Well, 1998 isn't 'nearly 10 years' old in my book in the way that makes the info sounds so outdated, I posted it due to its source and that the basic information is still relevent - "Compatibility involves differences in vehicle characteristics between passenger cars and LTVs such as weight, height off the ground, geometry and stiffness. NHTSA crash statistics demonstrate that, in side impact crashes, LTVs are more injurious as a striking vehicle than are passenger cars. For example, when LTVs strike passenger cars on the left side, the risk of death to the car driver can be 30 times higher than the risk to the LTV occupant. This compares to a driver fatality ratio of 6.6 to 1 in car-to-car left side impact crashes." and all of the articles basically say the same thing, even stating that when both vehicles weigh the same it is the design and height of the SUV that is a major reason they are deadly.

As I said, it was a quick search and not thorough, I'm sure someone could find even more/newer info since it is clear that even the manufacturers have had to concede that the design of the large SUVs, as well as the weight, that makes them so dangerous to others. The numbers also still show that they are also still dangerous to the occupants resulting from rollovers - http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...v_highway.html.

I don't have time to go over point to point right now and am just replying rather quickly since seeing the emails from this thread subscription, but as I recall the numbers of fatalities from SUVs were higher (and growing) then from pick-ups ,which is why it is such a hot issue - the pick-up truck may be as bad or worse to others and their occupants, but they are not responsible for as many accidents/deaths. Maybe it's because the Moms and Dads are using SUVs instead of vans which have better visibility, are lower (not the same high blind spots), not prone to roll over, are built on car chassis, are likely lighter and brake/handle better?

And when I was mentioned the issue of people who buy the XL SUVs and don't use them I was thinking of real people, people I have worked with and the people many of us know who don't use them or need them for the attributes of them being gigundo obstacle clearing utility vehicles, I was never saying that every one is like that as some seemed to think, but on the other hand there are real people like that, so don't tell me they might be needing them to haul ATVs to the needy on weekends or something

The good news is that safety is legislated and these machines will be made safer all around - in the meantime many of the old ones will crash themselves into the junkyards and the rest of us will have to keep our eyes peeled to avoid them.

Frankly its good to talk about it all - I'd rather everone discuss these things rationally and think about it then censor the conversation.

Cheers and an early Happy New Year

 

Nor do I... of course not, all vehicles should be considered. I only target SUVs because they are currently the biggest problem (when you consider their dangerous attributes AND how common they are).

 

The study period was 1980 to 1996. Sunday will be 2006. I did acknowledge that the study may have some value regardless of its age.

I remind you that LTV is a bigger class than just the SUV.

I didn't and don't deny the given numbers on other car deaths and those ratios.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing anything about pickups being involved in less accidents or less fatalities. I am not saying that what you say is not true - I just don't remember seeing that.

Rollovers still only account for 3% of crashes. I still have to wonder if other crash benefits could outweigh the rollover risk.

As to the lack of need for some people to have XL SUVs, I am just not personally wild about the judgment of who "needs" what or what choices others shoud make based on what we want to deem a valid "need".

I still don't understand why those who hate the SUV for whatever issue don't apply that thinking to pickups. It is that kind of exemption thinking for the pickup that is the source of the perceived problem reagarding safety issues for the SUV. If you increase the safety requirements of light trucks, then the SUV safety problem gets addressed as well.

I also think that if you apply whatever your "need" definitions are regarding the SUV to the pickup, you may find that there are many pickup owners who don't "need" a pickup by whatever your "need" definition is.

The real issue is the lack of safety regulation, not what people do or don't need. And once again I say that the safety issue is not limited to the SUV no matter how you define the safety issue.

On the bell curve of safety when it comes to vehicles, there will always be those on the bad end. I will acknowledge that it appears that the SUV may be past the center of the bell. But it has plenty of company. I have to wonder what number of deaths is deemed acceptable or unacceptable by those in the industry or government before something is done about a vehicle or class of vehicle.

I don't think there is a very large history of vehicles having production stopped due to safety concerns. There was the famous Corvair and I remember the Pinto and Audi having problems many years ago. Beyond those I can't think of any others.

Why do I make the points I make? I think - just my opinion - that the SUV gets the bad rap for reasons other than safety or gas guzzling or pollution or whatever. Just like the article that was posted it is a "Big and Bad" thing. They are big and gaudy and ostentatious and expensive and I think that creates a bias among some that will have people slam it and apply arguments that are just as applicable to less ostentatious vehicles. So I suppose I am just looking for a little more honesty in the criticism.

I am all for safer vehicles.

I hope the censorship comment wasn't directed at me. I have never suggested nor will I suggest that people should not express their opinions. I find these types of discussions very educational.

 

Not at all. This is how the word came up (I said it first):

 

Not political? Talk of legislation and regulation...I guess thats not political


Protests? sounds political. The rant sounded like a call for regulation and extending regulation. Suppose their need is to surround themselves with enough metal to "feel safe" Like your need to "feel fun"

I suppose thats not political..asaking for more regulation What something is designed for and it actual USE is different..SO your beef is because they sre driving on the roads and causing safety issue..Its because they are using them every day? LOL..

My attempt at censorship? Oh you mean the attempt to bring to light that I thought you weren't following the rules? The site moderator found otherwise, so I dropped it.


As for your posted link with statistics. One question, anyone that has taken a course on statistics should be able to answer: Does coorelation=causation?


The argument that suvs are not safer because of choices you make doesn't hold water. If Everyone drove SUV's there would be no didfference in safety. You are complaing because your choice is somehow not safer due to the fact there are suv's on the road. The fact that you decided to buy a less safe vehicle knowing that SUV are on the road with all their inherent danger makes me question your logic. You make your decision to have a vehicle that is in danger when on the road with suv and insist everyone to change their choices to make yours safer..last time I spun a globe it spun on its axis not around you. ANy difference in mass = danger to the lesser.

It would be like cyclist complaing that our hoods weren't padded because they will get hurt far worse without our hoods being padded.





Paul

 

In 105 posts you found the words, legislated, regualtions and protests. In my opinion, the restrisctions on political discussion are more appropriately to restrict a promotion of a party or canidate or a common view of a particular party. Also, in my view, you have to take the discussion in context. A small handfull of words, relating to possible governmental action, out of 105 posts does not make it a political discussion. For the last couple pages it seems it is mostly about whether there is or is not a reason to be concerned over safety issues related to the SUV. Along with that are all sorts of stats and dicussions regarding the meaning of those stats.

Just my opinion. Doesn't make me right. I enjoy the discussion.

 

When the Highway Patrolmen was asked by the motorist"how fast can i drive?"the answer given was,"as fast as you can afford to pay."Seems to me the same applies to the cars we choose to drive.

 

Are you kidding? We just talked about this. It is more dangerous to be IN an SUV. Any difference in mass = danger to EVERYONE, including SUV drivers and passengers.

Good luck to everyone, happy new year, and I'm unsubscribing from this crazy thread.

 

F=MA

I don't understand your point. Are you advocating that everyone drive cars with the same mass?

 

To inject a bit of humor (I hope) into the discussion, I once heard of an interesting approach to vehicle safety. Instead of putting airbags in our steering columns and surrounding ourselves with big, fluffy marshmallows (airbags) when we crash, most of us would drive a lot more cautiously if we placed in the steering column a spear pointed at the driver's chest. Then it wouldn't matter if you drove a Geo Metro or a Hummer.

 

No just pointing out that differeces in mass usually mean the lesser takes the brunt of damage. And that it doesn';t matter if they are SUV or caddys.

Paul

 

Agreed

 

Actually that is not the case since the height and design of them makes the damage and incidents of fatalies greater (and the higher rate of rollovers has other rammifications for the occupants and others as well).

Anyway, I'm with sandtoast500 - there has been some good discussion and info shared in this thread but it seems to be getting to the point of sheer defensiveness so I think its time to unsubscribe in the name of sanity

PS: It just so happens that there was a show on TV describing blind spots and the rate of death to children (seems a good number get killed behind vehicles and the increase seems connected to the increasing size/height of the vehicles people are buying as family cars). They showed how great the difference was between a car, a van, an SUV and truck and the difference was really astounding to see illustrated with cones.

 

Precisely. You clearly misunderstood the intent behind the rule. I however knew that it wasn't an issue. I've seen what has been banned, what hasn't, and this CLEARLY did not qualify, particularly since it is auto-related, on an auto-related forum. All it needed was to be moved to the Off-Topic:Autos forum (since it's not specifically MINI-related any more), which is exactly what happened. You tried to preach the rules, as I pointed out, I've been here a while too, and knew it was a non-issue. Talking about public policy is not a BAD thing, you know, as long as its handled reasonably without resorting to personal insults.So, using your logic, hear me out on this one... let's say that SUVs and pickups become SO standard that if an accident occurs your chances are MUCH higher that it will involve one or the other. And therefore in order to be more likely to "survive" in a said accident, you'd be crazy not to buy one as well. Fine.

Then what happens? All the people that bought them in the first place realize they are no longer "taller" than the others and can no longer "see over" the other cars, not to mention they no longer have the weight "advantage" (as they see it), therefore they upgrade to EVEN BIGGER vehicles.

Can you see the trend here? Where does it end? Will we all be driving 10,000 pound behemoths just in order to survive impacts? This in addition to far greater fuel consumption (no matter what technology does, the heavier the vehicle, the more power it will require to move, relative to the SAME technology in a lighter vehicle).

That's just it, Paul. The common thinking behind the whole "trendy" SUV thing is all about being bigger, badder, meaner, etc... largely at the expense of those who choose not to participate in the ridiculousness of it all. Which is why I brought up the second-hand smoking issue. Many smokers (certainly not all, I have many considerate smoker friends), without laws to control them, don't give a damn about what non-smokers think, and will smoke anywhere they well please, whether it endangers the health of others or not. I believe that there is a similar issue here (granted, not the same, just similar) - many of the people who insist upon driving these behemoths on public roads clearly don't give a damn about being more likely to kill someone else if they get in an accident. It's often a "screw you" mentality... and the bigger the choice (e.g. Hummer, International XT family), the more likely that is where the thinking lies.

I'm not saying SUVs should be banned. I'm saying that standards should be set, based upon things like bumper height, maximum vehicle weight, etc. Sure, make the vehicle look "tough", look "rugged", who cares... just as long as you aren't significantly increasing the risk to others.

As you pointed out, if all daily-driven vehicles were the same size and weight, the issue would be moot. Exactly. That will never happen, but the closer the delta, the safer we all are.

 

I seriously doubt that people who buy SUVs or any vehicle have any thinking regarding the affect of a possible serious accident. In fact I imagine that most presume that they will not get in a serious accident. Otherwise why would you ever drive any vehicle?

Let's have some perspective here - even among the most dangerous of the vehicles there is only about a 1 in 4,200 vehicles sold chance of a fatality accident.

 

My biggest issue with SUV drivers, are the ones who say they want to be able to see over traffic. Do they not understand that them being able to see "over" means others will have trouble seeing around them?

I had the opportunity to drive an SUV for the first time (Miss Anti-SUV over here is dating an SUV driver) and i can say i was dying to get out of the drivers seat the second i got in it. It's way too high up, and i feel like i could tip over in a heartbeat. Granted, i drive a nicely planted MINI, so it was quite a difference... but i don't know how people feel so safe in SUV's. If anything, i felt unsafe.

Just my opinion. Thank you, have a nice day.

 

Spoken like a trooper who sees around rather than over most traffic. (Of the human kind ).

I once had a car that was only 46" high. I had to see "around" all kinds of traffic, including dogs, motorbikes and parking meters.

 

I have an SUV. 95 Pathfinder 4x4. I dont need it either. Im singe and no kids, and also no dogs.
Its not as big as some of the other SUV's out there. So I lifted it a little bit and put bigger tires on it. Gas mileage doesnt bother me. Nor does feeling like it is to much of a vehicle for lil ole me! I like it, I drive it, and I will conitnue to drive it!

 

I applaud your bravery in posting that in this or any other thread.

I also support and defend to drive what you want.

 

If I had a dollar for every time an SUV owner has told me (even jokingly) that they would "drive over" me, even before I got my MINI (I drove, and still have, a Mustang), I'd be a very wealthy man. I firmly believe that the "bully" principle applies in many (but clearly not all) cases. I also believe that even if the bully principle doesn't apply, the thinking is often that accidents are inevitable, so rather than try to avoid it, smother yourself in iron... to the detriment of everyone else. That is a point that the article I linked to was referencing - the 'accidents are inevitable' thinking, rather than 'avoidable' being the first goal.Sure, that's true... but try telling that to the families of people who have lost their loved ones in an accident that would have been non-fatal with car-sized vehicles. We can all think "it won't happen to me" until it does.

 

Well the "Bully" statement is certainly not intended by anyone to be anything other than humor.

As to safety, of course I would feel bad for anyone who experiences a needless car accident death.

However there are so many areas where safety concerns can be addressed and save even more lives. How about addressing the causes of accidents. 40% of all accidents are alchohol or drug related. How about a zero blood alchohol tolerance?

And how do you feel about the growing anti-cell phone laws? I think the number two cause of accidents is driver distraction. And there are so many more gadgets to distract a driver. How about SatNav and ipods? Would you remove everyone's right to these things if it saves lives? It would you know. I think it would save many more lives than addressing the SUV safety issue.

Do you use a cell phone in your car or a Nav or even car stereo? If so, do you know that when you do so you are putting other's lives at risk?

Do you drive the number one rated car for other person deaths in accidents?

My point remains that the anti SUV sentiment is based on a bias. There are so many other larger causes of safety issues but so many choose to focus on the SUV.

 

Everyone does something to distract themselves from the road. Not saying a great handling car makes up for driver distractions, but as stated many times before, it helps a little more avoiding the accidents.

 

Don't be so sure... I've witnessed "bully" SUV actions many a time, both pre-MINI and with MINI. Blatant tailgating is obviously the most prevalant... and sure, lots of people do that, in ANY car... but it sure is a whole lot more menacing with that big grill taking up your entire rear view... and if you don't think that many of these owners are well aware of that fact when they do it, I believe you are naive.They are absolutely valid points, I never questioned that... but that isn't what the discussion was about. Those topics, while valid, are a separate discussion. This topic was on SUVs/pickups and the like.Perhaps, perhaps not... it would be interesting to see solid statistics comparing those factors.OK, you're changing the focus of the debate, but I'll indulge you.

Yes, of course - I have a cell phone, I have Nav, and I have a car stereo, and I use them all. I try especially hard to minimize my cell phone usage over the others though. I feel it is the worst of the three, by far. Without use of a hands-free device, cellphones consume one of your hands, on a constant ongoing basis, for the duration of the call... this in addition to the ongoing distraction issue, also for the duration of the call. So both your attention and your hand are affected, for anywhere from a 1-minute call to the entire length of the drive. It's also a two-way distraction, since you are providing feedback TO the person on the phone with you. Hands-free devices "help", since they at least allow you to steer (or shift) with both hands available... but of course they do nothing to address the main distraction issue.

Compare that to Nav... your hand is only momentarily distracted, so it is likely to be a much shorter amount of time. Also, your attention span will be affected on a smaller scale, because it is only giving you directions. Other than the momentary time it takes to CHOOSE the destination, the information is one-way - you don't have to provide feedback... so less distraction than the phone.

And for the stereo - very similar to the Nav... your hand is only briefly affected while you change the station or adjust the volume. You are also only involved in a one-way transaction - the stereo isn't expecting you to respond with input.

So you see, phones are a far greater distraction than either of them, and when you ALSO combine it with a hand holding the phone, it just makes a bad thing worse. Sure, a passenger in the car, talking to you, can distract you as well... but at least they are aware of the traffic conditions and overall situation that you are in, since they are there with you. They can and will stop talking at any moment when it's clear that you HAVE to focus, right now. Something that a cell phone driver has no awareness of.

I'm not disagreeing with your comments, Electric, as you can see above, I understand there are issues with all of what you said... although the relevance is varied, IMO. However this discussion, the whole thread, has been about SUVs/Trucks and their relative size/weight, etc. You've taken this "off-topic" thread even more off-topic. <grin> <--- please note the tongue-in-cheek attitudeOf course not, but within statistical norms, I am not way out of the bell curve. That's the point I was making... and the whole SUV craze has started to change the bell curve, in my opinion to the detriment of all American motoring.Hmm... based on a bias. By the dictionary: "Bias: A preference or inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgement." So it's an opinion, often blind to facts. Are you saying that you believe the anti-SUV sentiment doesn't have valid points? I think it does, or else I wouldn't be participating in it. As for the other safety issues, of course there are other issues, as you saw above, I am not denying that. But those issues are a separate discussion.

 

The other safety issues are only another discussion because you want to define the debate to lean a little more in your favor. My point is simply that to make safety the issue when it comes to SUVs is bogus compared to other safety issues which seem to get little or no attention by comparison. I raise these other things as just one more example. I also previously raised, that from the stats I saw in links posted previously, that the pickup should be more of a concern than the SUV. In addition, I raised that from some of those links you can also conclude that American car makers are more of the problem with safety issues.

Then I also raised that the type of driver makes the stats hard to interpret.

Do I think SUVs are completey issue free when it comes to safety? No. But the focus on it it out of whack compared to other safety issues. I think the focus is the result of bias.

Also the point I try to make is at what point should the rights of all of us be limited? When shoud we limit the use of something whether it is a cell phone, nav, sound system or SUV? Since I know your answer is not that you are advocating the elimination of the SUV but rather addressing its safety issues, I would say that the unbiased would address those other greater dangers first. But the anti-SUV bias seems to give it a higher priority in the minds of some.

On the other hand, would I oppose some real efforts to address safety with the SUV - no I wouldn't. But this does not mean I will conclude that someone who buys an SUV today is personally irresponsible when it comes to safety. At least no more so than any of us that use cell phones, etc.

Now if you make the issue more about gas consumption and pollution I would have less to say in defense.

By the way, as to the driver distractions, my understanding is that the occupation of your hands is not the key to that safety problem. I am sorry that I have nothing concrete to quote at the moment but I heard somewhere that despite varoius legislators going toward requiring hands free cell operation, that the hands free options do not necessarily have much, if any, impact on the safety dangers of cell phone use. Also, although I gave it as an example, cell phone usage is actually not even the leading cause of driver distraction. Number one oddly enough is rubber necking (slowing down and looking at roadside activity such as accidents), followed by others like dealing with kids, and fiddling with various other car gadgetry.

Now that is off the off topic but I thought I would share it.

 

Just today I experienced what seems to me to be an example of anti-suv bias. On this mornings news they had a story about SUVs being less safe. Now maybe it is just they way they wrote and read the piece but what they said was something like this:

In an SUV you are one-third less likely to be hurt in an impact crash compared to cars. But you are 3 times more likely to be hurt in a rollover as compared to a car. Therefore SUVs are actually less safe for you.

That is such a bad usage of stats it blew my mind. Okay say that the basics of that are true. What they don't say is that rollovers only acount for 3% of accidents. Duh. If 97% of the time I am increasing my saftety by one-third but 3% of the time I am increasing my risk by three times I am still way ahead with an SUV.

I am not making any argument here, just showing how poorly stats can be presented by some media people. Perhaps there is some truth to whatever study they were talking about but they sure presented it in a very bad way.