Honda Car Forum

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:42:07 GMT, MikeHunt2@mailcity.com wrote:

>How can that be? The NHTSA says injuries and deaths among school
>age children has been dropping dramatically over the past fire
>years. They attribute it to the fact more of children are riding
>in larger safer SUV's.

No, they attribute it to the fact that kids are riding in properly
installed child safety seats. The rising danger is the increasing
number of child fatalities that occur when they are crushed under the
wheels of a SUV backing out of a driveway. The *other* rollover
problem.

> Some SUV's get over 30 MPG while some
>sedans only get 20 MPG, according to the EPA gas mileage guide..

Is the 30 mpg SUV safer than the 20 mpg car? Is it safer than a 30
mpg car?

Check it out here:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss


>
>Lee Leo wrote:
>>
>> Andrew <andrew450121@aol.com> wrote in message news:<bgrbto$sck$1@news-int.gatech.edu>...
>> > I'm going to buy an SUV so that its running boards can protect the
>> > body from dings caused my neigboring cars' doors. My first choice
>> > is an 2004 Acura TL, but I'm going to get a Toyota Sequoia to avoid
>> > the weekly dings that I'm currently getting on my 10-year-old car.
>> >
>> > Andrew
>>
>> SUV is far far dangerous than driving a sedan. The purpose of driving SUV
>> is about crusing rather than driving. I don't recommend a SUV. It has no
>> advantage whatsoever. it consumes gas more than any sedan.

<MikeHunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3F36E521.55B947B8@mailcity.com...
> How can that be? The NHTSA says injuries and deaths among school
> age children has been dropping dramatically over the past fire
> years. They attribute it to the fact more of children are riding
> in larger safer SUV's. Some SUV's get over 30 MPG while some
> sedans only get 20 MPG, according to the EPA gas mileage guide..

What SUV gets 30MPG? The only one I can think of is the RAV4, and that's
only the 2wd 5-speed version. Hardly a "larger safer" vehicle.

I'd love to see the cite for the NHTSA statement regarding SUVs.

George

<<top posting corrected>>

> Gmlyle@scvnet.com wrote:
> >
> > <MikeHunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F36E521.55B947B8@mailcity.com...
> > > in larger safer SUV's. Some SUV's get over 30 MPG while some
> > > sedans only get 20 MPG, according to the EPA gas mileage guide..
> >
> > What SUV gets 30MPG? The only one I can think of is the RAV4, and
that's
> > only the 2wd 5-speed version. Hardly a "larger safer" vehicle.
> >
> > I'd love to see the cite for the NHTSA statement regarding SUVs.
>
<BigJohnson@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3F37DEA1.611DC54F@mailcity.com...
> Well go do some research, WBMA, if you want ot learn something.
> Look up the EPA mileage guide. Search the Congressional record
> while you're at it for the Senate hearings on CAFE for the report
> on SUV being safer for properly belted children, rather than
> listing to the ranting of the environuts.

Hmmm... still spouting ridiculous claims ("some SUV's get over 30 MPG",
"They attribute (lowering deaths among children) to the fact more of
children are riding in larger safer SUV's") without providing any cites,
then simply saying "go do some research" when anyone challenges your claims?

Statements without facts are merely opinions.

You've been doing this so long, always hiding behind these ridiculous
nicknames and of course claiming to be some 70-something year old.
Whatever.

Grow up or go away.


- Kevin

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:

>Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
>Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
>Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
>passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
>of a rollover.


Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?


>> Check it out here:
>>
>> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
>>

According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition


mike hunt



Gorton McGrew wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
> >of a rollover.
>
> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
>
>
> >> Check it out here:
> >>
> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
> >>

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:

>According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
>more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
>Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
>Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
>a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
>ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition


And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
vehicle and rollover accidents.

BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.


>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>>
>> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
>> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
>> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
>> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
>> >of a rollover.
>>
>> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
>> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
>>
>>
>> >> Check it out here:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
>> >>

MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote in message news:<3F38661F.8EDCD3AF@lycos.com>...
> I'm really trying to hide, that why I never sign my name. Didn't

Sure. Also by using numerous vulgar nicknames. Very mature.

> you read the part that said 'Search the Congressional record
> while you're at it for the Senate hearings on CAFE for the report
> on SUV being safer for properly belted children?'

Of course I read that. Hence my point. It is not the responsibility
of people you are having a discussion with for *them* to do the work
to prove *your* point.

Again, a statement without facts is merely an opinion. And a
opinion's credibility is often linked with that individual's
reputation. And your reputation around here is not very good.

> Go to any dealership and get a free CAFE guide. Try that first
> then perhaps it will change you misguided opinion of large
> SUV's.

First, dealerships are not known to be a trustworthy source of
information (mostly spoken, but I wouldn't necessarily trust anything
in writing either). There is a reason they are among the
least-trusted professions. Secondly, see comment #2 above.

> I could not care less what you choose to believe

Likewise.


- Kevin

Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers. In
the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
accidents. The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
anti-SUV crowd wanted. Drive what you want, need, and can
afford but one can not beat the laws of physics. The fact
remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.
That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
vehicles


mike hunt




Gorton McGrew wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>
> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
>
> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
> vehicle and rollover accidents.
>
> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
>
> >
> >mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
> >> >of a rollover.
> >>
> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Check it out here:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
> >> >>

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 19:14:21 GMT, IleneDover@lycos.com wrote:

>Large SUV are much more likely to be carrying more passengers.

Which would affect the driver fatality rate... how?

For the record, the Expedition *passenger* fatality rate is 62 per
million registration years. The 4-door Civic rate is 34. You can
easily calculate that from this data:

http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_detail.htm

(See Mike, that is how one supports one's assertions.)

> In
>the real world rollovers are a very minor percentage of vehicle
>accidents.

Maybe a small percentage of accidents but they account for 23% of all
driver fatalities.

> The anti-SUV crowd would like us to believe otherwise
>but the Senate hearing showed that children are safer in larger
>SUV and decided not to raise CAFE to discourage their use as the
>anti-SUV crowd wanted.

I suspect that you are confusing unsupported assertions from paid
lobbyists with research but it is pretty hard to tell when you don't
provide a link to this supposed statement.

> Drive what you want, need, and can
>afford but one can not beat the laws of physics.

The law of physics dictate that SUVs handle poorly and are prone to
rollover. Actual experience with millions of vehicles tells us that
in practice they are overall no safer and often more dangerous for
their occupants than the cars they replace. They are always more
dangerous to other vehicles. In the end, every SUV sold increases the
highway fatality rate a statistical increment.


> The fact
>remains that properly belted passenger have a much better change
>of not being killed or injured riding in a large vehicle than
>they do in a small vehicle in the most common accidents, period.

Depends on make and model. No SUV or pickup truck has a lower driver
death rate than a Camry. You can argue theory all you want, but the
actual body count is the final arbiter.


>That is why the insurance company offer lower rates on larger
>vehicles

Actually, many charge higher rates for these vehicles and the ones
that don't are using car owners to subsidize SUV rates (State Farm.)
Most of your insurance is for liability for injuries to others. If
you roll your SUV and break your neck, your car insurance only pays to
repair the SUV.



>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>
>Gorton McGrew wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 03:58:04 GMT, MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>> >According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
>> >more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
>> >Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
>> >Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
>> >a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
>> >ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
>>
>> And yet the driver fatality rates are pretty similar. 47 deaths per
>> million registrations for the 4-door Civic, 39 for the Expedition.
>> Compare to 56 for the Explorer and 153 for the Blazer. The small cars
>> may be more vulnerable in multi-vehicle crashes but the big ones often
>> more than make up for it in single vehicle and rollover fatality
>> rates. If more people buy SUVs, it will increase the fatality rate
>> for all vehicles (from small cars to large SUVs) in multi-vehicle
>> crashes and it will raise the total number of deaths from single
>> vehicle and rollover accidents.
>>
>> BTW, you are seriously underestimating the probability of rollover
>> crashes. They are quite common - radio traffic reported another one
>> this morning in Chicago. Seems like half the crash reports these days
>> include a rollover. Check out the rollover fatality rates from the
>> IIHS. Many SUVs and pickups have a higher driver fatality rate from
>> rollovers alone than some cars have for all accident types combined.
>>
>> >
>> >mike hunt
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Gorton McGrew wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
>> >> >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
>> >> >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
>> >> >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
>> >> >of a rollover.
>> >>
>> >> Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
>> >> likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> Check it out here:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
>> >> >>

My thinking would say that the Expedition is safer in a wreck if it hits
a Civic or such. If it hits another Expedition than the weight
advantage is lost and the damage should be about equal to both
vehicles.

I also think I can turn more suddenly and stop more quickly in my little
car, which seems like an advantage to me in accident avoidance.

MikeHunt@lycos.com wrote:
>
> According to the NHTSA the driver of the Civic is many times
> more like to get run over in a collision at speed, because a
> Civic can't get out of it own way, than the driver of an
> Expedition. Since a collision at speed is much more likely than
> a rollover I would go with the statistical odds and choose to
> ride in the larger, much safer, Expedition
>
> mike hunt
>
> Gorton McGrew wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 18:38:59 GMT, BigJohnson@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > >Apparently you have been reading 'Public Citizens' news letter.
> > >Try getting some proper information from the 'Congressional
> > >Record' about SUV's being much safer for properly belted
> > >passengers than any other vehicle, including on the rare occasion
> > >of a rollover.
> >
> > Is that why the driver of an Expedition is three to four times more
> > likely to be killed in a rollover than the driver of a Civic?
> >
> >
> > >> Check it out here:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.highwaysafety.org/sr_ddr/sr3507_t2.htm#ss
> > >>

--

George
http://people.delphiforums.com/gmcc