or go camping, I rent a big-assed SUV. I'm still ahead of the game, financially, and I can still look down my nose as jerks who think they deserve to waste gas and pollute just because they always have and no one can tell them otherwise, so there!

[TX-RAT]

76. You chose to scale down, " good for you "

I'll continue to drive the vehicles i choose for the reasons i choose, and your approval means zip to me.

"I can still look down my nose as jerks"

I'd be careful with that, it makes it much easier for people to see all the bullshit you have inside it"

[eridani]

142. I'm going to tell you not to shit in my reservoir

And you'll obey and like it, or go to jail.

[TommyO]

46. And those of us getting two or three times the mileage

of you gas guzzler will be laughing at you during you $100+ fill-ups.

[TX-RAT]

59. And thats supposed to bother me?

Instead of laughing and watching me, why dont you do us all a favor and just watch where your going.

[JuniperLea]

70. Of course not...

Sure, we can ignore the self-absorbed humans who think they know more and "deserve" more than the rest of us... and still know the difference between "your" and "you're".

[enki23]

54. why do so many texans have such an overwhelming sense of entitlement?

.

[TX-RAT]

57. So now it's Texas's fault? LOL

[Connonym]

107. Not fair to the hundreds of decent folk who live there

but, yeah, since 2000? I pretty much place Texas as the origin of just about all that's wrong here.

[enki23]

140. Didn't say anything about "fault". Didn't say anything about causation at all.

But there sure as hell seems to be a significant correlation.

[tabasco]

113. I don't care what you drive

but you sound like a jerk.

I know the type. The type that needs a monster truck to feel like a man.

Your rudeness belies your stupidity and insecurity.

[Sapere aude]

31. You think if we got rid of all SUV's some people here will never have anything to gripe about?

It seems a real pity to me that some people have such shallow lives that they can hang all their negativity on to SUV's.

Look, SUV's are not the boogie men you make them out to be. Go find the real source of your problems and get a new life!

[Tesha]

34. No, but it will be one fewer plagues on our society perpetrated by...

> You think if we got rid of all SUV's some people here will
> never have anything to gripe about?

No, but it will be one fewer plagues on our society perpetrated
by the "have mores" on the rest of us.

Tesha

[TX-RAT]

40. So you have to be a have more, to drive an SUV?

[Tesha]

44. Or at least have that attitude, as you amply demonstrated above.

> So you have to be a have more, to drive an SUV?

Or at least have that attitude, as you amply demonstrated above
when you placed your safety above the safety of everyone else on
the road with you (in your comment about keeping your pick-up
truck).

Hint: With compatible bumpers, *EVERYONE* is safer in a crash.
Guess which vehicles *DON'T* have compatible bumpers?

Tesha

[TX-RAT]

52. So me sacrificing the safety of me and my family, is OK with you.

[stranger81]

60. I think what she's trying to say is it's NOT ok for you to sacrifice the safety of others

to make yourself feel more secure. And I second that motion.

[TX-RAT]

64. And I second that motion. (and that is your right.)

You want to sacrifice safety for fuel economy, that is your choice. I just happen to value the safety and welfare of my family to much to allow that.

[GOTV]

78. It's far safer not to drive at all. Isn't your family worth protecting? n/t

[TX-RAT]

81. Not driving is not an option.

My driveway alone is 1 1/4 mile long, not counting the 6 miles to the main road, and then the 13 miles into town.

[GOTV]

98. You needn't live there n/t

[TX-RAT]

124. Let me get this right.

Not only do you not want me driving my pickup, now you don't want me living where i live. Just how much of my life do you think you should control?

This is really getting to be some funny shit!

[GOTV]

132. It's up to you. Is your family safety important or not? If you don't care, I don't care....

I'm just telling you, driving puts your family in danger. It's possible to live in a way that you don't need a car.

Put your family safety in proper priority along with owning a cool house and owning a cool car.

Your choice. I'm not telling you what to do.

[Ron Green]

87. Your argument is pretty much bullshit

if you're saying that you're safer in a pickup truck or truck-based SUV. Such a vehicle is built on a rigid chassis that transfers crash energy more directly to its passengers than does a car-based vehicle with crush zones on its perimeter.

I also think you're playing the whole macho Texan thing a little too long.

[TX-RAT]

97. Texan thing a little too long.

Keep your little car and your crush zones, and I'll keep what i drive. As far as the Texan thing goes, you got me there. I'm a Texan and damn proud of it. I'm also a Texan who's probably responded to and witnessed more crashes and actual crash tests, than anybody on this forum. Not only have i responded to well over a thousand during my law-enforcement career, i've also witnessed close to 50 when we were doing crash tests at TTI ( Texas Transportation Institute ). Ever see what a Honda Civic does when it hits a concrete culvert? I have. Not only does it scatter car body parts all over the interstate, it also shot the belted crash dummies about 60 yards down the road. These aren't bullshit tests, there are load cells and deceleration monitors in the vehicle and on the crash dummies. We've crashed little cars into big cars, little cars into little cars. and big cars into little ones, and the one fact that always proves true, is your more likely to survive an accident if riding in a bigger heavier vehicle.

So if you have more expertise in this area, let here it. Or i can say it like a true Texan and tell you to " shove your Bullshit accusation up your ass "

[oldhippie]

110. I got your back, Tex..........

Man, you keep this up and you're gonna make Tesha and Juniperx quiver their little lips and stamp their feet in moral outrage! I don't think you're gonna get through to them.

A Dodge/Cummins driver from Central Texas.

[Tesha]

118. There is *NOTHING* you could do and *NOTHING* you have...

> Man, you keep this up and you're gonna make Tesha
> and Juniperx quiver their little lips and stamp
> their feet in moral outrage!

There is *NOTHING* you could do and *NOTHING*
you have that will set any part of me quivering. And
the fact that you've decided to take this down to the
level a sexist, ad-hominem argument indicates just
how empty your, uhh, "argument" is (holds up fingers
to make the eenie-weenie-peenie sign).

SUVs are morally indefensible and exemplify precisely
what's wrong with America these days: an over-exagerated
sense of personal entitlement along with a "I've got mine;
fuck you!" attitude.

I'll know that America is on the road to healing when
SUVs disappear from the scene.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

123. People who claim moral high ground without facts to back it up don't move me either

:shrug:

[Tesha]

136. The facts are on my side

The facts are on my side.

Here's one, courtesy of High and Mighty, Keith
Bradsher's book about SUVs and the SUV culture:

The consequences of rollover are extremely serious.
Rollovers account for less than 1 percent of the crashes
in the United States but are the cause of one quarter
of the traffic deaths (emphasis added -- Tesha) -- 10,000
deaths a year, more than from side and rear impacts combined.
SUVs roll over with particular frequency: 5 times per 100
crashes compared to 3.8 times per 100 crashes for pickups,
2 per 100 crashes for minivans and 1.7 per 100 crashes
for cars, according to federal crash statistics.

(pages 150 and 151)

Here's another:

SUVs were involved in fatal crashes with guardrails
at a rate 20% higher than the typical vehicle. ... Dean
Sicking estimates that SUV occupants are as much as 50
percent more likely to die in a guardrail crash than
occupants of cars of similar weight.

(page 155)

Now that I've cited just a few of the facts in the chapter
discussing how SUVs are ore deadly to their own occupants,
shall I also quote you some facts from the chapter entitled
"Kill Rates", discussing how much more deadly SUVs are to
EVERYONE ELSE on the road?

Tesha

[TX-RAT]

137. A little more info please.

Here's another:


SUVs were involved in fatal crashes with guardrails
at a rate 20% higher than the typical vehicle. ... Dean
Sicking estimates that SUV occupants are as much as 50
percent more likely to die in a guardrail crash than
occupants of cars of similar weight.
(page 155)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you please provide a link to the data he used. I was at Texas A&M-TTI when they were doing their guard rail crash tests. Would love to compare their data to his.

And they didn't use estimates. Interestingly enough, TXDOT ended up changing their guard rail designs, due to smaller cars being unable to survive these impacts.

[Tesha]

138. Actually, the guard rail changes have *ALL* been attributable to SUVs.

I'm really starting to wonder about the "facts" you throw around.

The two big changes in guardrail design (at least here in the
Northeast) have both been attributable to SUVs.

Concrete median dividers ("Jersey barriers", "K-rails", etc.)
have grown in height from 36 inches to 42 inches because
SUVs tended to "trip" across the shorter barriers, rolling
over into the adjacent traffic lanes. Visibility over these
barriers for everyone else (including police patrols) is,
of course, worsened by the added height.

Meanwhile, metal guard rails have grown 50% in width (from
two ribs to three) because SUVs had a nasty habit of trapping
a front wheel under the older, narrower guard rail; the
wheel would then rip off, either tripping the vehicle into
a rollover or ripping the guard rail on the remaining
sharp bits of the suspension and allowing the SUV to
penetrate the ruptured guard rail.

Both of these expensive changes have come about because
of the high rate of SUV accidents.

This is yet another example of the societal costs of SUVs.

Tesha

[oldhippie]

135. Two words.......................

Penis envy.

[Tesha]

119. All your fancy crash tests prove is what we've been saying...

All your fancy crash tests prove is what we've been saying:

You're fighting a war of escalation. The bigger vehicle
reliably kills the smaller vehicle, so you want the biggest
baddest vehicle out there and you don't seem to care what
the societal costs of that vehicle are. Your position is,
as I've said, morally indefensible.

Crashed small-to-small, both vehicles are surprisingly
survivable. And I think you're umm, "misconstruing" for
us the results of the Honda barrier crashes; you didn't
mention the results of identical-speed, identical-angle
SUVs barrier crashes. Was that because the occupants of
rigid SUVs actually fare worse? (In many tests, they do!)

Tesha

[slackmaster]

121. Did you read the article cited in the OP?

:shrug:

[high density]

96. I agree with GOTV

If you are this paranoid about "safety," perhaps you should not be on the road at all.

[NoGOPZone]

131. Since safety is understandably of great concern to you.

you might want to review this part of the article.

"And the heaviest vehicles, full-size pickups, have driver death rates about the same as small cars."

[Tesha]

93. I'll make it explicit.

> I think what she's trying to say is it's NOT ok for you
> to sacrifice the safety of others to make yourself feel
> more secure. And I second that motion.

Right. And I'll make it explicit.

TX_RAT, by choosing to drive your SUV, you make almost
everyone else on the road less safe: drivers, passengers,
and especially pedestrians.

And you do all this merely *FOR THE PERCEPTION* that
you are making yourself and your passengers slightly
safer. Truth be told, you're not, because your SUV/
Pickup Truck is far more likely to roll than an
ordinary passenger vehicle.

And furthermore, by driving an SUV or truck, you only
incite others to escalate the road war and buy their
own SUVs so that, in an accident, they can run you
down instead of the other way around (because, after
all, that, in essence, is what your arguing for: the
ability to out-crash the other guy).

Your position is fundamentally immoral.

Tesha

[slackmaster]

106. A couple of points for Tesha to consider

From the article cited in the OP:

...The deadly potential of small cars isn't, as many people presume, because SUVs crash into them. Just one of every 11 people — 9% — who died in small cars died as the result of collisions with SUVs, NHTSA data show.

By contrast, 53% of small-car deaths in 2005 involved only small cars. Either a single small car crashed into something such as a guardrail or tree or two small cars crashed into each other, according to the NHTSA data....

Also please check out the actual stats for passenger safety. For comparison, I drive a Nissan Pathfinder, considered a mid-size SUV. 36 deaths per million registered-vehicle miles is better than most passenger cars, trucks, vans, or SUVs of any size.

[slackmaster]

116. Oops, forgot the link for the real world data

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/ChevroletBlazerWorstInDriverDeathStudy.aspx

[Tesha]

117. Perhaps instead of telling me, *IN THE THIRD PERSN, YET*, ...

Perhaps instead of telling me, *IN THE THIRD PERSN, YET*,
what the incidence rates are, you should tell me what the
injury or fatality rates are.

Or were they not quite as supportive of your argument
that SUVs don't squash little cars dead at a dispro-
portionate rate?

And how about those pedestrian killings and maimings
that I spoke of?

And SUV rollover fatalities?

Tesha

[slackmaster]

120. Tesha, the link I provided belatedly gives total fatality rates

It's a very clear measure of how safe someone is while driving or riding in a particular model of vehicle.

Or were they not quite as supportive of your argument
that SUVs don't squash little cars dead at a dispro-
portionate rate?

And how about those pedestrian killings and maimings
that I spoke of?

And SUV rollover fatalities?

How about you providing some statistics to show that those are anything but very rare events?

Of course that is really a major change in topic from the OP.

[JuniperLea]

71. An SUV makes my penis larger....

Oooops... no, I'm a woman... sorry... I'm not sure what it gives me... besides GUILT for wasting gas and causing more polution than I could be.

[natrat]

38. maybe not but they sure are a symbol of the careless,fat greedy hog

[JuniperLea]

74. Exactly...

And that's how I view them too.

[ComerPerro]

36. It goes to the whole mentality of SUV drivers

"fuck everyone else, I will drive however the fuck I feel like because I will be fine if I crash"

[Tesha]

47. The sad part, of course...

> It goes to the whole mentality of SUV drivers
>
> "fuck everyone else, I will drive however the fuck I feel
> like because I will be fine if I crash"

The sad part, of course, is that SUVs roll from crashes
that would be highly-survivable in a car or might not
even have occurred with the more-maneuverable car.

Tesha

[ComerPerro]

48. they do roll. But most people are thinking about collisions with other cars

[Tesha]

94. Anyone who commutes knows SUVs roll.

It's a beautiful day, the highway is stopped dead,
and you just know that at the end of the backup
you'll be seeing an SUV on its roof with (hopefully)
a driver wandering around saying "Whaaa happened???"

A significant part of the time, though, the SUV is
on top of the former driver who was unbelted, ejected,
and squashed like a bug by their "safer" vehicle.

Tesha

[ComerPerro]

95. LMAO

[devilgrrl]

41. Yeah, huge cars and trucks are sooooooo superior!!!

I so have to have one! Or I'll DIE!!!!!

:sarcasm::eyes:

[JuniperLea]

73. If they give guys bigger... you know whats...

Maybe they will give us chicks bigger booooooooobies! Yay!


:eyes:


Waste not, want not... that's ok, we can verbally beat the shit out of all the SUVers when the gas runs out sooner rather than later.

[devilgrrl]

100. I don't have a problem with SUV's per se...

some people really do need vehicles like that. But do people in the Southwest really need them? Especially those who aren't outdoorsy or have ranches???? Come now.

[JuniperLea]

108. I see hundreds of them every morning and evening...

On my way to and from work, in Downtown Los Angeles! With a driver only! No passengers! That's a waste. We cross no rivers without benefit of a bridge, we climb no hills that are sans pavement. We don't need to haul hay into the city... I'm quite frankly at a loss as to what the need for all that vehicle on a solo mission to the city is all about. Other than wasting and polluting more than their fair share.

[DotGone]

45. My M1A2 Abrams says Fuck You

The conclusion this article comes to is ridiculous. What do they call this in logic class: fallacy of false dilemma? Big cars are safe, small cars are not. How about big cars are fucking dangerous to everyone else? Europeans and Japanese drivers seem to be doing fine with their kei cars and microcars. Based on the fear mongering data in this article, why not go one further and drive around in a tank? 120K lbs Tank vs. 7K lbs Escalade ---> Easy win for the tank. Can't get anymore symbolic than that long stiff steel turret that shoots projectiles out really quick.

[GOTV]

50. People drive even though THEY MIGHT DIE! n/t

[Clark2008]

51. How 'bout a happy medium?

I, personally, will not buy a small car for that reason, nor do I own an SUV.

I have a nice mid-sized sports car.

[Mutineer]

53. I have a sedan--I guess it's considered mid-size

safety is an important consideration to me. But so are mileage, and comfort.

[Xithras]

55. Did anyone read this? It's not about cars vs SUV's.

The article is about heavy cars vs light cars, and how fuel economy is usually improved by shedding weight...and heavy "safety features" are the first thing manufacturers tend to drop. The article uses the VW Jetta as an example...it's one of the safest cars in its size class, but it gets poor mileage compared to its competitors because its safety features have made it one of the heaviest in its size class.

If you compared the safety of a Jetta vs. the safety of a Focus or a Prius, you'll find that the Jetta is a far safer car. Frame reinforcements, better braking and traction control system, extended crumple zones, breakaway engine mounts...the Jetta is designed to be a safe small car and that engineering has made it heavy. The Prius, Focus, or other small cars in that class are primarily designed for mileage, and therefore lack any of those safety features. They use more plastics and composites, thinner & lighter metal, and usually lack things like traction control that make accident avoidance easier.

Most people mistakenly assume their air bags will keep them safe, but a side impact airback isn't going to help much when the thin steel pillar and plastic reinforced body skin on your Focus are shoved in three feet because someone missed the red light at an intersection. Heavier cars (not SUV's) are safer because they can help prevent the cabing intrusion from happening in the first place. If your door is punched in two feet in a side impact, you're dead with or without an airbag. If your door is punched in 1 foot, you have a decent chance of surviving the wreck with an airbag.

This is one of the reasons I own a heavier car. My Subie has lots of steel to keep me and my kids safe. It's not a compact by any stretch of the imagination, but the AWD system, heavy body frame, and reinforced side pillars make it very safe. And it's 29MPG average is still pretty respectable.

[bullwinkle428]

68. Jetta far safer than Prius? Not true, according to NHTSA.

http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm

The Jetta and Prius received the exact same number of stars in every category except for rear seat/side impact, where the Jetta received 5 stars (5 max) vs. the Prius' 4. The difference between the two cars is negligible by these standards...

The Jetta does weigh about 350 lbs. more than the Prius, but it doesn't appear to have that much of an effect on crash worthiness.

[Xithras]

77. Side impact tends to be one of the big advantages of a heavier chassis.

But impact protection is only one part of a vehicles safety (and important one, but still only one). The cars ability to handle the road in adverse conditions, peripheral visibility, traction control, and braking systems all factor into the overall safety of the vehicle. The Prius may have been a bad example (it's very expensive for an econo-car, and has features that many others don't), but generally speaking you DO lose those safety features as you move into the lower cost, higher mileage compacts.

If someone were going to t-bone your car at 40MPH, would you rather be sitting in a Toyota Matrix or a Volkswagen Jetta? If you had to drive your car home in a hurry on a windy, rainy night, would you rather do so in a Ford Focus or a Subaru Outback?

The point is simply that highly economical cars are GENERALLY less safety feature-rich than their safety conscious (but more fuel consuming) brethren. There are exceptions for some cars like the Prius, but those generally carry price tags that put them out of reach for most car buyers looking for economy.

[Paulie]

85. Prius is not a compact

It's a midsize. My 05 has traction control, stability control, front and side airbags, electric steering, and two cup holders in the front arm rest. Most of the car is steel, except for the hood and hatch which are aluminum.

The Prius wasn't designed as an economy car, with a base price of 20k to 30k with options. :) It was designed to generate the lowest possible emissions without too many compromises; the fuel economy is a side effect.

Cheers!

[blues90]

58. Once they finally got rid of most ot the huge tank cars , what do they do

They bring on the SUV , small car drivers trying to save fuel and money on a car are still in danger of the now SUV or the one driver huge raised pick up truck .

I think it's insanity to mix such a vast difference in size on the road for safety sake .

People lived without SUV's for decades and had a station wagen or four door for children .

What is the point where common sense kicks it , never i fear , never .

And insurance rates cost , some idiot with an SUV with the bumper passing clear over the top of one on a small car and the small car driver has all the damage as the parking lot SUV driver says nothing and goes away without a scratch .

[TX-RAT]

62. small car drivers trying to save fuel and money on a car are still in danger

Happens every time you sacrifice fuel economy for safety.


{People lived without SUV's for decades and had a station wagen or four door for children .}

Yea! and those things weighed more than most Large SUV's built today.


{bumper passing clear over the top of one on a small car and the small car driver has all the damage as the parking lot SUV driver says nothing and goes away without a scratch .}


One of the main reasons i drive full size trucks. I don't like looking eyeball to licence plate.

[blues90]

66. I did say once they got rid of the old heavy cars , but then the SUV

replaced them , weight is one thing but when a bumper clears your small cars bumper or in many cases the hood then at least they could make all bumper heights standard . Even a ford pickup truck , two of the same exact model the front bumper will go right under the rear of the other , so what it the point in this I ask .

Sorry , but bigger and higher is no gain when it comes to life . I've got a 1973 VW squarback and had it since new and I have been dodging big trucks and cars and SUV's for years . Many have an attitude that they can push you through the left hand turn by edging closer or tooting the horn . let them battle with a semi . Any car or truck can kill someone but why enhance the risk .

[TX-RAT]

69. First off, congrats on the Type 3

I've been a VW fan for over 40 years. I've got a 181 right now.
Now my question to you?
Knowing that there was such a difference in bumper height between the height of the type 3 and lets say any new pickup of the same era. Why did you go for the type 3?

[blues90]

75. easy

There were not that many pickup trucks back then , most all were used for work trucks and their bumpers did at least meet . My Type 3 has the bumper guards front and rear and would meet most bumpers with the exception of pontiacs who had this insane pointed front end , however at least you could park well away from them and since the traffic back them was not even close to what it is now you could control the situation alot better .

Also the VW had alot less parts like no hoses and coolant and radiator or water pumps so it was alot cheaper to maintain let alone the gas milage . Plus they lasted forever .

It was a very different time when I got the type 3 , I had always had VW's bugs and others .

[bullwinkle428]

72. Regarding the tank-like infallibility of larger vehicles, I had

an incident last year where I just barely nudged the back bumper of a Ford Explorer with the front bumper of my Honda Accord, and ended up doing around $500 worth of damage to the Explorer! Not even a scratch on my own bumper!

:wtf:

[Cetacea]

79. Why isn't there a War Against Cars? eom

[Ikonoklast]

80. I guess no one read the article

Let's all assume the wrong thing and look foolish, just because of prejudices towards a certain class of vehicle.........

'The deadly potential of small cars isn't, as many people presume, because SUVs crash into them. Just one of every 11 people — 9% — who died in small cars died as the result of collisions with SUVs, NHTSA data show.

By contrast, 53% of small-car deaths in 2005 involved only small cars. Either a single small car crashed into something such as a guardrail or tree or two small cars crashed into each other, according to the NHTSA data.'



Maybe the REAL reason small-car drivers get killed is they aren't as good a driver as they think.

[TX-RAT]

82. You just had to do it, didn't ya.

Screw up a perfectly good SUV bashing thread, by bringing in actual fact and data.

[Ikonoklast]

84. Like the fact that close to 70%

of all fatal accidents between a commercial vehicle (tractor-trailer) and four wheeled privately-owned personal conveyance (automobile of any kind) is the fault of the car driver.

I have seen statistics from insurance companies, the FMCSA, and the USDOT and they always fall somewhere between 66% and 80%, depending on the criteria used.

Yet the motoring public always assumes it was the truckers' fault.

[slackmaster]

83. What did you have to go and do that for?

:D

[bullwinkle428]

86. Smaller, cheaper cars owned by younger, less experienced drivers

without loads of money to spend on something safer, has a GREAT DEAL to do with these numbers!

However, it's not always a direct correlation between size/weight and death rate - here's an excellent article listing a HUGH number of vehicles along with their corresponding death rates. The Chevy Blazer is actually the most dangerous vehicle according to this study!

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/ChevroletBlazerWorstInDriverDeathStudy.aspx

[Ikonoklast]

92. The facts do not support your conclusion

If 53% of ALL vehicular deaths can be attributed to small cars, are you saying that 53% of ALL fatalities are younger drivers?

I would dispute that.


By Age Group: In 2005 older people (65 and older) made up 15 percent of all traffic fatalities, 14 percent of vehicle occupant fatalities and 20 percent of pedestrian fatalities, in large part because they are frailer and more likely to die from their injuries than younger people. (See Older Drivers paper.) In 2004 there were 28 million older licensed drivers, up from 17 percent in 1994. The total number of drivers rose only 13 percent from 1994 to 2004.

In 2005 drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 accounted for 12.6 percent of all drivers in fatal crashes and for 16 percent of all drivers in police-reported crashes.

-From The Insurance Information Institute.

[NoGOPZone]

129. I read this part

Studies show that extra weight does little or no good after about 4,500 pounds, roughly the weight of a minivan or midsize SUV. And the heaviest vehicles, full-size pickups, have driver death rates about the same as small cars.

[mod mom]

88. I feel totally confident hauling my 2 kids in my Toyota Prius. Good safety test record

and the best gas mileage around.

[mountainvue]

89. I wish Volvo would make a hybrid already. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

90. Good, comprehensive list of death rates per vehicle type:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/ChevroletBlazerWorstInDriverDeathStudy.aspx

[Johonny]

91. Random observation

Larger trucks and SUVs do not appear to be design to meet any kind of bumper height requirement anymore. Worse are the "jacked" up trucks and SUV. Their bumpers would hit my car at head level! No one wants to kill someone in an accident. The fault isn't the truck and SUV drivers faults but the end of regulations to guarantee safety.

[slackmaster]

103. Yes, only passenger cars are subject to federal bumper standards

SUVs, minivans, and pickups are not, nor are trucks or buses. They never were. If my SUV was equipped with a bumper at the same height as typical passenger cars, I'd bottom out on places where I frequently drive it offroad.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/studies/Bumper/Index.html

[taterguy]

99. People posting in this thread please tell the truth:

How many of you refuse to use a bicycle for transportation because it's not safe?

I guess it's all a matter of degree and comfort level.

[kineneb]

101. small cars still safer than bicycles or motorcycles

I will keep my small car and take my chances. I can't afford to feed a bourgemobile. They can keep their propaganda and do rude things to themselves with it.

My childhood doctor had a name for (pre-helmet law) motorcycle riders: organ donors.

Little Brother is still alive, but had to be reassembled after a nasty motorcycle accident last year. It has taken almost a year for him to heal all the damage. Mom won't let me even consider a motorcycle... shall I mention that Mom is over 60 and I am over 40...

[Scout]

105. even before SUVs, small -car passengers had a greater chance

of death and/or serious injury than those in larger cars.

[depakid]

109. So called "mainstream" papers have to placate their advertisers

In fact, the Portland Oregonian (owned by out of state interests) axed Arianna Huffington's column after she DARED to write disparagingly about huge SUV's.

They still run serial liars like Krauthammer though- despite the fact that they are WAY out of touch with the values of this community.

[Pavulon]

111. List price is a better indicator..

A 5 series or E series will be safer than a metro. Cheap cars are just that, cost oriented. Some large suv's are more dangerous in a rollover than most cars.

However in major accidents head on or t bone a vehicle on a truck frame may hold up better.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

114. A couple of points..

Pickups aren't particularly safe vehicles, they lose traction in the rear very easily under braking or when driving in wet conditions when unloaded. The front is far heavier than the rear on most pickups, that uneven weight distribution leads to poor handling and braking in emergency situations.

Small cars generally handle better, stop better, are easier to drive and are more maneuverable than larger vehicles, particularly pickups and SUV's.

After many years as a motorcycle rider I can honestly say that avoiding accidents is far better than trying to survive them. Once you are actually struck by another vehicle there is nothing you can do but hope for the best.

Drive in such a manner that if you were totally invisible you wouldn't get hit anyway and you will avoid 90% or more of "accidents".

My last motorcycle, a Honda ST1100 was bought on the strengths of excellent handling and an excellent ABS braking system. The fact that it was comfortable, fast and good looking was just a bonus.

Handling, attention and brakes, those are the true factors in remaining alive on the road.

[slackmaster]

115. Totally agree - Allow me to offer an additional survival suggestion

I put about 22,000 miles on a moped when I was in my late teens, and managed never to get in a serious incident. I laid it down a few times but always walked away without bleeding.

I also have over 30 years of experience driving in Southern California, and more than 20 without so much as a speeding ticket.

Here are my words of wisdom for all drivers:

Always have a Plan B AND a Plan C at every given moment. On a two-wheeler it's much more critical. You have to be thinking about what everybody else is doing (Plan A), plus what you can do if things get weird. Plan B is usually evasive action. Sometimes Plan C is head into a ditch to avoid being crushed between two cars, but you have to keep one in mind.

[TX-RAT]

125. I also have over 30 years of experience driving in Southern California,

Having lived in Vista for 2 years in the early 70's and recently visiting a friend in Carlsbad, you have my admiration and respect. I couldn't believe how much that area had developed since the 70's. I was just about ready to take a hostage, by the time we left.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

127. Exactly..

If you are prepared at any given moment for the drivers near you to do the stupidest thing you can imagine them doing then you won't be surprised too often.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

126. I tell people that if everyone got rid of their SUV's the gas prices would drop way down.

I'm not sure how true that is but it gets even the freeper types going against SUV's.

[TX-RAT]

128. Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

130. The law of supply and demand..

With a relatively inelastic supply, such as oil/gasoline, the price of the commodity will vary with the demand.

High demand, seller's market and a high price.

Low demand, buyer's market and a low price.

[ProfessorGAC]

133. How Two Dimensional of You

This is not the only country demanding crude. I don't like SUV's either, but the impact of the extra fuel usage on supply and demand is tiny, and besides that, you're being fished in that the price of gas is tightly tied to S&D. There is price fixing in place and S&D has a minor impact.

So, you're taking a minor effect, with minimal leverage and supporting your contention with it.

The data doesn't support that, and besides S&D is a theoretical construct. It really only works in two dimensions. (X and Y). The total number of influences, independent and nested, that affect the price of a critical commodity makes S&D a mere artifact of economic theory.
The Professor

[The Vinyl Ripper]

134. Funny....

I notice that when the supply of gasoline is reduced, say by a hurricane damaging refineries, that the price of gas climbs considerably.

But that is almost certainly a mere coincidence, right?

[ProfessorGAC]

143. Nice Try

But, not nice enough. The curve isn't two dimensional. Your observations are not scientific.
GAC

[The Vinyl Ripper]

145. So it *is* merely a coincidence..

When gas prices rise after refineries are shut down and the gasoline supply is curtailed.

A hint, I was driving in 1973.

[ProfessorGAC]

146. That WAS An Actual Shortage

Katrina didn't cause a shortage. The inventories were extremely high before that, and the supply of petro didn't change at all.

Apples and oranges.

Go ahead and continue living in your 2D world. But, the overall system is way more complex than you would like to admit.

BTW: I was driving then too.
GAC

[The Vinyl Ripper]

147. Mine was a post to an online forum..

Not a dissertation.

Of course the situation is more complex than what I pointed out. Everything in life is more complex than first meets the eye.

But that does not invalidate what I said.

If you magically increased the US fleet fuel efficiency by 75%, gas prices would fall.

At least temporarily until demand in the rest of the world caught up with the reduced demand in the US.

The US still uses a greatly disproportionate percentage of the total world energy supply.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

139. Well, is it a coincidence or not?

When the price of gas skyrockets during periods of gasoline shortages..

[porphyrian]

144. There's no reason small, fuel-efficient cars can't be built to be safe.

Don't attack the article, use it to demand higher standards from the automotive industry.

[LanternWaste]

148. Let's get the bottom line on this one....

Let's get the bottom line on this one....

People buy small cars because they are more convenient, more fuel efficient and better for the environment as a whole.

People buy SUV's (for the most part) because they've bought into the marketing campaign the Big Three devised to puff up their profit margins.

You absolutely need an SUV for work? Well and good. You do not absolutely need it for work? You've been duped by Madison Avenue who love a fool and his money...

Period.