Each and every vehicle choice has an impact, it's just a question of degree.

Personally, I see a lot of bad SUV drivers, and boy do they stand out! But if you think about it, bad sports car drivers either don't last long , or are heaving less mass, and certainly reflect a smaller overall percentage of road going vehicles...

I also agree that most of the reasons a lot of people buy SUVs (Todays large car) aren't supported by the facts. Increased feelings of safety are only true of some very very narrow classes of accidents, and deaths per 100k miles driven are much larger than passenger cars (that are better than Minivans, buy the way...)

I think you shouldn't be pissed at SUV owners who persue thier own type of excess, but rather tax law and vehicle classification schemes that have allowed these automotive dinausars to perpetuate despite the mandated changes in passenger cars.

The arguement of empty capacity is an interesting one, and as are most interesting items, more complicated than they seem. How many times do you need 4 wheel drive to justify the extra expense? How many times do you need to use the space in your SUV to achive some sort of benefit cross-over vs the added cost of an extra, more efficient vehicle when the capacity of the SUV is needed? And be fair, include the cost of the vehicle storage space, insurance, and on and on.... I'd guess that if you were to rent a SUV or Minivan the few times a year that you did need the capacity, 4 or 5 uses, or once every two months, would be sufficient cost justification to forgo the rental and drive extra capacity.

But then, it's just so easy to see the extra space, assume the worst, and dish scorn. It seems that's what makes America great.... But despite my somewhat negative attitude to SUV bashing, I too really wonder how many would sell if people really understood the stats about thier ownership, thier efficiency and thier safety, compared to other offerings, both via manufacturer and vehicle class. But then, an educated buyer isn't in the interest of most car companies...

Matt

 

...and this is the point in the discussion (done a number of times before here on NAM) when it's appropriate to bring up the 2004 New Yorker article "Big and Bad - how the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety". It's available online in both html and PDF.

Have you read it? Just wondering... I think it's an excellent read.Believe me, I am VERY pissed at the loopholes in the law created to favor the auto industry. 15 or 20 years ago, when pickups and SUVs were generally purchased to fulfill a more important and relevant need, they were classified as trucks, and given different (more lenient) safety and fuel efficiency requirements than passenger cars. Fast forward to day, and the demographics are completely different, yet the lawmakers allow the automakers to continue to flaunt the lesser restrictions on vehicles that are now, by and large, used as everyday passenger vehicles.

Both CAFE and safety standards need to be rewritten to enforce all SUVs and pickups in the exact same manner as passenger cars. No more loopholes!Exactly. If I want to go on an off-road trip, I'll rent the appropriate vehicle. It would be an interesting study to see exactly how many uses per year would justify the cost differential between owning an off-road capable vehicle versus a passenger car... I'd wager that my usual statement of 90-95% still applies... that being that at least 90-95% of modern SUV & pickup owners probably couldn't justify the cost difference on practical use alone. (Yes, I made up that percentage - it reflects my own interpretation)Exactly, Matt... and that's exactly why I take a stand on these arguments... both in person and here on NAM. I have vain hope that one day, eventually, the "light of day" realities about the current situation will be discovered by the mass population. A pipe dream, perhaps... but you have to start somewhere!

 

I think the new MDX looks pretty cool.
Are FX considered a SUV or a crossover? How about the Forrester? Outback? Kind of a thin line vs wagons.

 

Precisely why they should ALL be regulated to the same standards.

 

OK, I think we may not be working on the same issue. Nowhere did I say one car hitting another. A MINI hits a dump truck. MINI loses ... period. Dump truck hits a Locomotive, Dump Truck loses ... period.

IIHS in frontal impact talks about hitting a wall. I quote:

This program, which involves 35 mph crash tests into a full-width rigid barrier

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html

So lets talk the same thing here... Your car hits a wall.

Go back to the IIHS original statement.

Test results can be compared only among vehicles of similar weight. ... Given equivalent frontal ratings for heavier and lighter vehicles, the heavier vehicle typically will offer better protection in real-world crashes.

This is plain and simple ... You cannot compare the ratings between a minicar against a heavy car hoping that equal ratings or even HIGHER ratings for the lower weight car gives equal protection for occupants. The IIHS clearly states this.

In other words ... if a MINI and say a Geo Metro (do they still exist?) are both rated acceptable ... then they should give about equal protection to the occupant hitting a wall in the front.

If a MINI (minicar) and a Pickup or any heavier car hit the same wall and both are rated acceptable, the heavier car "typically" gives better protection.

In other words ... compare apples with apples and not oranges. An acceptable rating for a minicar does NOT mean it gives better protection for a large car rated lower.

Are we talking the same thing now?

Nothing wrong with a bit of debate ... everyone might learn something

Its easy to find bad drivers of any class of car ... any.

I can say right at this exact minute ... last night I went shopping. Picked up maybe 300 pounds of top soil, 5' tall roll of metal fencing, two cases of dog food and one of those big bags of dog food. And that is a typical weekend. The top soil is still sitting in the back cause I got to haul it into the backyard. I was also at Home Depot going to get some 8' decking planks but decided to wait. I was going to get 16' lengths and asked about delivery. $75/load no matter what you have delivered. Sorry, I aint paying $75 for a dozen deck planks when I can haul the 8' lengths myself.

This is a matter of lifestyle, I am hauling stuff all the time and the dog barrier is still in the back of the SUV for dog hauling.

I can speak from experience while living in a house. At one time we had two 2-seater sports cars. We tried it for a year and gave up. Its just too impractical not to have a car around to haul stuff. Begging friends to use a pickup or rented vehicles or having stuff delivered either gets old real quick or too expensive. Of course, I am assuming its at least a two car household.

Everyone has to make the decisions that is right for them. I really have no idea how any family with a house and yard to deal with can exist with just a MINI or they have enuff money to have everything delivered.

Now I got to admit I'm beggining to find the smart car appealing. $12K stripped ... no options, not even power windows (which is fine by me ... had lots of cars with no power anything). 40mpg. TV news said today that some CA gas stations were up to $4/gal for gas.

As to the F1 technology discussion, if the "racers" dont want to use technology, then we'd all be back using drum brakes, manual steering, leaf springs, and 3 speed manauls on the stalk. Technology marches on ... you jump on the bandwagon or get left behind.

 

Nope! And THAT is the point. The test done is equal, on all cars, trucks and SUVs. So... if the criteria is a fixed barrier, then comparison is valid. The photos ALONE prove this. How can you possibly think that the tests AREN'T valid for comparison when you compare this:
to THIS?

Give me a break, Art. The statementis far too generic (typically? that's a stereotype word right there) to hold real weight. I also believe they made that statement so that the tests would not be used for "vehicle vs. vehicle crash" comparison. And in that regard, they are correct.

However, when the exact same fixed barrier is used in each test, at the same speeds, then there is a valid basis for comparison between vehicles of different classes, for fixed-object, single-vehicle crashes!

THAT is the point I have been trying to make. Look at the photos again... and tell me I'm not supposed to compare. Sheesh.

Besides, you neglected to quote another part of the same page:Of course it is... because at the same speed, the heavier vehicle has more weight, and when faced with an immovable object, it has much more inertia to deal with. That is one reason why having weight can also be a -disadvantage- in some crashes, especially against immovable objects. Other reasons apply too, such as increased braking distance and reduced ability to swerve out of the way. So the heavier vehicles have a tougher time dealing with their inertia... does that mean they get a free pass against comparison to smaller vehicles for fixed-object crashes? Heck no.Again, the use of the word "typically" utterly destroys the science and use of empirical evidence. It has no real validity, IMO... and it was a very bad choice on IIHS part to make that statement, at least worded the way they did.If the dummy was protected better by the smaller car than it was by the larger vehicle in the -EXACT SAME- test, then it DOES give better protection against that type of accident (represented by the test). PERIOD.

 

It's kind of fun watching this 'debate' between black & whiters and shades of greyers. The possibility of either side coming even close to understand the other is nil.

 

Only in that one instance. You can always find "outlyers" (sp) in the data. If you look at a set of data, there are usually always points not under what is construed as normal. In many cases, ppl just throw out the highs and lows.

So in that ONE instant, the MINI looked better than the F150.

However, in NO way does that mean its better than ALL or even MANY or even ANY other heavier car. All it means its looks better than that one particular car.

Yes, the word "typical" is a hedge word but it also "usually" means ... the vast majority. If "typically" one gets sunburned staying out too long in the sun ... then You can probably take it to the bank than your probably going to get sunburned.

I know your defending MINI strongly but there is no way that from ONE ... and the only ONE data point you can draw ANY conclusions. You can only conclude that it does, indeed, look better than a 2002 F150.:impatient

But enough of this. We can agree to disagree ... but your fun to debate with